In many cases (staking, lending / borrowing) we can either ignore TXs or generate a dummy wallet that holds our staked assets (so not to generate a tax event).
- If I choose the former way, I must first duplicate the TX, ignore the first (no transfer happening!), and delete the asset transfer in the second (thereby making an “empty” fee TX).
- If I use the second method, I must create a mirroring TX in the dummy wallet, carefully choosing the correct date.
Both methods are somewhat tedious, very common occurrences, and a helpful tool is easily implemented. Either let us “split off” the fee of a TX, making a new tx. Or let us designate a TX as internal, choose a target wallet, and generate the corresponding TX there. Thank you!
EDIT: Or just a “ignore but keep fee” classification would do wonders!
I will forward your feedback to our team
Cool video! You can improve on the method you used by not creating the staking income transaction. Accointing does this automatically for with the “reconcile” function. Your staking wallet would be short of the 4 QTUM after all! Then just reclassify “reconcile” as “staking income”.
Your video particularly highlights the issue when choosing this method: you didn’t bother choosing the right dates because that’s the tedious part lol. The duplicate function is super handy, unfortunately you can’t change “withdraw” to “internal”. Since I have 10k transactions I have to use the .csv method anyway, but the way things stand for users with like 100 TX it is pretty clunky (and imo easily improved upon).
Thank you for the feedback
Yeah, the staking and internals could be more user-friendly for sure.
Yeah, I did not focus on the dates because this was only a demonstration
The reconcile option is a quicker option that I did not think about
You can add ideas on how to make internals more user-friendly here: Make Internals more User-Friendly
Do you think we should create a simular posting for the staking part?
Added my suggestion!
What do you mean by this “Do you think we should create a simular posting for the staking part?”
I think @MattLong6 was saying should we create a simular post like this one: Make Internals more User-Friendly
His link did not work, I fixed it for him.