$1M bounty for details on Tether’s backing(hindenburgresearch.com)
hindenburgresearch.com
$1M bounty for details on Tether’s backing
https://hindenburgresearch.com/tether/
326 comments
>Hindenburg is the real deal.
Hindenburg is not the real deal. If you think Hindenburg is the real deal you should pay closer attention to their activities. They (he) are one of a number of noisy short sellers who try to drive stock prices with their tweets/reports. SEC should be doing things to these people.
That said, he is probably right about Tether. Tether should make every crypto speculator or holder very nervous.
Hindenburg is not the real deal. If you think Hindenburg is the real deal you should pay closer attention to their activities. They (he) are one of a number of noisy short sellers who try to drive stock prices with their tweets/reports. SEC should be doing things to these people.
That said, he is probably right about Tether. Tether should make every crypto speculator or holder very nervous.
> Hindenburg is not the real deal. If you think Hindenburg is the real deal you should pay closer attention to their activities. They (he) are one of a number of noisy short sellers who try to drive stock prices with their tweets/reports. SEC should be doing things to these people.
https://hindenburgresearch.com/about-us/
Which of the items listed there do you have an issue with? Hindenburg were the folks who gave us Nikola rolling their truck down a hill.
https://hindenburgresearch.com/about-us/
Which of the items listed there do you have an issue with? Hindenburg were the folks who gave us Nikola rolling their truck down a hill.
Yes, he has a website where he pats himself on the back for all of the good calls he's made. I've seen it. Ask yourself, why does a short seller need public confidence at all? It's because they want to be able to move the stock price when they publish something.
> Yes, he has a website where he pats himself on the back for all of the good calls he's made. I've seen it. Ask yourself, why does a short seller need public confidence at all? It's because they want to be able to move the stock price when they publish something.
I'm sorry, but no shit? You frame it like there's some insight or conspiracy theory in there.
Again: What is your issue with this? The market has rules, some companies skirt them or outright lie. The size of the market is too large to regulate with our current mechanisms and short sellers fill some of these gaps for a profit. It becomes an issue if the short seller is wrong and causes harm to a company undeservingly, but you haven't proven that case here.
I'm sorry, but no shit? You frame it like there's some insight or conspiracy theory in there.
Again: What is your issue with this? The market has rules, some companies skirt them or outright lie. The size of the market is too large to regulate with our current mechanisms and short sellers fill some of these gaps for a profit. It becomes an issue if the short seller is wrong and causes harm to a company undeservingly, but you haven't proven that case here.
> It's because they want to be able to move the stock price when they publish something.
Publicity helps move the market which is how they make money. Why do you think that make [him|them] illegitimate? You've not explained this part. It seems to me that you've got an axe to grind with short sellers in general. Hindenburg seems to clearly be "the real deal", whether or not you approve of what "the real deal" is.
Publicity helps move the market which is how they make money. Why do you think that make [him|them] illegitimate? You've not explained this part. It seems to me that you've got an axe to grind with short sellers in general. Hindenburg seems to clearly be "the real deal", whether or not you approve of what "the real deal" is.
This argument has been done to death. I personally find the conga line of analysts and hedge fund managers who appear on CNBC and talk up their book of shit picks a lot worse than the best short selling shops.
There are so many bad companies that are public today, they really need somebody nipping at their heels.
There are so many bad companies that are public today, they really need somebody nipping at their heels.
They had a pretty serious report against Nikola that forced the CEO to step down and started an SEC investigation.
They also forced a CEO stepdown at Lordstown motors, got the SEC to investigate and forced the company to amend their accounting statements.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_Research
And their reports have been pretty accurate this year based on long term market reaction: https://breakoutpoint.com/blog/2021/10/activist-short-sellin...
They also forced a CEO stepdown at Lordstown motors, got the SEC to investigate and forced the company to amend their accounting statements.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_Research
And their reports have been pretty accurate this year based on long term market reaction: https://breakoutpoint.com/blog/2021/10/activist-short-sellin...
The thing is, anybody that actually followed that industry in any serious way and had any technical understanding knew that that company was full of shit.
A number of stories were already floating around from former employees.
The company was the most obvious scam I have seen in my life. With minimal intelligence and just 10 min of listening to the CEO made clear that it was a scam company.
Sure they went threw the effort and and gathered that stuff up and did some research, but it was hardly some master-journalism that was required.
A number of stories were already floating around from former employees.
The company was the most obvious scam I have seen in my life. With minimal intelligence and just 10 min of listening to the CEO made clear that it was a scam company.
Sure they went threw the effort and and gathered that stuff up and did some research, but it was hardly some master-journalism that was required.
That may be, but the report had a striking effect.
This is a thread about Tether, another company that is an obvious scam, that even once admitted in court a few years back that they were only 74% backed.
If Hindenburg makes a report formalizing everything and getting some new research, that might well have a similar effect.
This is a thread about Tether, another company that is an obvious scam, that even once admitted in court a few years back that they were only 74% backed.
If Hindenburg makes a report formalizing everything and getting some new research, that might well have a similar effect.
Do you have an example of them targeting a non-fraudulent/fair-valued company and ruining them?
As far as I know they were the ones who broke the NKLA scandal. We need short sellers to keep markets honest and stop fraudsters from taking advantage of the current exuberant markets.
As far as I know they were the ones who broke the NKLA scandal. We need short sellers to keep markets honest and stop fraudsters from taking advantage of the current exuberant markets.
They were right about Nikola and Lordstown Motors.
I’m a Hinden-believer I suppose
I’m a Hinden-believer I suppose
Anybody that has been following that space in any details already knew that Nikola and Lordstown were terrible companies.
They did some minimal journalism on them and put it out. And nothing the showed outside of maybe that the truck was going down hill was in the least surprising.
They did some minimal journalism on them and put it out. And nothing the showed outside of maybe that the truck was going down hill was in the least surprising.
you don't need to be a faithful believer - evidence speaks for itself. If hindenburg presents a short thesis, they would need to provide evidence in their papers.
No one should be blindly believing them, just because they have a good past record.
No one should be blindly believing them, just because they have a good past record.
> No one should be blindly believing them, just because they have a good past record.
True. And that is why they don't act on just 'suspicion', but willing to pay to dollars for information.
True. And that is why they don't act on just 'suspicion', but willing to pay to dollars for information.
> They (he) are one of a number of noisy short sellers who try to drive stock prices with their tweets/reports.
Are sell-side "analysts" who cheerlead their long recommendations not doing the same?
Are sell-side "analysts" who cheerlead their long recommendations not doing the same?
Would you pay $1m for information that could let you profit 10x or even 100x?
Exactly, $1m feels very small for someone who could get more profit if they keep their mouth shut.
Short selling profit depends on timing - i.e. the drop happening before the fees for shorting kill you.
So I do have this information, and want to make $$$$$$$ it's actually in my interest to also collect $1M from Hindenburg, to make this information plabic, *after I've established my positions
So I do have this information, and want to make $$$$$$$ it's actually in my interest to also collect $1M from Hindenburg, to make this information plabic, *after I've established my positions
Oh? Why should the SEC do anything? If it's wrong to talk about a company in hopes of affecting the stock price, shouldn't Elon Musk be doing hard time?
Hard time is for suckers that can't afford the $40m fine.
>shouldn't Elon Musk be doing hard time?
He should be, but they basically gave him the same treatment they give a lot of people: a slap on the wrist.
He should be, but they basically gave him the same treatment they give a lot of people: a slap on the wrist.
And forced him to step down as chair in 2018.
Isn't that what everyone in CNBC is doing?
1. Because that's market manipulation.
2. SEC did something to Musk, maybe you forgot, maybe you don't think it was enough, but they did something.
2. SEC did something to Musk, maybe you forgot, maybe you don't think it was enough, but they did something.
> "The US Securities Exchange Act defines market manipulation as "transactions which create an artificial price or maintain an artificial price for a tradable security"."
They are 'manipulating the market' in an informal sense, but not in the sense that actually matters. There is nothing wrong with publicly stating that you think some stock is overvalued. Particularly not if you back up your claim with some evidence, which is what Hindenburg does.
They are 'manipulating the market' in an informal sense, but not in the sense that actually matters. There is nothing wrong with publicly stating that you think some stock is overvalued. Particularly not if you back up your claim with some evidence, which is what Hindenburg does.
Relatedly, how does a 17 day old account, with no submissions, attract 416 karma points? Not commenting on the quality of your writing, but it seems extraordinary. Unfortunately the market history on HN is private.
As speedybird points out, that's not market manipulation in the legal sense. And if it were, the Fortune 500 CEOs and CFOs should go to jail immediately, because they all have whole departments that release information to analysts and the public in ways intended to influence the stock price.
If that's what you're arguing for, I might be able to get behind it. But I'm definitely opposed to "pumping the market is fine but countering hype should be illegal".
If that's what you're arguing for, I might be able to get behind it. But I'm definitely opposed to "pumping the market is fine but countering hype should be illegal".
This is like saying Z$ should make every fiat speculator or holder very nervous. Crypto is huge. You can be involved without coming anywhere near USDT.
You think the shockwave of the tether collapse will leave any crypto unaffected? What if some trading platforms fold?
Unless they are exposed to USDT, why would they fold? They are trading Crypto against USDT (as a token). If USDT folds, its their customers that are going to hold the bag. But many exchanges have USDC too (and maybe their own USD pair); so users should be aware.
not clear if it is the easiest target to short, given that many people who use tether are fairly skeptical about how/if the tokens are backed by assets but use it anyway (if the recent Bloomberg story is accurate).
It is a terrible target to short as you can only do it through exchanges that deal in Tether. Exchanges that can manipulate your position and liquidate you if they feel like it. Exchanges that benefit from Tether existing.
Tether is pervasive in DeFi. You could borrow Tether through a smart contract, exchange for another stable or asset. Pay the interest until it collapses in the future and, buy back worthless Tether cheap to pay off loan and get collateral back.
The danger is that the smart contract you borrow from becomes insolvent and you lose your collateral. This becomes way more likely if Tether/crypto is crashing. Some of them are more prone to that than others, I'm sure, but all of them require collateral > the amount you borrow, so the risk is large.
Yes that is the basic structure of all crypto loans, I'm just describing a mechanism by which you could short Tether. I get what you mean that if Tether collapses, crypto assets like ETH, BTC would crash too. But you could short Tether against USDC w/ USDC as collateral too. I can definitely envision a scenario where USDC holds relatively stable even if USDT crashes.
Nearly all of the smart contract loans are over collateralized, so collateral > borrow isn't too hard to achieve...but yes, probably only likely in crash if collateral is another stable that holds peg.
Just to be clear, I think shorting Tether is a bad idea lol
Nearly all of the smart contract loans are over collateralized, so collateral > borrow isn't too hard to achieve...but yes, probably only likely in crash if collateral is another stable that holds peg.
Just to be clear, I think shorting Tether is a bad idea lol
Seriously, how would you short Tether at scale? It's not like you can call up your prime brokerage.
There are entire textbooks written about how to construct options from a combination of short and long positions in different assets offset by borrowing. It’s not trivial, but it’s a well established discipline in trading world. For anyone that would offer a $1M bounty, it’s probably a talent already on the staff.
[deleted]
[deleted]
How did you get this info?
I am inclined to apply, but what would be the the best company? Bitfinex or tether?
I am inclined to apply, but what would be the the best company? Bitfinex or tether?
I just realized that the Bloomberg reporter who wrote the recent story is named "Zeke Faux." (Faux meaning "fake" in French, in a story about fraud.) Is his name a pseudonym? If not, it's another surreal point in a surreal story.
Nope - that's his real last name. We have some mutual friends and via FB I can see at least a dozen family members with the same surname.
"Well, Mikey Ouse on HackerNews vouched for him"
It's pretty clear that Zeke Faux from Bloomberg existed long before Tether existed as a company.
Right.. I could post screen shots but who actually cares? He's got bylines in Bloomberg about questionable finance companies going back a decade..
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-04-13/ubs-order...
Guess it could be the long con.. his first article for Bloomberg was written shortly after Bitcoin was first created...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-04-13/ubs-order...
Guess it could be the long con.. his first article for Bloomberg was written shortly after Bitcoin was first created...
Or is that just what 'Zeke Faux' wants you to believe??? /s
Zeke = ZK = zero-knowledge?
I guess it's actually his real name, and Zeke short for Ezekiel isn't uncommon. But Zeke can also mean 'cloak'.
Christ this may as well be numerology.
I'll play!
Teth - Er
Teht: The Phoenician letter name ṭēth may mean "spinning wheel" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teth
ER: Abbreviation for Emergency Room
"Teth" + "ER" = Spinning dangerously out of control, putting one or more lives at risk.
How did I do?
Teth - Er
Teht: The Phoenician letter name ṭēth may mean "spinning wheel" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teth
ER: Abbreviation for Emergency Room
"Teth" + "ER" = Spinning dangerously out of control, putting one or more lives at risk.
How did I do?
Your user name is "nine" and you're studying a Wikipedia page about the Semitic letter which means '9' in gematria. Is any of this a coincidence?
Nein!
Nein!
As I said, I think it's probably his real name. But it's a cool name for sure; his name would be right at home in a cyberpunk novel.
Just a hop skip away from Q
You've opened up a can of something. Check this out:
Zeke = 4 letters. Ezekiel, the long form = 7 letters (note this number, cos it will come up further down).
Cloak = 5 letters.
4 + 5 = 9.
9 is the number of spiritual adepts that govern the 7 Universes.
9 * 7 = 63.
Add those two digits, and you get 9, again.
See where this is headed?
Well, if that's a legit name, it's sure doing a good job looking fake!
My cousin married a guy named "Chris Smith" and I was like, "yeah, that doesn't sound made-up or anything".
My cousin married a guy named "Chris Smith" and I was like, "yeah, that doesn't sound made-up or anything".
lol with a name like that its hard to not think its from a Charles Stross novel... ZK Fake .
good lord, the world is a strange place. or, we make it a strange place...
good lord, the world is a strange place. or, we make it a strange place...
If you're unacquainted, look up (other?) examples of 'nominal determinism' - you're in for a treat!
*nominative determinism
Hm, that does seem to be more standard. Both nominal and onomastic redirect to the page titled nominative determinism on Wikipedia though. Nominal makes a lot more sense to me than nominative.
It also means wrong
It may be counterintuitive, but the best thing that could happen to Bitcoin would be for Tether to collapse in a cloud of dust. Tether is continually cited as a large risk factor to Bitcoin by people who have gotten past the "it's not real money" objection.
But I think it's worth considering what happens if the collapse never comes. If government investigation, findings of wrongdoing, admission of lies, and punishment aren't enough to shake Tether users out of their trees, then what would, exactly?
Ethereum allowed a claw-back of funds lost fair and square to a defective contract. Where is Ethereum now? Oh yeah, near an all-time high and a market cap approaching half a trillion dollars.
What non-users don't get is the fanatical level of devotion by users. It waxes and wanes with the Bitcoin halving cycle, but always comes back stronger than before.
If Tether did somehow implode and users left in droves, something else would come along to take its place and within a year or two and the entire Bitcoin ecosystem would come roaring back stronger than ever.
But I think it's worth considering what happens if the collapse never comes. If government investigation, findings of wrongdoing, admission of lies, and punishment aren't enough to shake Tether users out of their trees, then what would, exactly?
Ethereum allowed a claw-back of funds lost fair and square to a defective contract. Where is Ethereum now? Oh yeah, near an all-time high and a market cap approaching half a trillion dollars.
What non-users don't get is the fanatical level of devotion by users. It waxes and wanes with the Bitcoin halving cycle, but always comes back stronger than before.
If Tether did somehow implode and users left in droves, something else would come along to take its place and within a year or two and the entire Bitcoin ecosystem would come roaring back stronger than ever.
Each scam is draining some money from the market. All these scammers are siphoning of real money from the ecosystem each time.
Fanatic and devoted fans there maybe, however they don't have limitless fiat money to play with. In the recent past, new found mainstream popularity has fueled inflows into all kinds of crypto products sustaining the strong bull runs despite significant and clear risks.
This popularity has little to do with widespread belief in distributed / unregulated financial systems, and more because these assets have outperformed traditional instruments spectacularly, the allure of making ton of money fast. Eventually it will fade either because there is not enough new people who can/will put more money or an unsustainable growth tapers off.
When ( not if) the second set of players leave inevitably after enough scams, the hardcore fans that will remain and prop up the market and keep it going yes. However without non fanatic users there is not enough money to come roaring back like in the past.
To be clear, it may take a few years or more and few cycles of what you say, markets can stay irrational for a very long time, it is unstable equilibrium nonetheless, and eventually will correct permanently
Fanatic and devoted fans there maybe, however they don't have limitless fiat money to play with. In the recent past, new found mainstream popularity has fueled inflows into all kinds of crypto products sustaining the strong bull runs despite significant and clear risks.
This popularity has little to do with widespread belief in distributed / unregulated financial systems, and more because these assets have outperformed traditional instruments spectacularly, the allure of making ton of money fast. Eventually it will fade either because there is not enough new people who can/will put more money or an unsustainable growth tapers off.
When ( not if) the second set of players leave inevitably after enough scams, the hardcore fans that will remain and prop up the market and keep it going yes. However without non fanatic users there is not enough money to come roaring back like in the past.
To be clear, it may take a few years or more and few cycles of what you say, markets can stay irrational for a very long time, it is unstable equilibrium nonetheless, and eventually will correct permanently
How do you feel about stocks that have completely unrealistic P/E ratios? Is that not the same speculation that happens in crypto? And yes, I agree, prices don't go up unless people are putting more in, but I'm just saying that crypto is not unique here. Yes, traditional companies can liquidate their assets, but my point is, a lot of what's going on in stocks, at least ones greatly differing from traditional P/E ratios, is also speculation.
Also, in terms of siphoning of "real money" from the ecosystem each time, if some of the money going in is fake, i.e. Tether printing without having 1:1 USD backed up, and that is going back into crypto, then how do we quantify that exactly, in terms of "real money" lost? Is it because "real money" is also buying at the inflated prices, or is it because some of the Tether that is buying other crypto is backed up by "real money"? I'm trying to understand the argument here.
Also, in terms of siphoning of "real money" from the ecosystem each time, if some of the money going in is fake, i.e. Tether printing without having 1:1 USD backed up, and that is going back into crypto, then how do we quantify that exactly, in terms of "real money" lost? Is it because "real money" is also buying at the inflated prices, or is it because some of the Tether that is buying other crypto is backed up by "real money"? I'm trying to understand the argument here.
Stock P/Es, while high, have a non-zero denominator, so it's hard to consider the same as crypto speculation. I think both have a lot of the same driving factors (low interest rates, get rich quick culture, etc.), but, to me at least, crypto is a much riskier endeavor considering the net negative nature of its value.
There may not be $70 billion actually in tether, but some fraction of that people have paid them in exchange for the coin, a good chunk of that is already mis-managed/lost. A bank run would lose even more.
Issuing more tokens than the money they have is basically inflation and devalues all holdings.
Yes non profitable without a clear path to profit, or pre-revenue companies is a lot of smoke for risky value, however in most revenue generating companies there is underlying asset which generates some cash every year and that is always worth something.
With currency everything is abstract and depends only on trust in the system for its intrinsic value.
This is why U.S. is able to use the reserve currency status of dollar and issue a lot of new currency without equivalent inflationary pressures other currencies would face, they are basically leveraging trust in to generate seigniorage.
Issuing more tokens than the money they have is basically inflation and devalues all holdings.
Yes non profitable without a clear path to profit, or pre-revenue companies is a lot of smoke for risky value, however in most revenue generating companies there is underlying asset which generates some cash every year and that is always worth something.
With currency everything is abstract and depends only on trust in the system for its intrinsic value.
This is why U.S. is able to use the reserve currency status of dollar and issue a lot of new currency without equivalent inflationary pressures other currencies would face, they are basically leveraging trust in to generate seigniorage.
A high P/E ratio simply means that investors are willing to pay more for each dollar of earnings. But there are actual earnings. There are no earnings backing crypto.
> If Tether did somehow implode and users left in droves, something else would come along to take its place and within a year or two and the entire Bitcoin ecosystem would come roaring back stronger than ever
Pick any of the already existing stable coins. We don't even need new technology to replace Tether. We just need international exchanges to support existing stables.
Pick any of the already existing stable coins. We don't even need new technology to replace Tether. We just need international exchanges to support existing stables.
Exactly. Tether has some amazing alternatives. DAI for example.
DAI is critically dependent on USDC.
USDC recently received a Wells notice from SEC and had to amend their reserves. Still weird behaviour from them overall: they don’t disclose what their short term commercial paper is, its rating or how much of their cash equivalents it us.
Just today in the financial times Tether claimed USDC also issues USDCs backed by crypto.
And they have funny printing patterns: whenever Tether stops printing, USDC starts.
USDC recently received a Wells notice from SEC and had to amend their reserves. Still weird behaviour from them overall: they don’t disclose what their short term commercial paper is, its rating or how much of their cash equivalents it us.
Just today in the financial times Tether claimed USDC also issues USDCs backed by crypto.
And they have funny printing patterns: whenever Tether stops printing, USDC starts.
> And they have funny printing patterns: whenever Tether stops printing, USDC starts.
I noticed that, specially recently. What's going on?
I noticed that, specially recently. What's going on?
Source for Dai being critically dependent on USDC?
It’s been around years before USDC and maintained its peg through the 2017 collapse, if I recall.
I know it has changed over time (multi-collateral Dai).
It’s been around years before USDC and maintained its peg through the 2017 collapse, if I recall.
I know it has changed over time (multi-collateral Dai).
Can you (or anyone) give me a few more keywords to find more info about that claw-back of funds? I'm new to the crypto space and my google-fu is lacking today, can't find anything about Ethereum defective contract and subsequent claw-back of funds.
IIRC, back in the day, there was the original DAO. They released this very large contract, citing "the code is the law".
The code had a bug, and someone drained the $50M or so contract.
Since everyone lost a bunch of money, the majority agreed to fork Ethereum and roll back the hack, leading to "Ethereum" (with the roll back), and "Ethereum Classic" (without the rollback).
The code had a bug, and someone drained the $50M or so contract.
Since everyone lost a bunch of money, the majority agreed to fork Ethereum and roll back the hack, leading to "Ethereum" (with the roll back), and "Ethereum Classic" (without the rollback).
It was The DAO hack [1].
[1] https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao
[1] https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao
A good overview can be found on the Wikipedia page for Ethereum Classic. ETHC is made up of the users and miners who didn't want to "claw-back" those funds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic
Here's the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization)
"What non-users don't get is the fanatical level of devotion by users. It waxes and wanes with the Bitcoin halving cycle, but always comes back stronger than before."
Indeed. 80-90% pullbacks, multi-year bear markets, the seasoned crypto trader has seen multiple apocalyptic financial disasters, where this simply is a potential next one. It fails to impress.
The really clever ones thrive from these crashes, that's when they buy. Volatility is the feature.
Indeed. 80-90% pullbacks, multi-year bear markets, the seasoned crypto trader has seen multiple apocalyptic financial disasters, where this simply is a potential next one. It fails to impress.
The really clever ones thrive from these crashes, that's when they buy. Volatility is the feature.
I'm not sure you guys get this: Tether is the reason it comes back.
Tether drove the 2017 bubble (this is when Bitfinex'd got their start) and has driven the 2021 bubble to the tune of $70b.
This resilience wouldn't exist without Tether.
Tether drove the 2017 bubble (this is when Bitfinex'd got their start) and has driven the 2021 bubble to the tune of $70b.
This resilience wouldn't exist without Tether.
Where are you getting this information from? Is it from this study [1]? Real money is also going into crypto [2, 3, 4, 5]. I think it's quite an accusation to say that Tether is always the reason crypto comes back. People also "buy the dip". In some cases, maybe it is Tether, I don't know, but saying in all cases that it is Tether making crypto bounce back seems like a stretch to me.
You assume you know why it bounces back every time after reaching whatever bottom it does, so, I'm also wondering, what do you think triggers it to start going down after reaching its tops?
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3195066
[2] https://www.microstrategy.com/en/investor-relations/press/mi...
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-03/novogratz...
[4] https://news.bitcoin.com/kevin-oleary-crypto-exposure-greate...
[5] https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/28/investing/tesla-bitcoin/index...
You assume you know why it bounces back every time after reaching whatever bottom it does, so, I'm also wondering, what do you think triggers it to start going down after reaching its tops?
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3195066
[2] https://www.microstrategy.com/en/investor-relations/press/mi...
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-03/novogratz...
[4] https://news.bitcoin.com/kevin-oleary-crypto-exposure-greate...
[5] https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/28/investing/tesla-bitcoin/index...
If I have to believe the research on the 2017 pump, tether had a 50% role in it. I'm not sure how much 70b does for today's market cap. Surely it's significant, but it would be an exaggeration to say there would be no demand without tether.
In the end, it doesn't matter. You can make money in crypto whether it goes down, up or is scalping.
In the end, it doesn't matter. You can make money in crypto whether it goes down, up or is scalping.
Well let’s see, since 2018 total crypto market cap is about 3x but Tether is about 30x and total stable coins are over 40x what they were.
Diminishing returns to pumping.
Diminishing returns to pumping.
Fair and square? It was a completely new failure mechanism found in one of the first major smart contract deploys.
BTC had a similar early-phase bug that minted tons of coins by the way, that they also had to “claw back”.
At least pretend to be unbiased.
BTC had a similar early-phase bug that minted tons of coins by the way, that they also had to “claw back”.
At least pretend to be unbiased.
Not even the same league of event. The value overflow incident was a flaw in the protocol implementation itself.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident
The DAO hack resulted from a poorly-written contract. Concerns about the quality of the contract were ignored by the team. The DAO itself wasn't even part of the Ethereum protocol, just an application running on it.
The DAO was like a Bitcoin transaction that spent all output value to miner fees, which has happened a lot. But at no time did that ever result in a rollback of history.
The response to the DAO was the Ethereum community slapping a giant asterisk on the motto "Code is Law." And the community is quite all right with that.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident
The DAO hack resulted from a poorly-written contract. Concerns about the quality of the contract were ignored by the team. The DAO itself wasn't even part of the Ethereum protocol, just an application running on it.
The DAO was like a Bitcoin transaction that spent all output value to miner fees, which has happened a lot. But at no time did that ever result in a rollback of history.
The response to the DAO was the Ethereum community slapping a giant asterisk on the motto "Code is Law." And the community is quite all right with that.
“ Ethereum allowed a claw-back of funds lost fair and square to a defective contract. Where is Ethereum now? Oh yeah, near an all-time high and a market cap approaching half a trillion dollars.”
Another interpretation is that courts customarily invalidate “defective” contracts, and therefore the “claw-back” actually inspires confidence by demonstrating consistency with contract law norms.
Another interpretation is that courts customarily invalidate “defective” contracts, and therefore the “claw-back” actually inspires confidence by demonstrating consistency with contract law norms.
[deleted]
USDC (coinbase stable coin) is already around 50% of the market cap (value) of Tether. Tether influence is already waning. If it doesn't collapse in the next couple years, it'd probably be significant but a minor event/thing in the crypto space.
> It waxes and wanes with the Bitcoin halving cycle, but always comes back stronger than before.
Already forgot about 2008? Go check all theses banks values! Morgan Stanley is on an all time high right now!
Already forgot about 2008? Go check all theses banks values! Morgan Stanley is on an all time high right now!
> It may be counterintuitive, but the best thing that could happen to Bitcoin would be for Tether to collapse in a cloud of dust.
I share your opinion, and especially true if you have a ~5 year horizon on BTCUSD.
I share your opinion, and especially true if you have a ~5 year horizon on BTCUSD.
Just a note of wording: Almost everyone is a "non-user", speculators probably vastly outnumber the true "users" (money transfer, laundering, ... what else?)
The price of Bitcoin would rise precipitously as traders tried to exit tether any way possible, as would all other cryptos.
Yes but long term? The big question is not if there are real USD behind USDT or not but if Tether has a way to pump the entire crypto market. Basically: did Tether make BTC go to 64 K USD, by printing non-backer tether by the billions and then use them to buy BTCs?
Short term if USDT collapses, BTC would probably skyrocket due to everybody looking for an exit out how USDT. But long term? What if the BTC demand is simply mostly all fake?
Short term if USDT collapses, BTC would probably skyrocket due to everybody looking for an exit out how USDT. But long term? What if the BTC demand is simply mostly all fake?
No, the price in USDT would rise and then as people promptly sold for USD it would collapse in USD terms.
What guarantees that everyone would sell that Bitcoin for USD?
If those people wanted to hold BTC, they'd have been holding it in the first place, instead of USDT.
They’d prefer holding USDT to BTC.
In this event we describe though, they may prefer selling for BTC or other cryptocurrency.
They may not have the option of selling for fiat currency, as well, at least not right away.
The assumption that an exit from Tether would lead to an exit from BTC is not necessarily well founded.
In this event we describe though, they may prefer selling for BTC or other cryptocurrency.
They may not have the option of selling for fiat currency, as well, at least not right away.
The assumption that an exit from Tether would lead to an exit from BTC is not necessarily well founded.
You're talking about people who have already exited BTC - that's why they are holding USDT.
People flock to stables/fiat when uncertainty/risk increases, yes? So you have a bunch of people ($70b worth) who are currently in USDT. Then you have to account for all the people currently in crypto who would sell into stables/fiat in a black swan event.
What's the argument against this? You say that the argument is not well founded. Ok, fine. I've outlined my argument. What's the counter? What's the line of thinking where USDT holders en masse flock back into crypto when the safe haven that they already wanted to be in implodes?
People flock to stables/fiat when uncertainty/risk increases, yes? So you have a bunch of people ($70b worth) who are currently in USDT. Then you have to account for all the people currently in crypto who would sell into stables/fiat in a black swan event.
What's the argument against this? You say that the argument is not well founded. Ok, fine. I've outlined my argument. What's the counter? What's the line of thinking where USDT holders en masse flock back into crypto when the safe haven that they already wanted to be in implodes?
They also may cash out to another fiat currency, no? I also am not sure I agree that they would all even cash out to fiat. I was asking what are the guarantees that they would cash out to USD, considering that why they may be holding USDT in the first place is to avoid US regulation? Something else to consider is that Tether is also more popular outside of the US. I'm just saying that I think it's an assumption that they all would cash out. It likely depends on how crypto as a whole is doing at that point, and I also think it's an assumption that crypto won't survive Tether's crash. There may be short term drops which lead to these assumptions being true, but really, no one knows for sure.
It doesn’t matter what fiat the sell into, all that matters is they are selling BTC. It will go down against all pairs.
They would be selling USDT.
Especially on short notice, with Tethers sitting on an exchange that may not have access to fiat, they will likely sell to BTC or ETH at least at first.
Especially on short notice, with Tethers sitting on an exchange that may not have access to fiat, they will likely sell to BTC or ETH at least at first.
Yes, but the best way to sell USDT is via crypto legs: buy BTC/USDT and sell BTC/USD - the net result of this is selling USDT/USD. The actual USDT/USD markets just aren't real/deep enough.
So the price in USDT terms skyrockets and the price in USD terms craters.
So the price in USDT terms skyrockets and the price in USD terms craters.
I'm just wondering, now that they have USD, after selling BTC, what do you think they are they going to do with the USD? It's not like they can extract easily USD from Binance or KuCoin (two of the most popular asian crypto exchanges, where USDT is also the most popular). As I alluded to in a comment above, the reason they are using USDT in the first place is because they can't deal with USD (or fiat) easily. So do they go into some other stablecoin, or keep it in BTC (or ETH), and try to move that to another exchange which is better suited as a fiat gateway? What if this other exchange is a heavily KYC'd exchange that they don't have access to in their jurisdiction, or that it would take a long time to get access to, even if it is available in their jurisdiction? There's also fiat withdrawal limits to consider, which are generally lower than crypto withdrawal limits. Also, to even be able to withdrawal fiat, instead of crypto, requires even higher levels of KYC, more processing time, no guarantee that they will be approved, etc. So, what do you think they will do then? This is also what TimeBearingDown was referring to in a sibling thread.
The price in Tethers would rise
As always, Matt Levine is shockingly informative:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-10-07/matt-l...
Key quote:
1. You get a bunch of Bitcoins.
2. You slice them into junior and senior claims.
3. You sell the junior claims to people who want levered Bitcoin: people who want margin loans against their Bitcoins, etc., who want to gamble on Bitcoin without putting up too much cash.
4. You sell the senior claims as stablecoins: “Even if Bitcoin drops by 50%,” you say, “these coins will still be worth $1, because they are backed by $2 worth of Bitcoin.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-10-07/matt-l...
Key quote:
1. You get a bunch of Bitcoins.
2. You slice them into junior and senior claims.
3. You sell the junior claims to people who want levered Bitcoin: people who want margin loans against their Bitcoins, etc., who want to gamble on Bitcoin without putting up too much cash.
4. You sell the senior claims as stablecoins: “Even if Bitcoin drops by 50%,” you say, “these coins will still be worth $1, because they are backed by $2 worth of Bitcoin.”
Tranching is a thing. It's fine. It works, if you don't pretend AAA-rated securities, which have--and historically had--a very low risk of losses, are both safe and liquid.
If tranching were all Tether were doing, it would just be fraud. You can't sell a senior tranche on a pool of assets as a fully-backed security and call it a day. But whatever, Tether did that and more, nobody cared, we're on the next tier of the Narcissist's Prayer [1].
The new problem is we have circumstantial evidence that at least some of Tether's assets are Chinese developers' commercial paper. That's a risky asset. Even before Evergrande and Sinic defaulted, it was a speculative asset. (Now it's a distressed one.) If that's what we know they're in, how bad is the rest of their balance sheet? Tether claims to be over-collateralising their crypto-backed loans by 30%. An LTV of 77% will start losing money in a 25% crash. Bitcoin...does that a lot? For an asset they understand, they've set their risk limits woefully low. If that's what we know they're doing, how thin is the rest of their capital?
We're going to see a run on Tether. Not might. Statistically, the assets Tether holds will sometimes go down. Sometimes a lot. Most of the time, that will be fine. Some times, however, Tether will get a redemption at the same time. (Assets going down and investors redeeming things are correlated.) Most of the time, that will work out. Some times, however, Tether will need time to avoid their own selling driving down the asset's price. Most of the time, that will be fine. Some of the time, however, the person making the redemption request won't have that time. They'll blow up, and they'll blame Tether. This will prompt additional redemptions, which will force the aforementioned fire sale until, in all likelihood, Tether kills its domain and steals the money. (The last part is a novelty really only afforded by their setup.)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28880280
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-07/can-you-t...
If tranching were all Tether were doing, it would just be fraud. You can't sell a senior tranche on a pool of assets as a fully-backed security and call it a day. But whatever, Tether did that and more, nobody cared, we're on the next tier of the Narcissist's Prayer [1].
The new problem is we have circumstantial evidence that at least some of Tether's assets are Chinese developers' commercial paper. That's a risky asset. Even before Evergrande and Sinic defaulted, it was a speculative asset. (Now it's a distressed one.) If that's what we know they're in, how bad is the rest of their balance sheet? Tether claims to be over-collateralising their crypto-backed loans by 30%. An LTV of 77% will start losing money in a 25% crash. Bitcoin...does that a lot? For an asset they understand, they've set their risk limits woefully low. If that's what we know they're doing, how thin is the rest of their capital?
We're going to see a run on Tether. Not might. Statistically, the assets Tether holds will sometimes go down. Sometimes a lot. Most of the time, that will be fine. Some times, however, Tether will get a redemption at the same time. (Assets going down and investors redeeming things are correlated.) Most of the time, that will work out. Some times, however, Tether will need time to avoid their own selling driving down the asset's price. Most of the time, that will be fine. Some of the time, however, the person making the redemption request won't have that time. They'll blow up, and they'll blame Tether. This will prompt additional redemptions, which will force the aforementioned fire sale until, in all likelihood, Tether kills its domain and steals the money. (The last part is a novelty really only afforded by their setup.)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28880280
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-07/can-you-t...
Likely in the case of a bank run, Tether cannot redeem even a cent because their organisation is unable to serve any customer outside few selected one (no staff, no processed). However the damage to retail US investors should be quite well contained, as I do not feel they have significant Tether holdings. It is mostly (shady?) professional traders (Alameda, Celsius) and offshore (China) that use Tether.
Tether is 50% of crypto trading. Tether stopping would case quite interesting escape into either Bitcoin or some other liquid widely available pair (ETH). Prices would shoot up until real dollar offramps can pick it up. Long term USDC, USDP snd other more robust stablecoins can pick up the slack. Tether is not too big råto,fail, though is massive.
Tether is 50% of crypto trading. Tether stopping would case quite interesting escape into either Bitcoin or some other liquid widely available pair (ETH). Prices would shoot up until real dollar offramps can pick it up. Long term USDC, USDP snd other more robust stablecoins can pick up the slack. Tether is not too big råto,fail, though is massive.
> the damage to retail US investors should be quite well contained, as I do not feel they have significant Tether holdings
This is my understanding. The U.S. regulatory apparatus appears to have deterred Tether from getting too involved here. China, too, seems to have taken the hint.
This is my understanding. The U.S. regulatory apparatus appears to have deterred Tether from getting too involved here. China, too, seems to have taken the hint.
Also in the US you can use real ACH dollars, not Italian plastic surgery dollars.
The "Tether crash" == "Bitcoin surge" story is just BS. Just stop believing this crap and think about a better exit strategy for your crypto wealth.
But they can print more tether, buy bitcoin with that tether, and give you bitcoin as redemptions. This could go on for a very long time.
Can Tether give you Bitcoin as a redemption? Do you have a source for that?
"Tether reserves the right to redeem Tether Tokens by in-kind redemptions of securities and other assets held in the Reserves."
https://tether.to/legal/
https://tether.to/legal/
Well, they can also just…not give you a redemption at all. Even if you’re an “authorized” party, they can delay the redemption indefinitely. It’s not so much a house of cards as it is…nothing at all.
[deleted]
Tether is obviously not backed 1:1 by USD as previously claimed. Now the dodgy piechart informs us that it is backed mainly by corporate bonds and loans - if true I would guess mostly to related companies. A recent Bloomberg article says they have been lending Billions to Chinese property companies!
Eventually enough of the gullible fools will realise that the Emperor has no clothes, then there will be a run on Tether which will collapse its price, this will also crash the whole crypto market and people will finally realise that a random number (no matter how cleverly generated) is not worth $64k, not even $1k.
Correct. Tether is a giant scam as I and many others have said before: [0]
Won't be surprised to see the scam finally unveiled and to cause a seismic crash in the crypto markets.
I would start packing my crypto holdings out of the market real soon™... Things are getting quite, unstable and euphoric once again.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27960613
Won't be surprised to see the scam finally unveiled and to cause a seismic crash in the crypto markets.
I would start packing my crypto holdings out of the market real soon™... Things are getting quite, unstable and euphoric once again.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27960613
Part of me is trying to come up with ways I could short this incredibly irrational market™, but I'm reminded of the saying that the markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent
Why would a collapse of tether cause a crash in the crypto markets?
It could spark a liquidity crisis. Tether is a mechanism for converting crypto to USD, and if there's a run on Tether and they run out of USD for whatever reason, it'll spiral into a run on other exchanges, if people aren't able to change their crypto back into USD, the value of that crypto suddenly vanishes
It won't be that straightforward.
Tether is one head of the snake. As scrutiny increases on USDT, volume will simply shift to USDC and other similarly unaudited stablecoins. These can be issued and adopted faster than regulators can file cases against them.
Tether is one head of the snake. As scrutiny increases on USDT, volume will simply shift to USDC and other similarly unaudited stablecoins. These can be issued and adopted faster than regulators can file cases against them.
Disclosure: Hindenburg Research does not hold positions, either long or short, in Tether, bitcoin or any cryptocurrency at the time of this press release.
I wonder why this Reaserch firm is offering such a substantial bounty for information on Tether. What's in it for them? Where will this money come from?
From their site they provide an answer (and even a "track record") [1]:
> We look for (...) man-made disasters floating around in the market and aim to shed light on them before they lure in more unsuspecting victims.
Hence it seems they're doing it for the bennefit of the public. So much for the expression "there's no such thing as a free lunch".
[1] https://hindenburgresearch.com/about-us/
From their site they provide an answer (and even a "track record") [1]:
> We look for (...) man-made disasters floating around in the market and aim to shed light on them before they lure in more unsuspecting victims.
Hence it seems they're doing it for the bennefit of the public. So much for the expression "there's no such thing as a free lunch".
[1] https://hindenburgresearch.com/about-us/
Presumably they would like to start a position by don't have sufficient information, and are attempting to buy that information.
Hidenburg is a short seller who takes positions in their research. See for instance their short of Nikola. While I'm sure they enjoy being helpful and that there's a reason they choose to engage in a very difficult way to earn a living, when there are easier opportunities available, their motives are hardly a mystery.
You can discount all their talk of helpfulness or assume they're just talking their book, and it doesn't really change anything.
Hidenburg is a short seller who takes positions in their research. See for instance their short of Nikola. While I'm sure they enjoy being helpful and that there's a reason they choose to engage in a very difficult way to earn a living, when there are easier opportunities available, their motives are hardly a mystery.
You can discount all their talk of helpfulness or assume they're just talking their book, and it doesn't really change anything.
Just because someone has something to gain, doesn't mean that their actions are corrupt.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages” -Adam Smith
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/68664-it-is-not-from-the-be...
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages” -Adam Smith
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/68664-it-is-not-from-the-be...
It's marketing.
When Hindenburg publishes equity research, the disclosure is "you should assume that as of the publication date of any short-biased report or letter, Hindenburg Research...has a short position in all stocks (and/or options of the stock) covered herein, and therefore stands to realize significant gains in the event that the price of any stock covered herein declines."
[1] https://hindenburgresearch.com/draftkings/
When Hindenburg publishes equity research, the disclosure is "you should assume that as of the publication date of any short-biased report or letter, Hindenburg Research...has a short position in all stocks (and/or options of the stock) covered herein, and therefore stands to realize significant gains in the event that the price of any stock covered herein declines."
[1] https://hindenburgresearch.com/draftkings/
Precisely. It's too risky to actually short the crypto complex because if the Tether fraud is true, then they can pump it to $100k or $1m or whatever they want.
But if they contribute to the unwind of a fraud of this scale, they will go down as heroes.
But if they contribute to the unwind of a fraud of this scale, they will go down as heroes.
If people aren't buying as much Bitcoin at $100k+ (I assume you are referring to Bitcoin), then what will cause it to go to $1m? I don't think they can have a guaranteed pump like you are saying.
If a fraudulent Fed is fabricating Tethers, and some people are buying it, the price is a ruinous fiction to a short. For shorts, delusions matter in a way that they don’t for ride-it-out longs.
There are firms that look for good opportunities to short stocks. Find some credible bad news, short the stock, then publicize the bad news.
If the news is actually true, this might even be considered a public service (as well as obviously a way to make money).
They probably wouldn’t do until they actually got a tip. Also, they might short crypto-related stocks if that’s easier.
If the news is actually true, this might even be considered a public service (as well as obviously a way to make money).
They probably wouldn’t do until they actually got a tip. Also, they might short crypto-related stocks if that’s easier.
This is how markets weed out the bad ones on their own, without relying on government.
Not really. Markets weed out unprofitable firms. Government doesn't really care about that. On the other side, government regulates firms that engage in some harmful (open to interpretation) practice, and markets don't care about that unless it makes them unprofitable.
I am curious about how that type of activity doesn't constitute insider trading? Presumably having "bad news" would constitute material nonpublic information?
Because it's not nonpublic information. It's public information that no one else had put together the pieces on, yet.
(Contrary to some of the other commenters, you don't have to be an insider yourself to run afoul of the law. If the information is not public and you got someone to leak it to you, for example. https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...)
(Contrary to some of the other commenters, you don't have to be an insider yourself to run afoul of the law. If the information is not public and you got someone to leak it to you, for example. https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...)
Exactly. Did an oil company exec tell you that their sales are down before the earnings are released? That's insider trading. Did you hire a helicopter with a thermal camera to see how full their storage tanks are? That's perfectly legal.
It might be insider trading in some countries, but it isn't in America. It's perfectly legal to trade on information you found out through your own research and didn't tell anybody about.
Simply trading on MNPI is not insider trading. You must have a fiduciary duty to protect said MNPI.
If I do some analysis and reveal some MNPI for myself, it's perfectly legal to trade on that since I do not have a fiduciary duty to any publicly traded firms.
If I do some analysis and reveal some MNPI for myself, it's perfectly legal to trade on that since I do not have a fiduciary duty to any publicly traded firms.
They do the equivalent of investigative journalism. Arguably everything they know is public, just no one has looked or put all the pieces together until they do a press release.
Because they are not insiders
[deleted]
so they can trade on it before announcing it and then with the profit pay for the bounty, assuming they pay up or assuming tether falls. Tether has survived thus far everything thrown at it. The market is evidently very confident about tether.
> The market is evidently very confident about tether.
I don't see how that's a valid conclusion to draw. I would say in this case the "market" is completely codependent on Tether, and therefore are willing to overlook red flags until forced to via damage to pricing or legalities.
I don't see how that's a valid conclusion to draw. I would say in this case the "market" is completely codependent on Tether, and therefore are willing to overlook red flags until forced to via damage to pricing or legalities.
> The market is evidently very confident about tether.
The market was very confident about Enron, WorldCom, Madoff, WireCard, Greensill, Theranos, WeWork, etc as well.
The market was very confident about Enron, WorldCom, Madoff, WireCard, Greensill, Theranos, WeWork, etc as well.
It's all good until it isn't.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/hong-kong-audit-watchdog...
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/hong-kong-audit-watchdog...
Presumably they short the shit out of Tether and related stablecoins before they release the information they get. It's certainly for their own gain.
As qeternity pointed out in a comment [1], you want your trade to play out in a dollar denominated, clearinghouse backed financial product. You don't bet against the house in their casino (crypto exchanges), such as shorting tether.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28794377
(not investment advice, educational purposes only)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28794377
(not investment advice, educational purposes only)
I would hazard they are planning to target the BTC Futures ETF that opened this morning.
You can have positions in Microstrategy and Coinbase.
If Tether tanks -- there are definitely decent proxies out there.
If Tether tanks -- there are definitely decent proxies out there.
They are fishing for edge. If they get information that they feel will be able to quickly move markets, they'll initiate a large position before dropping the release to the public. That's how they make money.
They usually disclose that they hold short positions at the same time as publishing their reports.
If Tether unravels and brings down the whole cryptocurrency bubble, there are probably more indirect positions that are safer bets?
If Tether unravels and brings down the whole cryptocurrency bubble, there are probably more indirect positions that are safer bets?
Pure speculation but I'd wager they have a position involving a 3rd party hedge fund etc with a sizable crypto position.
The expectation is that they will obtain large and valuable positions (either long or short) upon obtaining this information which is not (yet) known to the general public.
Perhaps they’re holding long put contracts on the Bitcoin ETF that just started trading. Their disclosure would still be true as they own contracts, not shares. An interesting coincidence with the timing.
It notably doesnt say that their clients dont have any cryptocurrency positions. The $1M is coming from somewhere.
Did they specify the time down to the nanosecond?
They'll certainly hold positions when they release any juicy findings they have.
$1 million is not that much, just for the sheer publicity Hindenburg gets. They're going to be quoted in WSJ, Economist, ... This brings new clients...
This is a good point. Dropping a million bucks on an ad campaign wouldn't get them this much publicity.
For anyone looking for context on Tether's finances: "With estimated leverage of 383-to-1, Tether would be unable to honour all its tokens after losses of just 0.26%—a safety cushion that regulators would never allow at a bank." https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/08/07/why-regulators-...
Banks usually allow depositors to withdraw.
Tether's terms and conditions state that they:
(1) do not ever have to honor redemptions for US persons
(2) do not have to honor redemptions except to authorized customers
(3) only they decide who authorized customers are
(4) even for them they can delay withdrawals indefinitely, arbitrarily
(5) and even then they can offer whatever they happen to have in reserves in lieu
So there's bigger issues than their composition, like the fact they can just sail off and keep the backing, and they don't have to honor withdrawals for anyone ever.
You give them $1 (maybe, someone does, probably, honestly its not clear) and you get 1 USDT. That's it. Hope its worth $1 to you because you're not entitled to ever see that dollar again. All this hand wringing over backing doesn't mean much if you're not entitled to it you know?
[edit] You don't really need a $1M bounty this is all in their T&Cs, it's just that it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
[1] tether.to/legal
Tether's terms and conditions state that they:
(1) do not ever have to honor redemptions for US persons
(2) do not have to honor redemptions except to authorized customers
(3) only they decide who authorized customers are
(4) even for them they can delay withdrawals indefinitely, arbitrarily
(5) and even then they can offer whatever they happen to have in reserves in lieu
So there's bigger issues than their composition, like the fact they can just sail off and keep the backing, and they don't have to honor withdrawals for anyone ever.
You give them $1 (maybe, someone does, probably, honestly its not clear) and you get 1 USDT. That's it. Hope its worth $1 to you because you're not entitled to ever see that dollar again. All this hand wringing over backing doesn't mean much if you're not entitled to it you know?
[edit] You don't really need a $1M bounty this is all in their T&Cs, it's just that it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
[1] tether.to/legal
But Tether doesn't have to honor redemptions like a bank does. They can mint Tether, buy BTC with that, and give you that BTC as a redemption.
Last week CFTC fined both Tether and Bitfinex $42.5M for allegedly not holding enough reserves and colluding together.
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8450-21
Seems like a fairly small fine in grand scheme of things no? If the critics are right and $70B+ supply is just made up paper money, then it'll be huge losses for all Tether holders. I'd conjecture it would tank the entire crypto market - and possibly the equity market too.
Seems like a fairly small fine in grand scheme of things no? If the critics are right and $70B+ supply is just made up paper money, then it'll be huge losses for all Tether holders. I'd conjecture it would tank the entire crypto market - and possibly the equity market too.
Why do you think it would tank the equity market?
It's all tied together. If one asset class is crashing people sell others to grab cash. Another way, according to Janet Yellen, that Tether and other stables can destabalize markets, is that they have large portions of reserves in corporate debt, a crisis in these coins would cause a fire sale of billions of corporate debt they hold, itself probably cascading into all risk markets.
+1 and my thought exactly. Spillover effect could be fairly significant given that more investors now hold crypto.
Crypto markets maybe, but not main indexes. Experienced financial players smell tether for the scam it is and don't touch it, or I'd they do, they're in on the grift.
Laymen who bought the hype stand to lose a lot though.
Laymen who bought the hype stand to lose a lot though.
My understanding is that Tether has bought a bunch of bonds and other financial instruments. If they need to raise cash, they would sell those instruments for whatever price they could get. That could lower the prices, which could have negative effects.
Tether keeps moving the buck. First it was all USD backing, then when pressed, they said they actually have it all in bonds/securities, which is just as nebulous and doesn't make it any more authenticated.
It's not verified by third parties at all, and they're printing non-stop, which is why many people can spot it for the scam it is.
It's not verified by third parties at all, and they're printing non-stop, which is why many people can spot it for the scam it is.
There is one scenario in which the 70 billion was at one time made-up money, but where it won't ever actually tank the crypto market:
1. Tether prints $1 billion with no backing.
2. Tether buys $1 billion of Bitcoin with the the fraudulent tokens.
3. Bitcoin triples in price.
4. Tether sells 1/3 of their position in exchange for hard currency, and holds that money in their reserves.
5. Tether now has 100% reserves backing the tokens they created, and is also holding $2 billion in Bitcoin. Maybe they sell the extra Bitcoin to diversify.
6. Rinse and repeat.
Under this scenario, what these guys did was to take a massive uncollateralized loan from ordinary consumers, use it to buy buy Bitcoin, and sell off the Bitcoin in order to pay back the loan. Basically an uncollateralized version of what most DeFi borrowers are doing right now, but at a massive scale.
As long as the price of Bitcoin is going up, the scheme a surefire way to make a lot of money. If the price of Bitcoin starts going down before they can cash out, then it can easily bankrupt them and crash the market—which is also a big risk with DeFi.
It could be that we are passed that point with Tether, though. With as much scrutiny as they are under right now, if Tether ever defaults, the people who run Tether are going to be wanted for criminal prosecution in dozens of countries. They will be running and hiding for the rest of their lives. I can't believe that a few more billion dollars in the bank is worth the risk—especially if they won't be able to access those billions.
If you look at the rate of issuance of Tether since June 1 of this year, it has flattened out dramatically.[0] Could it be that the people at Tether have realized that the jig is up, and are now just trying to get things in order so they can walk away clean? Maybe.
Or, it could be that they printed so much funny money last year that the amount of Bitcoin they need to sell is more than the market can accept without tanking the price of Bitcoin, given current market liquidity. Maybe they aren't generating more Tether for themselves because they figured out that whenever they try to sell the Bitcoin they need to sell in order to replenish their reserves, they crash the Bitcoin market. Maybe they're stuck.
Or it could be that Tether is fully backed, that they have never minted any Tether that didn't correspond to $$ in their bank account, and the reason that Tether's growth has slowed is only because people are now buying USDC and other stablecoins instead. (Not likely, in my opinion.)
[0] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether/
1. Tether prints $1 billion with no backing.
2. Tether buys $1 billion of Bitcoin with the the fraudulent tokens.
3. Bitcoin triples in price.
4. Tether sells 1/3 of their position in exchange for hard currency, and holds that money in their reserves.
5. Tether now has 100% reserves backing the tokens they created, and is also holding $2 billion in Bitcoin. Maybe they sell the extra Bitcoin to diversify.
6. Rinse and repeat.
Under this scenario, what these guys did was to take a massive uncollateralized loan from ordinary consumers, use it to buy buy Bitcoin, and sell off the Bitcoin in order to pay back the loan. Basically an uncollateralized version of what most DeFi borrowers are doing right now, but at a massive scale.
As long as the price of Bitcoin is going up, the scheme a surefire way to make a lot of money. If the price of Bitcoin starts going down before they can cash out, then it can easily bankrupt them and crash the market—which is also a big risk with DeFi.
It could be that we are passed that point with Tether, though. With as much scrutiny as they are under right now, if Tether ever defaults, the people who run Tether are going to be wanted for criminal prosecution in dozens of countries. They will be running and hiding for the rest of their lives. I can't believe that a few more billion dollars in the bank is worth the risk—especially if they won't be able to access those billions.
If you look at the rate of issuance of Tether since June 1 of this year, it has flattened out dramatically.[0] Could it be that the people at Tether have realized that the jig is up, and are now just trying to get things in order so they can walk away clean? Maybe.
Or, it could be that they printed so much funny money last year that the amount of Bitcoin they need to sell is more than the market can accept without tanking the price of Bitcoin, given current market liquidity. Maybe they aren't generating more Tether for themselves because they figured out that whenever they try to sell the Bitcoin they need to sell in order to replenish their reserves, they crash the Bitcoin market. Maybe they're stuck.
Or it could be that Tether is fully backed, that they have never minted any Tether that didn't correspond to $$ in their bank account, and the reason that Tether's growth has slowed is only because people are now buying USDC and other stablecoins instead. (Not likely, in my opinion.)
[0] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether/
If the 95% crash in 2017 didn't kill Tether I'm not sure what kind of price action could, unless they are in a materially worse position now than they were in 2017 (the accusations were already super common).
It really can't happen this way. Between 3 and 4, you'd tank bitcoin's value significantly (assuming $1B is able to triple bitcoin's market value). Any sizeable liquidation of bitcoin at an inflated price is going to affect the price heavily and so now you no longer have 100% backing. (This of course depends on how elastic BTC/USDT price is)
He isn't claiming the $1b tripled bitcoin's price, just that the price tripled while they were holding $1b in coins.
$1b could also triple bitcoins price without the liquidity problems you're talking about because the initial purchase, done intelligently, can increase the price enough to kick-start another buying cycle (bitcoin goes up 100%, ends up on MSM news channels, people download coinbase and buy bitcoin, loop continues).
$1b could also triple bitcoins price without the liquidity problems you're talking about because the initial purchase, done intelligently, can increase the price enough to kick-start another buying cycle (bitcoin goes up 100%, ends up on MSM news channels, people download coinbase and buy bitcoin, loop continues).
[deleted]
Why would it necessarily tank the price? Using tether to pump the price attracts new investors, and if the rally starts to slow, they can just print more
[deleted]
Or people will accept it as paper dollars and carry on regardless. Honestly this wouldn't surprise me - it'll just be a representation of the dollar that things use as an intermediary step.
Well, if Tether isn't backed by dollars, then there's some pretty big questions to answer - for example: "When people buy tether using fiat currency, they hand $1 to bitfinex, and in return get 1USDT. Where did that real $1 go?"
back to the money store (https://vimeo.com/215534945)
Tether claimed their excess reserves were $160 million. So the fine is a quarter of that.
Tether has claimed their excess reserves is almost exactly $160m for more than a year. Two ways to confirm:
- Go look at the wayback machine on their transparency page
- Look at the difference in their attestations
This implies they loot the interest rate yield on their reserves
- Go look at the wayback machine on their transparency page
- Look at the difference in their attestations
This implies they loot the interest rate yield on their reserves
Federal Reserve was crafted in a secret meeting on Jekyll Island (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve) between industry and government.
Still exists and functions today. Lot of people don’t like it, but it’s there regardless.
Even if the origin, operation of Tether is highly suspicious: if it functions, is widely adopted and does what is expected … may last longer than people think.
Best response is more open stable coin equivalents.
Still exists and functions today. Lot of people don’t like it, but it’s there regardless.
Even if the origin, operation of Tether is highly suspicious: if it functions, is widely adopted and does what is expected … may last longer than people think.
Best response is more open stable coin equivalents.
When people say "hey, Tether is no worse than the existing financial system" I wonder if they don't understand the difference between holding a fraction of deposited money as reserves, and only having a fraction of deposited money as assets, period. As far as I know, when the latter happens in a real bank, they get shut down, shareholders lose their money, and only the FDIC saves the depositors.
Just because that's the primary factoid I know about banking.
Just because that's the primary factoid I know about banking.
Moreover the Fed implicitly has the authority to do the bullshit that it does. Arguably that makes it more pernicious and evil, but short of political collective action there's also not much as an individual you can do about it. You can certainly do things about the tether situation, e.g. exit crypto, short tether (this may be stupid, lol), etc.
>...holding a fraction of deposited money as reserves...
US banks haven't had reserve requirements since March 2020.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm
US banks haven't had reserve requirements since March 2020.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm
I've never held any coin but why can't it be true? The money is imaginary anyway and while you can talk about backing dollars with tanks and bomb at the end of the day is there are believers there is a market snd one market can outlive another. Saving depositors in regular banking is pure belief as well.
If a bank makes a loan to somebody else, the value of that loan is recorded as an asset. Customer deposits at a bank are recorded as liabilities. Even when banks loan out money to other people, they are careful to make sure that their assets exceed liabilities--and not by a small amount, but by something like 10%.
Now, not all loans are repaid, and when that happens, the bank will take a write-off of that asset, reducing its assets. In a bad financial crisis, this might hit something 5, 6, 7% of their total assets--but remember that they started with 110% assets over liabilities, so they're still left with more assets over liabilities.
The thing with Tether is that if you look at Tether's claimed accounts, their assets-to-liabilities ratio is 100.2%. When that ratio dips below 100%, you are insolvent. If I recall my math correctly, a 5% drop in the price of Bitcoin would make Tether literally insolvent.
You might argue that all the financial shenanigans are ultimately illusory, but the fact remains that the person crowing about the unreality of finance is the one that is tapdancing on an oil-soaked rope while juggling flamethrowers. And huffing ClF₃ at the same time, perhaps--they're unwilling to tell us.
Now, not all loans are repaid, and when that happens, the bank will take a write-off of that asset, reducing its assets. In a bad financial crisis, this might hit something 5, 6, 7% of their total assets--but remember that they started with 110% assets over liabilities, so they're still left with more assets over liabilities.
The thing with Tether is that if you look at Tether's claimed accounts, their assets-to-liabilities ratio is 100.2%. When that ratio dips below 100%, you are insolvent. If I recall my math correctly, a 5% drop in the price of Bitcoin would make Tether literally insolvent.
You might argue that all the financial shenanigans are ultimately illusory, but the fact remains that the person crowing about the unreality of finance is the one that is tapdancing on an oil-soaked rope while juggling flamethrowers. And huffing ClF₃ at the same time, perhaps--they're unwilling to tell us.
Additionally, that 100.2% figure comes from Tether's own creative accounting. In all likelyhood the numbers are even worse than that.
> a 5% drop in the price of Bitcoin would make Tether literally insolvent.
Didnt BTC go down to 30K from 60K just recently?
Didnt BTC go down to 30K from 60K just recently?
Your point being?
There are many, many ways for businesses to hide their insolvency, for years[1], or even decades[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirecard#Scandal_and_insolvenc...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoff_investment_scandal
There are many, many ways for businesses to hide their insolvency, for years[1], or even decades[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirecard#Scandal_and_insolvenc...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoff_investment_scandal
Yes...but. People say this like it's a guarantee that insolvency won't catch up to them before the public panics, i.e. a bank run.
I don't believe that's correct. Insolvency seems strictly worse than being solvent.
As a depositor, if I don't see anyone else participating in a bank run, assuming the institution is solvent, then I have no reason to.
But if I know they are insolvent, even if nobody else in the world does yet, I have an incentive to immediately start a bank run, unless, say, there are bankruptcy proceedings right away that freeze everything.
It's the difference between musical chairs with one chair removed vs not.
I don't believe that's correct. Insolvency seems strictly worse than being solvent.
As a depositor, if I don't see anyone else participating in a bank run, assuming the institution is solvent, then I have no reason to.
But if I know they are insolvent, even if nobody else in the world does yet, I have an incentive to immediately start a bank run, unless, say, there are bankruptcy proceedings right away that freeze everything.
It's the difference between musical chairs with one chair removed vs not.
I don't know why you think I've ever said or implied that Tether's insolvency is a good thing?
Read OP's point, he/she claimed that a 5% drop in the price of Bitcoin would make Tether literally insolvent, that did not happen when BTC went from 60K to 30K
Insolvent doesn't mean that the company folds up shop immediately. As the person you're replying to points out, it is possible (if unethical) to lie about being insolvent.
And, as the other reply to my comment pointed out, there's a decent likelihood that Tether is actually already insolvent and is doing creative accounting to get the numbers to appear to come out to solvency. 100.2%--especially when a significant amount is in as volatile an asset as cryptocurrencies during an upswing--seems too precisely close to 100% to me to not involve some amount of shenanigans.
And, as the other reply to my comment pointed out, there's a decent likelihood that Tether is actually already insolvent and is doing creative accounting to get the numbers to appear to come out to solvency. 100.2%--especially when a significant amount is in as volatile an asset as cryptocurrencies during an upswing--seems too precisely close to 100% to me to not involve some amount of shenanigans.
Read MY point, please prove (or show any evidence) that it did not happen.
You are claiming something that there is literally NO EVIDENCE of, while vast piles of available evidence points to the very opposite. Tether is, has been, and will continue to be insolvent. The only question is when people will notice.
You are claiming something that there is literally NO EVIDENCE of, while vast piles of available evidence points to the very opposite. Tether is, has been, and will continue to be insolvent. The only question is when people will notice.
I don't believe in Tether, but on the other hand, my logic that insolvency should lead to immediate destruction means...I should believe they are solvent.
I mean, that's basically it. Everything points to insolvency, but if it was, it would be history. Therefore, it must not be.
Anyone who "notices" should make it all fall apart instantly.
And loud mouth short sellers have certainly been wrong before.
I mean, that's basically it. Everything points to insolvency, but if it was, it would be history. Therefore, it must not be.
Anyone who "notices" should make it all fall apart instantly.
And loud mouth short sellers have certainly been wrong before.
> Anyone who "notices" should make it all fall apart instantly.
This is the flaw in your logic. How would you make it all fall apart? You have to force Tether to make good on more of its liabilities than it can make good on, but very probably, most of the people to whom Tether is liable are themselves drinking from Tether's money-printing trough, and it's not in their self-interests to pull the rug out.
To make Tether fall apart, you probably need to force an outflow of most of not only its hard currency reserves, but that of everyone else feeding at its trough. That is not an insignificant amount of money, and exactly how much is literally the $1M question.
This is the flaw in your logic. How would you make it all fall apart? You have to force Tether to make good on more of its liabilities than it can make good on, but very probably, most of the people to whom Tether is liable are themselves drinking from Tether's money-printing trough, and it's not in their self-interests to pull the rug out.
To make Tether fall apart, you probably need to force an outflow of most of not only its hard currency reserves, but that of everyone else feeding at its trough. That is not an insignificant amount of money, and exactly how much is literally the $1M question.
>How would you make it all fall apart?
If they are insolvent, then not everybody can get their money back, which means that you should take your money out immediately no matter what you expect other people to do. It follows that you can expect everyone rational to do the same. It's not that anyone chooses to "make" it fall apart, it's that everyone who finds out their secret should independently participate in making it do so and that reinforces itself.
This contrasts with a bank run on a solvent institution, where you only need to rush to get your money if you think other people will too and they will fail due to lack of short term liquidity.
That's how I imagine the difference anyway.
If they are insolvent, then not everybody can get their money back, which means that you should take your money out immediately no matter what you expect other people to do. It follows that you can expect everyone rational to do the same. It's not that anyone chooses to "make" it fall apart, it's that everyone who finds out their secret should independently participate in making it do so and that reinforces itself.
This contrasts with a bank run on a solvent institution, where you only need to rush to get your money if you think other people will too and they will fail due to lack of short term liquidity.
That's how I imagine the difference anyway.
> my logic that insolvency should lead to immediate destruction
But it doesn't. And it shouldn't.
Businesses can and do survive insolvency (sometimes without the public ever knowing!). Insolvency just means that either liabilities are greater than assets, or cash flow does not meet expenditures. Either one can be a temporary situation which can be solved with things like bridge loans. (Or bankruptcy proceedings!)
More nefariously, in the case of Tether, so long as they don't see redemptions exceeding their assets, they can continue to hide the fact that they are insolvent indefinitely.
But it doesn't. And it shouldn't.
Businesses can and do survive insolvency (sometimes without the public ever knowing!). Insolvency just means that either liabilities are greater than assets, or cash flow does not meet expenditures. Either one can be a temporary situation which can be solved with things like bridge loans. (Or bankruptcy proceedings!)
More nefariously, in the case of Tether, so long as they don't see redemptions exceeding their assets, they can continue to hide the fact that they are insolvent indefinitely.
You are equating liquidity with solvency, it seems to me.
People don't seem to want to admit insolvency is inherently worse than illiquidity.
It may be empirically true that entities can hide insolvency.
But it doesn't seem logical for anyone who knows they are insolvent to ignore it.
If they are solvent, sure, ignore the possibility of a bank run. Why should it start?
But if they are insolvent, then someone will lose their money, and you and everyone else who finds out should want to not be last in line, which should make it collapse almost instantly, provided that the information leaks to any number of people.
It seems sometimes like a lot of things are sort of like Wile E Coyote not falling until he looks down. Something can be widely known, but not believed until some catalyst makes it impossible to deny or rationalize or BS.
Still, learning that something is insolvent ought not to follow that pattern too much, because again, it doesn't matter if everyone else in the world is ignoring the problem, if you are certain it exists, you need to act.
People don't seem to want to admit insolvency is inherently worse than illiquidity.
It may be empirically true that entities can hide insolvency.
But it doesn't seem logical for anyone who knows they are insolvent to ignore it.
If they are solvent, sure, ignore the possibility of a bank run. Why should it start?
But if they are insolvent, then someone will lose their money, and you and everyone else who finds out should want to not be last in line, which should make it collapse almost instantly, provided that the information leaks to any number of people.
It seems sometimes like a lot of things are sort of like Wile E Coyote not falling until he looks down. Something can be widely known, but not believed until some catalyst makes it impossible to deny or rationalize or BS.
Still, learning that something is insolvent ought not to follow that pattern too much, because again, it doesn't matter if everyone else in the world is ignoring the problem, if you are certain it exists, you need to act.
No, I'm not equating liquidity with solvency.
Running out of liquidity is one way of becoming insolvent.
Having more liabilities than assets is the other way.
If you think otherwise, go Google the definition of insolvent.
Thanks.
> In accounting, insolvency is the state of being unable to pay the debts, by a person or company, at maturity
> the state of being insolvent; inability to pay one's debts.
> unable to pay debts owed.
Running out of liquidity is one way of becoming insolvent.
Having more liabilities than assets is the other way.
If you think otherwise, go Google the definition of insolvent.
Thanks.
> In accounting, insolvency is the state of being unable to pay the debts, by a person or company, at maturity
> the state of being insolvent; inability to pay one's debts.
> unable to pay debts owed.
> Read MY point, please prove (or show any evidence) that it did not happen.
It does not work like that, you are making the claim not me. You have to show the evidence.
It does not work like that, you are making the claim not me. You have to show the evidence.
I did show the evidence. Again, read MY point. Goodbye, troll.
(BTW, actually, you made the claim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28924975 )
(BTW, actually, you made the claim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28924975 )
I did not make any claim, that is fact. You can check the BTC price yourself.
Where is the evidence that Tether is insolvent?
Where is the evidence that Tether is insolvent?
[deleted]
> Saving depositors in regular banking is pure belief as well.
Not in the same way. FDIC insurance goes back more than 90 years. Its value has been proven through major financial crises. It is pretty transparent about what it does, and it's accountable to the public. There is also arms-length regulatory verification between banks and their various regulators to make sure that they aren't taking on too much risk.
Tether, on the other hand is intentionally opaque, run by a small number of people, has mysterious relationships with other players, and has been caught lying about their backing. It has never been tested by a serious crisis. And of course there's no real regulation, so you basically have to take the word of people who have demonstrated they're not trustworthy.
Not in the same way. FDIC insurance goes back more than 90 years. Its value has been proven through major financial crises. It is pretty transparent about what it does, and it's accountable to the public. There is also arms-length regulatory verification between banks and their various regulators to make sure that they aren't taking on too much risk.
Tether, on the other hand is intentionally opaque, run by a small number of people, has mysterious relationships with other players, and has been caught lying about their backing. It has never been tested by a serious crisis. And of course there's no real regulation, so you basically have to take the word of people who have demonstrated they're not trustworthy.
>Saving depositors in regular banking is pure belief as well.
What matters, I believe, is that they have the assets to back the liabilities. 100% plus a safety margin. As far as I know, a regular bank or credit union meets that criteria and Tether does not.
Haven't you ever watched "It's a Wonderful Life"? Where the guy in an effort to stop a bank run, explains that the deposits are tied up in the homes and businesses of the people of the community?
That stuff isn't imaginary, it's just that people are panicking and forgot that it's all connected.
What matters, I believe, is that they have the assets to back the liabilities. 100% plus a safety margin. As far as I know, a regular bank or credit union meets that criteria and Tether does not.
Haven't you ever watched "It's a Wonderful Life"? Where the guy in an effort to stop a bank run, explains that the deposits are tied up in the homes and businesses of the people of the community?
That stuff isn't imaginary, it's just that people are panicking and forgot that it's all connected.
Why can't what be true? Do you truly think that Monopoly money is as valuable as real money backed by all the money, power, influence, and force of a major world government?
>real money backed by all the money, power, influence, and force of a major world government
This meme bugs me though, even if the USD is in fact more secure.
I don't think the US military or having to pay US taxes is a requirement for the dollar to be sound and useful.
It's a cliche that people use cigarettes or whatever in prison, with no army backing it up.
Noncitizens use US dollars outside the US, where they are neither subject to its jurisdiction nor owe taxes.
And I think people use or have used Swiss Francs all over the world, without any particular empire or force projection of that state.
What is necessary is that the money supply is kept under control.
This meme bugs me though, even if the USD is in fact more secure.
I don't think the US military or having to pay US taxes is a requirement for the dollar to be sound and useful.
It's a cliche that people use cigarettes or whatever in prison, with no army backing it up.
Noncitizens use US dollars outside the US, where they are neither subject to its jurisdiction nor owe taxes.
And I think people use or have used Swiss Francs all over the world, without any particular empire or force projection of that state.
What is necessary is that the money supply is kept under control.
> Even if the origin, operation of Tether is highly suspicious: if it functions, is widely adopted and does what is expected … may last longer than people think.
I think you're right about this point, and I've been trying to imagine what might cause Tether to collapse - you really need a run on the bank situation triggered by something causing them to become insolvent.
I think you're right about this point, and I've been trying to imagine what might cause Tether to collapse - you really need a run on the bank situation triggered by something causing them to become insolvent.
Liquidity squeezes and credit crises are correlated: inability to repay happens at the same time as unwillingness to lend. In practice, you get a commercial paper default at the same time you get increased liquidity demands. All you need is one event; one fraud, one excess-risk taking that doesn't pay off. If Tether is investing reserves, it is only timing until they default. There is no exception, and everyone sophisticated in finance knows this. Banks play the same games with probability distributions on risk assets; this 'social science' still reliably fails and banks are accordingly bailed out. Tether has no such recourse.
The real question is basically how much is it leveraged. We learned this from so many other frauds/crashes. It's not so much that "as long as there isn't a run on the bank it's fine" it's that an outflow of a tiny percentage could effectively be a run on the bank, since they may only be backed by a tiny fraction of what they claim to be backed by. It's one thing if they have 90% backing. What happens if it turns out it's only backed 0.05%? A run on the bank won't kill them, an averagely bad few days could see it all collapse. This is exactly why banks have regulations.
Like, say, a bunch of Chinese firms who need cash quickly to pay dollar-denominated bonds, all selling their Tether at the same time?
A run on a bank can make it insolvent?
I thought that insolvency was when they don't have the assets to cover their liabilities.
My understanding of a bank run is it happens when a bank is solvent, but doesn't have enough in reserves - liquid, short term assets.
But if they simply don't have at least 100% of their liabilities in assets, then they are bust because they can never pay people back barring a miracle.
I thought that insolvency was when they don't have the assets to cover their liabilities.
My understanding of a bank run is it happens when a bank is solvent, but doesn't have enough in reserves - liquid, short term assets.
But if they simply don't have at least 100% of their liabilities in assets, then they are bust because they can never pay people back barring a miracle.
Insolvent literally means liabilities exceed assets. There are various ways a company can trade while insolvent, including being a Ponzi scheme.
> But if they simply don't have at least 100% of their liabilities in assets, then they are bust.
Only when we find out!
Only when we find out!
Well usually banks have huge audit requirements and are covered in regulation to avoid this happening (after learning what happens when you have entirely unregulated financial institutions)
[deleted]
A crash in the corporate paper they hold, which would destroy the rest of the economy even more. Tether would be a footnote to that event.
That they claim to hold. They won't prove it, and many financial industry insiders have suggested they couldn't possibly hold what is normally thought of as "commercial paper" in the quantities they claim.
What corporate paper?
People always bring this up as though they've ever actually proven to hold reserves as they say. Even though it's been repeatedly proven that they DON'T.
People always bring this up as though they've ever actually proven to hold reserves as they say. Even though it's been repeatedly proven that they DON'T.
Didn't they pay a huge fine for lying about actually being fully backed by assets? This is crypto's biggest problem, the amount of scams.
The fights over the Bank of the United States and the Federal Reserve have been public and well documented. Congress has as much oversight as it wants to grant itself. That's very different from Tether.
Am I missing something here or is this basically a bounty for a black hat hack campaign against tether?
I mean, yeah, fuck those guys, but how is any kind of enforcement to be done on how this information was obtained?
Sysadmin at Microsoft or google with access to their emails may be mighty tempted by this eh?
I mean, yeah, fuck those guys, but how is any kind of enforcement to be done on how this information was obtained?
Sysadmin at Microsoft or google with access to their emails may be mighty tempted by this eh?
It is highly dependent on what prosecutors have jurisdiction and the politics involved. The Duke Lacrosse prosecution is a good example of a prosecutor going over the top on charges for political reasons, and the Jeffrey Epstein plea bargain in 2007 is an example of the opposite.
Sounds like they're offering to bribe an insider to disclose specifics about the "commercial paper"[1], which is presumably how a company like Tether would make most of its money. That is, taking advantage of the time-value of money over short periods of time (< 30 days) with large quantities of money (tranches of $100k) at a time, reserves which any marketplace would naturally have on hand.
Note that Tether looks shady at first blush, with a link to "Proof of Transparency"[2] that is content-free. I also find it sus that their job listings only list "Business Development Specialist" [3].
Is it illegal for a private person to offer to pay someone to illegally snitch on an illegal operation? Do two illegal things cancel out?
1 - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commercialpaper.asp
2 - https://tether.to/latest-assurance-opinion-confirms-tether-f...
3 - https://tether.recruitee.com/
Note that Tether looks shady at first blush, with a link to "Proof of Transparency"[2] that is content-free. I also find it sus that their job listings only list "Business Development Specialist" [3].
Is it illegal for a private person to offer to pay someone to illegally snitch on an illegal operation? Do two illegal things cancel out?
1 - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commercialpaper.asp
2 - https://tether.to/latest-assurance-opinion-confirms-tether-f...
3 - https://tether.recruitee.com/
> Is it illegal for a private person to offer to pay someone to illegally snitch on an illegal operation?
It's not illegal to pay someone for information. If you induce them to violate an NDA, yes, it could be. But given the question "under what jurisdiction does Tether really operate" is a debatable question, I'd say it's probably risky but fine. (If you trade on that information, it could be a different story.)
It's not illegal to pay someone for information. If you induce them to violate an NDA, yes, it could be. But given the question "under what jurisdiction does Tether really operate" is a debatable question, I'd say it's probably risky but fine. (If you trade on that information, it could be a different story.)
> If you induce them to violate an NDA, yes, it could be.
Is violating an NDA illegal? I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I don't think violating an NDA is illegal as in you could go to prison for violating a law. Yes, it could open you up to legal jeopardy as in a lawsuit which could be expensive, but I don't think any laws are violated.
And if you're violating an NDA to expose some corrupt practices it seems like the NDA shouldn't hold any power.
Is violating an NDA illegal? I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I don't think violating an NDA is illegal as in you could go to prison for violating a law. Yes, it could open you up to legal jeopardy as in a lawsuit which could be expensive, but I don't think any laws are violated.
And if you're violating an NDA to expose some corrupt practices it seems like the NDA shouldn't hold any power.
It is not illegal for the person paying the money in most cases. He is not party to the agreement so he cannot break it, many times the buyer may not know such an NDA even exists.
It is different for the person breaking the NDA. In some jurisdictions it only civil crime, it could be criminal as well especially if other acts like insider trading are related etc.
Whistle-blowing protections are a patchwork today, A lot depends on whether you are blowing to a regulatory authority or a established media publications etc. Also how/what you share and how you got it(breaking CFAA is illegal) makes a big difference as well, also being illegal does not mean you will necessarily get prosecuted, it could be bad optics for either the DA/AG (in case criminal) or the company(for civil) to sue - Facebook as yet has not sued Haugen although they clearly have a strong case for example.
It is different for the person breaking the NDA. In some jurisdictions it only civil crime, it could be criminal as well especially if other acts like insider trading are related etc.
Whistle-blowing protections are a patchwork today, A lot depends on whether you are blowing to a regulatory authority or a established media publications etc. Also how/what you share and how you got it(breaking CFAA is illegal) makes a big difference as well, also being illegal does not mean you will necessarily get prosecuted, it could be bad optics for either the DA/AG (in case criminal) or the company(for civil) to sue - Facebook as yet has not sued Haugen although they clearly have a strong case for example.
Never thought about this, but I guess you might be on the hook for fraud if you violated an agreement for profit. That is, an employee violating an NDA for profit might be considered committing fraud against their employer. It's strange - Tether seems shady but I don't think Hindenburg's offer is on firm ethical or legal ground. What if Hindenberg offered $1M for access to a private list of donors to a [prominent abortion rights organization]?
But now that I think about it, why doesn't every successful private contract enforcement action end in a public prosecution for fraud?
But now that I think about it, why doesn't every successful private contract enforcement action end in a public prosecution for fraud?
> That is, an employee violating an NDA for profit might be considered committing fraud against their employer.
I don't think so. Fraud would require an element of deception. Corporate espionage seems like a more probable avenue. IANAL, so I'm not sure who bears the liability here: the buyer, the seller, or both.
> What if Hindenberg offered $1M for access to a private list of donors to a [prominent abortion rights organization]?
This isn't equivalent. They're buying information, not selling it. Specifically, they're buying evidence of illegal acts.
Also, personally, I think there's a wide gap between the reasonable expectations of privacy for a business and an individual.
> But now that I think about it, why doesn't every successful private contract enforcement action end in a public prosecution for fraud?
There's usually not an intent to deceive, so it's not a crime. Also, the contract should specify the damages for violating it. The victim agreed to those penalties at the time of signing, so it wouldn't generally be in the interest of justice to add further penalties unless the behavior was so egregious as to override the victim's choice of penalty.
The accused can also often afford their own lawyers, which makes securing convictions a lot harder.
And there's a self-reinforcing penalty. If you have enough proof to get a conviction, you have enough proof to leak the leaker's name and make them unemployable.
And the criminal justice system is already stressed. These would likely end up getting plead down to something insignificant, because our justice system depends on most cases not going to trial.
There just isn't much to add from a criminal prosecution, and it would cost a lot.
I don't think so. Fraud would require an element of deception. Corporate espionage seems like a more probable avenue. IANAL, so I'm not sure who bears the liability here: the buyer, the seller, or both.
> What if Hindenberg offered $1M for access to a private list of donors to a [prominent abortion rights organization]?
This isn't equivalent. They're buying information, not selling it. Specifically, they're buying evidence of illegal acts.
Also, personally, I think there's a wide gap between the reasonable expectations of privacy for a business and an individual.
> But now that I think about it, why doesn't every successful private contract enforcement action end in a public prosecution for fraud?
There's usually not an intent to deceive, so it's not a crime. Also, the contract should specify the damages for violating it. The victim agreed to those penalties at the time of signing, so it wouldn't generally be in the interest of justice to add further penalties unless the behavior was so egregious as to override the victim's choice of penalty.
The accused can also often afford their own lawyers, which makes securing convictions a lot harder.
And there's a self-reinforcing penalty. If you have enough proof to get a conviction, you have enough proof to leak the leaker's name and make them unemployable.
And the criminal justice system is already stressed. These would likely end up getting plead down to something insignificant, because our justice system depends on most cases not going to trial.
There just isn't much to add from a criminal prosecution, and it would cost a lot.
An NDA would be a civil matter, I would think. It is a remedy for monetary damages, right?
Of course I have no idea if offering someone a large sum of money to violate any kind of contract is in any way illegal or even actionable in civil law since the person can always refuse the money and uphold their contract. If it made you criminally liable, wouldn’t every job offer to someone under contract with a competitor lend you in jail?
IANAL so offer money to break NDAs at your own risk.
Of course I have no idea if offering someone a large sum of money to violate any kind of contract is in any way illegal or even actionable in civil law since the person can always refuse the money and uphold their contract. If it made you criminally liable, wouldn’t every job offer to someone under contract with a competitor lend you in jail?
IANAL so offer money to break NDAs at your own risk.
> Of course I have no idea if offering someone a large sum of money to violate any kind of contract
Hindenburg isn't expressly offering the money for someone to break some contract or NDA. They're just offering money for information. Yes, the person with the information may have to break an NDA to share the information, but that doesn't seem like Hindenburg's problem. It's also possible that some insider with knowledge isn't under an NDA and would be willing to share information for $1M.
Hindenburg isn't expressly offering the money for someone to break some contract or NDA. They're just offering money for information. Yes, the person with the information may have to break an NDA to share the information, but that doesn't seem like Hindenburg's problem. It's also possible that some insider with knowledge isn't under an NDA and would be willing to share information for $1M.
It's not, but tortious interference is a thing
"Induce" is a tricky word; does it imply the target has agency? I think the line is drawn when you strip the target of agency. Does offering a large amount of money constitute stripping a target of agency? It may depend on how you feel about capitalism.
It doesn't have to be an insider
it's a very small group of people with pretty well-known dubious banking connections. I won't rehash it but the CEO of their main bank is some rando with pretty poor spelling.
I doubt anyone beyond the inner circle (I guess maybe the exec assistant of the aforementioned rando might know something interesting) would know anything interesting.
I doubt anyone beyond the inner circle (I guess maybe the exec assistant of the aforementioned rando might know something interesting) would know anything interesting.
Sadly the scheme behind crypto extends well beyond tether. This is what happens when you have money sloshing around unregulated market with very loose margin and leverage limits, free money afforded by central banks, and an absolute mania.
For sure. The circular dependencies and the turtles-all-the-way-down nature of the crypto ecosystem is kind of terrifying to behold. Like watching a car crash. I have a feeling that this all will unravel exactly as everyone has predicted; but at a time no one expects.
Tether is a cryptocurrency with tokens issued by Tether Limited, which in turn is controlled by the owners of Bitfinex
Isn't that absurd? Cryptocurrencies were supposed to be fully decentralized, and not require trusting anybody.
This one depends on financial hacks done by a single private company. It seems like beenz.com, only with a different tech stack.
This one depends on financial hacks done by a single private company. It seems like beenz.com, only with a different tech stack.
Oh, we're all equal and decentralized here, but some are more equal than others.
There has been nothing but Tether doom and gloom since 2017 and yet here it is still at 1.0000 If anyone thinks this will drop, now is the opportunity to short, I suppose.
Circa 2020: There has been nothing but Wirecard doom and gloom since 2019 and yet here it is still at 115. If anyone thinks this will drop, now is the opportunity to short, I suppose.
Exactly. These things dont go down in value slowly as they start rotting. They suddenly collapse in a matter of hours.
Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean you’re wrong.
Shorting Tether is a great play. Either everyone loses faith and nobody trusts them anymore or.... it stays at $1. You are not going to lose. You just have to pay funding fees for your short which on FTX is around 4% a year.
Do you think there is a great chance that Tether is a massive scam and will find its doom within the next 25 years?
My answer to that is yes.
Do you think there is a great chance that Tether is a massive scam and will find its doom within the next 25 years?
My answer to that is yes.
> Shorting Tether is a great play
Why do you think there will be a functioning market to pay you out if and when it collapses?
Why do you think there will be a functioning market to pay you out if and when it collapses?
I think the better trade would be to do a hedged short against bitcoin, perhaps using futures; if Tether collapses, Bitcoin is going to get hurt as well.
> if Tether collapses, Bitcoin is going to get hurt as well.
That's one theory. Another is that the only way out of Tether will be BTC and the pressure will likely push BTC up, at least for a while.
That's one theory. Another is that the only way out of Tether will be BTC and the pressure will likely push BTC up, at least for a while.
On BTC/USDT markets. It will collapse the USD/BTC markets that futures contracts use.
This assumes that USDT/USD somehow holds at the same time USDT collapses? What will actually happen is that USDT will flood into BTC, driving BTC up in terms of USDT and down in terms of USD.
If the peg breaks, it breaks.
If the peg breaks, it breaks.
Or that the person from whom you borrowed Tether to put on your short position won't demand it back while it is collapsing.
That’s the whole point of shorting? If it collapses you will buy it for pennies and give it back
You get paid immediately when opening a short position
> You get paid immediately when opening a short
In what? By whom? If they go bust, you’re just another claim on a bankrupt estate.
In what? By whom? If they go bust, you’re just another claim on a bankrupt estate.
If I short tether, I am borrowing tether and selling it immediately. I get the proceeds from the sale immediately.
The person who lent me the tether can be left holding the bag - I can't. That's because I, the short seller, am not owed anything but the counterparty.
It's like taking out a loan - if the bank goes bankrupt, you don't lose anything since you _still_ have the cash.
The person who lent me the tether can be left holding the bag - I can't. That's because I, the short seller, am not owed anything but the counterparty.
It's like taking out a loan - if the bank goes bankrupt, you don't lose anything since you _still_ have the cash.
Sure, you get "paid", but in reality you're still out money because you had to put down more than you got paid as collateral. That collateral can disappear.
You pay collateral to your broker, not the counterparty.
Also, if you have margin, the broker will lend you collateral and in that case you wouldn't have put up anything from your side (apart from interest payments).
Also, if you have margin, the broker will lend you collateral and in that case you wouldn't have put up anything from your side (apart from interest payments).
You can short the proxies: Coinbase etc
Given how deep FTX is into USDT, it's rather unlikely they'd survive a Tether implosion, and your short position will there will evaporate in a puff of smoke.
What do you mean FTX is deep in USDT?
> What do you mean FTX is deep in USDT?
https://www.newsbtc.com/news/reason-behind-billions-ftx-teth...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQiRA_-VAd8
https://www.newsbtc.com/news/reason-behind-billions-ftx-teth...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQiRA_-VAd8
> Shorting Tether is a great play. ... You just have to pay funding fees for your short which on FTX is around 4% a year.
That's what people shorting the Russian ruble said in 2014. Then funding spiked to 17% a year and a lot of speculators got burned.
That's what people shorting the Russian ruble said in 2014. Then funding spiked to 17% a year and a lot of speculators got burned.
you could probably fund this by selling some far out of money bitcoin puts.
Is there a way to short tether without either significant counterparty risk or absurd interest rates? Looking at Kraken, if I'm reading the chart correctly, it would cost 0.01% / 4 hours to short tether, works out to be a positive-sum bet if you think there's more than a 20% / year chance that tether will go to zero, and you think the counterparty risk is minimal.
However, I'm not sure how likely Kraken is to take the money and run in the event that tether collapses and I have a short position. It also looks like you can do [mumble mumble borrow tether on Aave collateralized by other crypto somehow] which currently costs about a 12% / year, but if I'm understanding correctly that cost is not fixed and would likely go up significantly if tether looked likely to crash.
Can someone who knows more about the topic confirm whether the cost is actually between 12 and 20% per year and the counterparty risk is minimal, and whether or not there are non-obvious footguns with either of the above approaches to shorting tether?
However, I'm not sure how likely Kraken is to take the money and run in the event that tether collapses and I have a short position. It also looks like you can do [mumble mumble borrow tether on Aave collateralized by other crypto somehow] which currently costs about a 12% / year, but if I'm understanding correctly that cost is not fixed and would likely go up significantly if tether looked likely to crash.
Can someone who knows more about the topic confirm whether the cost is actually between 12 and 20% per year and the counterparty risk is minimal, and whether or not there are non-obvious footguns with either of the above approaches to shorting tether?
Crypto twitter's mature response, as expected
https://twitter.com/HindenburgRes/status/1450562266919841798
https://twitter.com/HindenburgRes/status/1450562260993298433
https://twitter.com/HindenburgRes/status/1450562266919841798
https://twitter.com/HindenburgRes/status/1450562260993298433
Well, there's a number of very public, very loud Tether skeptics out there. I guess now we'll find out if they have anything concrete.
I think the skeptics are probably right, but we're at the point where real information needs to be uncovered.
I think the skeptics are probably right, but we're at the point where real information needs to be uncovered.
Back in 2019 Tether was proven to NOT be backed 1:1 in USD. Rather it is backed 74% by fiat AND cash-equivalents. So that 74% is not even 74 literal cents.
Article: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2019/04/30/tether-lawyer-ad...
Article: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2019/04/30/tether-lawyer-ad...
Anyone can issue a "cryptocurrency", yeah, but why would anyone accept that crap? Why would exchanges start trading it if it would take them 10 minutes to launch a "stablecoin" of their own? Was they way in financed by millions and millions of dollars in listing/marketing fees? I think that's the only reason tether even exists.
Let's say Hindenburg gathers definitive proof that Tether is a scam. Tether (and crypto generally) will have an enormous crash. What is the money making position they take in all of this? Short crypto exchanges? Assume the fallout spreads to the wider market?
This made me check the prices. Apparently Bitcoin hit a new all-time high today at over $64k.
ATH is 64.8k iirc, so nearing ATH but not there yet. Watch tomorrow, First day of open trading for BITO ETF, might see a new ATH.
Wasn't today (Oct 19) the first day of open trading?
I don't think it was available until after hours, but don't kill me if I'm mistaken, I didn't try to buy any, nor have I paid that close of attention. My understanding is that it should be available on most brokers tomorrow AM.
It'll be a sell the news small drop if I had to guess
Given the way this is worded and the fact that many crypto fans are also "highly technical", does anyone else feel like this is a request to compromise the Tether organization's infrastructure?
They should denominate the bounty in Bitcoin, or even Zcash/Monero
this is extremely bearish on crypto
BRB, buying puts on everything
BRB, buying puts on everything
It's a very small bounty...missing at least 2 zeros considering the scope of Tether's supply.
No need to overspend. A million dollars will still motivate people with the necessary skills. You can always increase the bounty, decreasing it is frowned upon.
[deleted]
Worth reading for some background..
The $94b crypto mystery
https://www.afr.com/wealth/investing/the-94b-crypto-mystery-...
12ft.io gets around the paywall.
My favourite quote..
"seemed to be practically quilted out of red flags.."
The $94b crypto mystery
https://www.afr.com/wealth/investing/the-94b-crypto-mystery-...
12ft.io gets around the paywall.
My favourite quote..
"seemed to be practically quilted out of red flags.."
Fantastic read, thank you.
How can one profit from a crypto bubble? I’ve heard of an ETF for shorting Bitcoin but never saw any specifics. Can anyone provide a reputable brokerage for shorting crypto currencies?
short sell MicroStrategy (mstr), they are pegged to crypto because they decided to hold large amounts of crypto as a corporation
New crypto ETF is also right around the corner. There will definitely be futures on that.
New crypto ETF is also right around the corner. There will definitely be futures on that.
> MicroStrategy invested ... in Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset ... [and] has spent over $2.2 billion purchasing Bitcoin [0]
WTH? Why does a company with a $7b market cap need over $2b of "treasury reserve assets"?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroStrategy
WTH? Why does a company with a $7b market cap need over $2b of "treasury reserve assets"?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroStrategy
The ETF is based on the futures, which have existed for years.
You don't need an ETF for that, you can directly short any crypto at many exchanges. To profit from the short you should obviously time the market well.
If Tether implodes, strong risk those exchanges do too. Massive counterparty risk.
Got it. In that case, you can short $COIN. I wouldn't recommend it for another 3-6 months though.
I’ve lost all faith in my ability to time this lol. It has to come down someday, and the bigger it gets the harder it falls. But Tether has a remarkable ability to kick things down the road so far.
Nobody really has such faith, if you can time the market, you've invented a money printing machine :)
Buy puts on the new Bitcoin ETF that launched today (BITO)
LedgerX.
But... does it ultimately matter? All the other sh*tcoins are backed against nothing and have huge market caps as well.
It’s different because Tether claims to hold 1 USD for each Tether. A claim that should be verifiable.
The value of sh*tcoins is just a function of their future resale value.
The value of sh*tcoins is just a function of their future resale value.
They claim to hold assets with values equivalent to 1 USD / Tether. Different than holding the USD directly.
They provide a more detailed breakdown here: https://tether.to/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/tether_assuranc...
About half in commercial paper and CODs. A quarter in t-bills. 2B in unspecified "digital tokens".
They provide a more detailed breakdown here: https://tether.to/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/tether_assuranc...
About half in commercial paper and CODs. A quarter in t-bills. 2B in unspecified "digital tokens".
Yes, now that they've been caught claiming to hold 1 USD per Tether without doing so, they claim it's only stuff worth (in their estimation!) 1 USD per Tether. And still refuse to provide any evidence that they are doing so.
Please stop defending them.
Please stop defending them.
I generally agree, not sure why anyone would choose to use Tether when their are alternatives like USDC. However I still think it is important to properly represent Tether's current claims.
Drug/arms/human trafficking operations can have easier time cashing hundreds of millions via shady Tether than US-based audited and KYCed USDC.
Of course it does. Fraud is a crime for a reason.
It’s almost certain now that Tether doesn’t have fiat currency to back up its claimed value. But it’s a convenient fiction for everyone to keep believing as long as you’re not the one holding the Tethers when everyone suddenly decides to stop believing.
Given that 70% of all crypto transactions involve Tethers, the market cap of everything in crypto is more realistically denominated in Tethers than dollars.
Yes because if they're saying they have tons of USD-equivalent and buying other coins with it then they've been artificially inflating the other coins with bogus funds
[deleted]
Wow, bold move :)
Tether is just shady which is not a word people generally want associated with their money.
One challenge may be that, like the Mafia, Tether keeps its inner circle and employs family members. They have ~15 employees for a 70 billion dollar operation.
The CTO’s wife is a manager, and the CEO’s daughter works for an unnamed crypto family office, which may be related.
Their counterparties in Chinese commercial paper may not know they are counterparties due to proxies.
Still, the statements are out there. Zeke Faux from Bloomberg got a copy of their records somehow. They’ve had to give them to the New York Attorney General, and their accountants in the Cayman Islands, among others. And other counterparties may have bits and pieces.
Someone may be tempted by this.