Request - Unpaired Internal Transactions

Internal transactions in Accointing seem to require a matching deposit and withdraw.

Sometimes this is not possible and we only have the deposit or withdraw transaction.

I’d like an option to classify an unpaired internal transaction as internal.

One example where I need this is sending 32 ETH to the validator deposit contract.

There is no other way to tell Accointing I’m sending these 32 ETH to a contract (and not selling it). Accointing does not yet support ETH2 validator earnings.

I’m not sure if allowing for open ended internal transactions is the best way to handle it though. while i’m not 100% sure what those deposit contracts are, I’m pretty sure the best way to handle it would be to create a new wallet that you can use to set up the matching transfers for your internal transactions.

What does this mean? Is there a way to set up a fake wallet in Accointing?

Funds were sent to a deposit contract. They are locked there for two years (at least). They cannot be sent to another wallet. The funds are still mine and I can exit the contract when that functionality becomes available.

yeah, using accointing you create an ether wallet without an address. then create a manual deposit of those funds at the same time of the withdraw. then you’re able to link them using an internal transfer. I have to do the same process when adding money to a liquidity / staking pool.

Yeah, in that case I’d like to keep this request.

I have hundreds of transactions that would require:

  1. create fake wallet
  2. add exact date
  3. add exact amount
  4. mark as internal

This is really unsustainable. Other solutions (cryptotaxcalculator) let you just directly classify transactions as internal. Of course, they have their own issues.

I know, the current way of doing it just seems like a hack to fill in a missing feature. It works great for just a few transactions of this type but gets more and more tedious the more transactions you need to make. Your proposed solution might work, the only thing i see wrong is that it might make it harder to follow the chain of events without a matched deposit. If you want to see my proposed solution you can check out the feature request provided below, if you like the idea don’t forget to vote for it so it has a chance to be implemented.

I would but I’m out of votes. How do I get more?

Maybe someone can merge these.

They’re highlighting the same issue.

You get 2 votes, more if you are higher ranked member. I am constantly wishing i had more votes. I just have to make sure to come back here to vote on new features that are needed.

While it is possible a high ranked member can merge these two, i’m not sure if it is right to do so. Even though they are covering the same problem the proposed solution is different and each would need to be voted on to determine the solutions popularity.


Using the existing method of a non-addressed wallet it would be nice if there was a “create matching transaction in wallet -->” choose wallet, rather than to manually create the deposit. You could use one wallet for all I guess.

1 Like

I’d be happy with @UrbanCphort’s solution @Rod

Try the following: