Moonlight MCQA - Danish Finance

$39–47/hrrate as listed

Write original Danish-language multiple-choice questions on Danish accounting, auditing and tax, each with ten answer options and a worked solution, for use in an AI evaluation dataset. Work is remote and asynchronous, with pay observed in the $38.59–47.17/hr range.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

What the work involves

You draft exam-style multiple-choice items from your own professional knowledge of Danish financial practice — årsregnskabsloven, IFRS as applied in Denmark, revisionsstandarder, selskabsskat, moms, and personal taxation. Each item needs ten answer options rather than the usual four, which means the distractors carry most of the difficulty: they should reflect plausible mistakes a competent practitioner might make, not filler. Every question is accompanied by a worked solution that shows the reasoning and, where relevant, cites the governing rule or standard.

The purpose is adversarial: these items are used to test where language models fail on Danish-specific finance. Questions that a model can answer from general accounting intuition, or that translate cleanly out of a Danish context, have limited value. The strongest contributors tend to build items around jurisdiction-specific thresholds, filing requirements, revisionspligt rules, and areas where Danish treatment diverges from international defaults.

What the platform screens for

Verifiable credentials: a master's or higher in finance, accounting, or business, and education or residence in Denmark.
Native-level written Danish, including correct professional terminology — the screen will notice translated-English phrasing.
Genuine depth under follow-up questioning on at least one of accounting, auditing, or tax; expect to be pushed past a first answer.
Item-writing judgment: whether you can explain why a distractor is tempting and why the key is unambiguously correct.

Logistics

Fully remote and asynchronous, with no fixed meeting schedule. Contributors typically commit a defined block of hours per week and work against a per-item quality bar rather than a delivery deadline; work volume can be uneven across weeks. Pay in the $38.59–47.17/hr band has been observed for this listing and is not guaranteed.

What they look for

Master's degree or higher in finance, accounting, or business
Native-level written Danish, including professional financial terminology
Working knowledge of Danish accounting, auditing, or tax rules (årsregnskabsloven, moms, selskabsskat)
Educated or currently based in Denmark
2+ years' professional experience in accounting, audit, or tax
Experience writing or reviewing exam-style assessment items

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Do you hold a master's degree or higher in finance, accounting, business administration, or a directly related field from an accredited institution?
Master's degree in finance, accounting, or business · required
Do you have at least two years of professional work experience in accounting, auditing, tax, or finance?
2+ years professional experience · preferred
Are you currently based in Denmark, or were you educated in Denmark to secondary or tertiary level?
Danish residency or education · required
Is Danish your native language, or did you acquire native fluency before age 12?
Native-level Danish language · required

0 of 4 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 11 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Whether the candidate has actually created exam-quality content before, not just consumed it. Can they articulate the quality bar for multiple-choice questions and spot ambiguous or flawed options.
A strong answer: Name a specific instance (course design, internal assessment, professional certification prep) where they authored questions with answer keys. Mention how they validated correctness—peer review, subject-matter vetting, or pilot testing—and how they calibrated difficulty to the intended audience.
Where people lose it: Claiming to have 'written questions' when they only selected from item banks or reviewed others' work. Vagueness about validation: 'I made sure they were good' is not a method.