Comment by CityOfThrowaway
2 months ago
This basically boils down to, "Sure, we recommended you work with scammy low-quality auditors, but if you actually use them it's your own fault... we're just an automation tool!"
In other words, I'm reading this as effectively a full admission that the claims are true but the company is saying not their responsibility.
Very, very bad.
Where does it say we recommend you work with scammy low-quality auditors? They say that they use third party audit firms that are used by other compliance companies.
This is clearly false from what I've seen. If you read the source Substack article and look through the list of auditors they have, it is impossible to trace down who the US-based CPA is that's issuing the report. These firms, for all intents and purposes, do not really exist. They use shell addresses in Wyoming and Texas that are registered agent offices, etc.
But really all you have to do is look at the reports themselves. They are so shoddily written that it's hard to believe any legitimate firm would issue them. If you Ctrl F for Clueley in this thread, you will see my comment with a sample excerpt from the assertion of management for one of their reports.
Present assurance definitely exists in the US. Outside of delve, I have seen their reports for vanta and it’s the same. it was 95% policy inspections and 5% loooked at a GRC tool.
2 replies →
if you go through the original Substack post it’s clear the intention is to drive to those obfuscated auditors.
We or they? Choose one
It can be inferred the use of "we" was as a quote. The bigger issue is that they did not clearly indicate that they were quoting.