[HN Gopher] Federal investigators probe Tether
___________________________________________________________________
Federal investigators probe Tether
Author : dcgudeman
Score : 73 points
Date : 2024-10-25 18:08 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Tether was launched in 2014 [1]. It has over $120bn in
| outstanding liabilities against unknown assets [2]. When it
| fails, it will rival the fourth-largest 'bank' failure in U.S.
| history [3].
|
| This has been a complete failure of U.S. regulatory bodies.
|
| [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tether-usdt.asp
|
| [2] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether/
|
| [3]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_bank_failures_...
| SheinhardtWigCo wrote:
| It really is just a bank without any of the regulatory
| safeguards. A disastrous outcome is inevitable.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _really is just a bank without any of the regulatory
| safeguards_
|
| A "bank is a financial institution that accepts deposits from
| the public and creates a demand deposit while simultaneously
| making loans" [1]. Tether doesn't offer demand deposits--
| withdrawals are subject to a minimum and fee [2]. It's thus
| not a bank, but a bank-like shadow bank [3].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank
|
| [2] https://tether.to/en/redeem-tethers-to-fiat-currency/
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| Exactly - a massive failure of regulatory bodies. I wonder why.
| It was similar with Madoff - there were people literally
| sending documents showing it's a fraud, and they did nothing
| for years.
|
| I don't follow crypto lately, but it seems that Tether is
| printing money in high interest rate period.
|
| But back before that, it was a complete joke - it was so
| apparent that they published only made up numbers that didn't
| really add up, pretended to get legitimate transfers of
| billions of $ on Sundays etc.
|
| They were investigated once by a US A.G. and found out to have
| lied on the reserves in the past, but nothing really serious
| happened. They got a fine and were forced to published a pseudo
| balance sheet, which was a joke (still a bit better than FTX's
| Excel spreadsheet).
| llamaimperative wrote:
| > Exactly - a massive failure of regulatory bodies. I wonder
| why. It was similar with Madoff - there were people literally
| sending documents showing it's a fraud, and they did nothing
| for years.
|
| For this to mean much (unfortunately), we have to know how
| many legitimate companies are being constantly reported as
| fraudulent. Similar to the FBI's flawless "they were on our
| radar" after every mass shooting event... if _everyone_ is on
| the radar then it 's not that informative that this person
| was too.
|
| Madoff's returns were so egregious that they definitely
| should've been looked into despite any of this^ though.
| Arguably Tether should be looked into if only because of the
| systemic risk it (allegedly?) produces for the crypto
| universe more broadly. But then again... no one seems to
| eager to spend a bunch of investigative resources to bail out
| an economy of anti-government gamblers/degenerates.
| fellowniusmonk wrote:
| Free money and failure to regulate means scammers have never
| been more flush and able to talk with money. It's not a great
| space to be in, glad this administration placed Lina Kahn and
| others, without competition free markets can't operate
| efficiently. Both regulatory capture and natural monopolies
| all jam up the works. People don't remember it but one of the
| best things that ever happened to tech was the anti-trust
| suit brought against M$, anti-competitive behavior is such a
| drag on tech innovation, that combined with the incremental
| win for right to repair is all great progress.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Aren't you comparing the wrong values. Those banks that failed
| had more _assets_ than tether has _liabilities_.
|
| However, the actual difference between assets and liabilities
| was significantly less than 120bn for those banks. With Tether,
| I imagine the collapse will go from 1:1 redemptions day 1 to
| "oops all gone" day 2.
|
| So I expect Tether to be the largest "bank" failure in US
| history by terms of loss of value.
| paulpauper wrote:
| Just another reason why crypto is inferior. So much risk , no
| upside. like investing in mortgage/ bank stocks in 2007.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| No upside?
|
| Historically, or purely in the context of this article,
| assuming it's true?
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Ah, finally, will Tether get its day in the litigious sun? It's
| well known in cryptocurrency circles that their coin is not
| backed 1:1 to USD, similar to FTX, only that FTX crashed and this
| was found out the easy way. Cracking Tether will be much harder
| as they resist audits.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Cracking Tether will be much harder as they resist audits_
|
| If Tether is sanctioned, they can't hold most dollar-
| denominated assets. Certainly none of the safe or liquid ones.
| Figuring out why it failed may take some digging. But causing
| it to fail is trivial.
| alchemist1e9 wrote:
| > It's well known in cryptocurrency circles that their coin is
| not backed 1:1 to USD, similar to FTX, only that FTX crashed
| and this was found out the easy way.
|
| Being speculated about is not the same as "known". In fact
| every tether investigation seems to end up showing they are
| even over capitalize and hold more than 1:1!
|
| My understanding of the audit situation was that the big
| accounting firms have refused to do it, presumably due to
| pressure from someone to not get involved.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _every tether investigation seems to end up showing they
| are even over capitalize and hold more than 1:1_
|
| The one adversarial investigation I know of found the
| opposite [1].
|
| > _presumably due to pressure from someone to not get
| involved_
|
| Not how audit works.
|
| [1] https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2021.02.17_-_settle
| men...
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| Can you link one of these investigations that show that
| tether is backed more than 1:1 with the USD?
| alchemist1e9 wrote:
| I will try to find it. I would also point out they hold
| excess reserves in Bitcoin.
|
| My guess is nobody can get them on not being 1:1 but this
| idea of AML violations as the attack vector makes a lot of
| sense.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _they hold excess reserves in Bitcoin_
|
| We had precisely the same amount of information about
| FTX's Bitcoins as we do for Tether, for what it's worth.
| alchemist1e9 wrote:
| bc1qjasf9z3h7w3jspkhtgatgpyvvzgpa2wwd2lr0eh5tx44reyn2k7sf
| c27a4
|
| Isn't that the public Tether bitcoin address with over
| 75K coins?
|
| https://platform.arkhamintelligence.com/explorer/address/
| bc1...
|
| That's precisely A LOT more than anyone knew about FTX's
| non-existent Bitcoin.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| That is a wallet with a lot of Bitcoins in it. We don't
| know to what degree it's controlled by Tether. We don't
| know the degree to which it's otherwise encumbered. If I
| recall correctly, FTX also pointed to wallets with
| Bitcoins in them from time to time.
|
| To be clear, I am not saying Tether is committing fraud.
| Just that to the extent there have been investigations,
| they came up short, and that them being short is not even
| among the main risks to their existence.
| bombcar wrote:
| Isn't the whole argument against Tether that they print
| Tether out of nothing, buy Bitcoin with it, and now have
| Bitcoin (and increased the price of Bitcoin)?
| alchemist1e9 wrote:
| Actually, the NYAG settlement doesn't support that
| conspiracy theory. The investigation found no evidence
| that Tether printed USDT 'out of nothing' to manipulate
| Bitcoin. The issues raised were about transparency in
| Tether's reserves during specific periods when funds were
| managed by third parties, not about unbacked issuance.
| Tether has since updated its policies, making clear the
| types of assets backing USDT.
| roenxi wrote:
| > I would also point out they hold excess reserves in
| Bitcoin.
|
| Regardless of whether that is true or not, seems like a
| terrible idea. Tether doesn't need backing on the crypto
| side of the ledger - they can create new tether there. If
| there is a depeg, it'll be from a large amount of money
| flowing from Bitcoin -> USD or the like. It is highly
| likely that will correlate to the price of bitcoin
| dropping (possibly substantially in the event of a Tether
| depeg). So I'd expect the valuation of their reserves to
| correlate in a bad way with the chance of them needing to
| sell those reserves.
|
| Presumably they're doing this for operational reasons but
| I wouldn't put much weight to it in a discussion on
| Tether's resilience.
|
| Plus, being a cynic I'd treat that as evidence _against_
| Tether being fully backed. Crypto that Tether owns
| directly could easily have been purchased without any
| fiat money entering the crypto ecosystem.
| timssopomo wrote:
| The issue is that "stablecoin" doesn't mean anything
| legally. US regulators have collectively abdicated their
| responsibility to create fair rules that encourage
| innovation while protecting investors and creditors.
|
| Tether publishes their reserves [1], only 4% are Bitcoin.
| 84% is "cash & cash equivalents & other short-term
| deposits", 3% is precious metals, 5.55% is "secured
| loans". They report $5B in net equity, ~4.2%. So
| basically, if their collection of assets declines in
| value by 4.2%, they become unable to redeem every coin.
| There are a _lot_ of ways for that to happen with 87% of
| their assets in T-bills and money market funds. If the
| shortest T-bill is 4 weeks to maturity, they have plenty
| of time to incur interest rate risk (e.g.: Silicon Valley
| Bank).
|
| [1]: https://tether.to/en/transparency/?tab=reports
| jdenning wrote:
| This is the most recent one linked on their site[1]:
|
| https://assets.ctfassets.net/vyse88cgwfbl/6h4YWqZOXbwtBaPtY
| g...
|
| Edit: to save people a click, the report shows 125 Billion
| in assets vs 113 Billion in liabilities. Approx 81 Bil in
| T-bills
|
| [1]https://tether.to/en/transparency/?tab=reports
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| FFS, we're like three years out from FTX and we're taking
| RAEs seriously again?
| jujube3 wrote:
| It would be very simple for Tether to just hold $1 for each 1
| Tether coin. They could invest their cash in safe assets like
| treasury bills that yield 4% or more. Meanwhile, they pay no
| interest in Tethers. So they get a 4% return for doing
| nothing at all.
|
| As far as I know, there is no evidence that they are doing
| anything else. (There is some evidence that they did
| something else in the past, when interest rates were way
| lower.) But this hasn't stopped tons of people from
| speculating that they are.
| from-nibly wrote:
| If it was that easy then we'd probably see more banks that
| do just that.
| pavlov wrote:
| That is what banks do.
|
| But it's more complicated because the current trading
| value of a bond is not the same as the expected return
| you'd get if you hold it to maturity. Last year Silicon
| Valley Bank and others got into trouble for this reason.
|
| Let's say you invested $100M into a 10-year bond when
| interest rates were at 2%. With interest, you'll be
| getting back about $122M in ten years. Nice.
|
| But what if you're a bank and suddenly every depositor
| wants to withdraw that $100M? You can't wait ten years.
| You need to sell the bond. Now you face the problem that
| interest rates are at 4%. Somebody with $100M can invest
| it in a 10-year bond that will return $148M instead of
| your measly $122M. So nobody will pay full price for your
| 2% bond because they can get a better return elsewhere.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _there is no evidence that they are doing anything else_
|
| There is a _lot_ of evidence they aren 't just buying
| Treasuries. The only times people looked, the money was
| being held in weird stuff, including frozen deposits at
| non-FDIC insured banks and private loans [1].
|
| [1] https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2021.02.17_-_sett
| lemen...
| treyd wrote:
| > It would be very simple for Tether to just hold $1 for
| each 1 Tether coin.
|
| It would _not_ be "very simple" for them to do this. _No_
| commercial bank lets you walk up to the teller with $1B and
| ask to deposit it, much less $93B. The financial system
| doesn 't work that way. They _have_ to cycle it through
| bonds on the repo market, which is what most huge firms do.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| > It's well known in cryptocurrency circles that their coin is
| not backed 1:1 to USD
|
| Its well known in the legal space and has already been
| addressed by multiple US courts. They're not looking for that
| and this isn't controversial.
|
| Those court cases already happened in 2018-2020. Tether just
| needed to update its language. A financial institution not
| backed 1:1 to USD isn't a problem in any part of the banking
| sector, they just need a disclaimer that says that, and Tether
| updated their's and moved on. Those court cases were also about
| specific periods of time and were very intelligent and more
| nuanced than the Tether discourse in crypto spaces. Tether has
| periodically had more assets available, and its only
| controversy was about whether those were USD and US Treasuries
| amongst other things.
|
| This is a probe about violating AML laws and sanctions. Which
| would likely only involve specific addresses in crypto and some
| onramps. But otherwise crypto-crypto trading won't be a part of
| this.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _a probe about violating AML laws and sanctions. Which
| would likely only involve specific addresses in crypto and
| some onramps. But otherwise crypto-crypto trading won 't be a
| part of this._
|
| You think a dollar stablecoin won't be affected by being
| prohibited from touching dollars or the dollar financial
| system?
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I didn't say that, that statement doesn't imply that or
| suggest that.
|
| The result of this probe likely won't be that as the DOJ is
| just emboldened by their Binance and CZ conviction, where
| the founder spent a couple months at a Southern California
| Federalbsummer camp and the DOJ got a few billion dollars,
| and Binance continues to operate as before and no further
| regulatory overhang is above them and all the money coming
| in and out is magically seen as clean.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Fair enough. That said, Binance can co-operate with
| authorities in a way Tether may be technically limited in
| being able to.
| fallinditch wrote:
| Here's a fascinating piece of history that sheds light on the
| Bitfinex/FTX/Tether shenanigans. Originally a Medium post that
| was removed at some point, here's an archived copy. It details
| how Bitfinex/Tether manipulated BTC to make serious $$.
|
| I think the article also points to the origins of the FTX
| fraud: was Sam Bankman Fried involved in these BTC
| manipulations? Or inspired by it to create his own exchange?
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20180620111632/https://medium.co...
| daft_pink wrote:
| deleted. I have to figure out the exact agency and repost sorry.
| I thought it was the sec, but I am wrong.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Tether effectively evaded future SEC oversight by
| withdrawing from the U.S. market and operating outside U.S.
| jurisdiction_
|
| U.S. "jurisdiction is triggered when a payment in U.S. dollars
| [takes] place and the U.S. financial system [is] used" [1].
|
| EDIT: Tether withdrew from New York State's jurisdiction as
| part of its settlement with the New York AG [2], not to be
| confused with the U.S. attorney based in Manhattan.
|
| [1]
| https://www.ziv.unibe.ch/unibe/portal/fak_rechtwis/c_dep_pri...
|
| [2]
| https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2021.02.17_-_settlemen...
| neonate wrote:
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/federal-investigator...
| has the article
| alchemist1e9 wrote:
| https://x.com/paoloardoino/status/1849876338573799912
|
| CEO of Tether - "As we told to WSJ there is no indication that
| Tether is under investigation. WSJ is regurgitating old noise.
| Full stop."
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| U.S. attorneys are under no obligation to tell people they are
| investigating that they are under investigation. That doesn't
| prove the _Journal_ 's assertion. But it's nonsense to the
| point of suspicion to conclude from not having been noticed
| that there is no investigation.
| dogmayor wrote:
| Yeah that's not how investigations work. USAOs don't publicize
| ongoing investigations for obvious reasons. Once they wrap up
| an investigation but before convening a grand jury to indict,
| they may send a target letter, but they typically don't. Most
| often, people don't find out until they're indicted.
| Bluescreenbuddy wrote:
| Going to screenshot that incase it ages like milk.
| paulpauper wrote:
| yup. his words mean little
| paulpauper wrote:
| "trust me bro"
|
| Someone tipped off the WSJ, and more will probably be
| developing
| qqqult wrote:
| Yearly Tether obituary thread
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Tether obituary thread_
|
| Timing its collapse is foolhardy. Concluding it must collapse
| isn't. It's a shadow bank run without deposit insurance nor
| AML.
| qqqult wrote:
| Why must it collapse?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Why must it collapse?_
|
| One, because the consequences of an AML failure are
| immediately catastrophic: a dollar stablecoin can't
| reasonably survive without access to the dollar financial
| system. Tether's unregulated status means enforcement
| options are zero or ban. (Banks can be fined and put under
| compliance regimes.) Running a perfect AML programme
| indefinitely is impossible. There is no indication Tether
| runs much of an AML programme at all.
|
| Two, because bank-like structures are inherently unstable.
| Asset values fluctuate. The banks they hold cash or assets
| at will fail, sometimes beyond deposit insurance limits.
| Unlike banks, Tether has the benefit of being able to block
| redemptions. But they can only do that so many times before
| a regulator takes notice.
|
| In summary, Tether exists at the pleasure of American
| regulators and the consequences of losing favour are
| collapse. They're compliance-wise and financially unstable.
| The consequences of a single failure won't be catastrophic.
| But eventually they will fail for the same reason every
| bank without deposit insurance will, eventually, fail.
| alchemist1e9 wrote:
| Governments don't like stable coins so even if it is
| perfectly 1:1 they will still try to find a way to go after
| them.
|
| Other commenters have hinted the path is "sanctions" for
| not enforcing some controls..
|
| Personally I can't wait for governments to go after stable
| coins, then Bitcoin will really "moon"!
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Governments don't like stable coins so even if it is
| perfectly 1:1 they will still try to find a way to go
| after them_
|
| There are plenty of regulated stablecoins [1]. Hell, my
| state is launching one [2].
|
| Governments usually have to subpoeana banks to get
| transaction records. With a stablecoin, those records are
| centralised.
|
| [1] https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/StableCoin
| Report_...
|
| [2] https://www.ledgerinsights.com/state-of-wyoming-
| plans-stable...
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| It's more "every four years" at about this time isn't it?
| charliebwrites wrote:
| My unsubstantiated conspiracy theory on this is that not only is
| Tether not backed 1:1 USD > USDT but that they are so
| disproportionately not backed that they basically printed money
| during the peak of the pandemic, causing real measurable
| inflation in the crypto markets
| ldjkfkdsjnv wrote:
| How bitcoin got huge was basically tether money printing. since
| it wasnt backed by anything, they just printed tether and bought
| bitcoin. a group did it behind the scenes, got massively wealthy.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| And at stupid numbers that cryptofans just ate up like it was
| perfectly logical.
|
| "Oh, you're banking $700M PER DAY in deposits for Tether?
| Sounds legit to me!"
| wmf wrote:
| I don't know why, but the one thing cryptobros fear is OFAC. They
| shrug off fraud, securities violations, and money laundering but
| when sanctions are mentioned people start running away. We saw
| this with Tornado Cash and hopefully Tether will get OFACed next.
|
| BTW, Tether probably is backed 1:1 or better because they bought
| $XXB of US treasury bonds at >4% which return billions in profit
| per year. BTC is also (currently) near all time highs. Whatever
| hole they had was probably filled in.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Both presidential candidates have signaled that they are pro-
| crypto scams (and one thinks that has something to do with the
| welfare of black men.) It's too late. Bitcoin has entered the
| house price zone, where people are elected to office on promises
| to make housing _as expensive as possible._ We 'll have to wait
| until crypto brings down the entire economy. And after it does,
| the people who hold it will be bailed out:
|
| "Do you know how many disadvantaged minorities are invested in
| crypto? Especially after we allowed them to invest their social
| security into it, with matching contributions from the state if
| they agree to hodl? Are you a racist monster?"
|
| Meanwhile 90% of black people will have 90% of their savings in
| crypto, accounting for less than 2% of all crypto holdings.
|
| FTX so far was barely a speedbump. All it taught politicians is
| that there's a lot of money in doing what crypto whales say, and
| absolutely no consequences even if it goes belly up in the worst
| way.
| paulpauper wrote:
| It's just pandering. Neither candidate will do anything.
| Existing regulation will stay in place or tighten.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Good timing, along with the election. Going by history there's
| the likelihood of a ~20% dip in the BTC price before it takes a
| couple of big steps up in the last few months of the bull run
| part of the 4-year cycle.
|
| If it happens, accumulate.
| gosub100 wrote:
| Don't buy a pizza with it, or help Aunt Mildred with an
| expense, or loan your brother $4k though, because it's useless
| for any practical purposes.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| I'm aware of these things, but good points to know for the
| uninitiated.
| paulpauper wrote:
| Why would I accumulate something which has so much risk and so
| much downside when I can just buy tech stocks like TSLA or NVDA
| which actually go up, with less risk and less volatility? Meta,
| Nvidia, QQQ have beaten bitcoin for years now. The time to have
| bought bitcoin was pre-2017 or so. those days over for good.
| Bitcoin is weak and bloated, never goes up anymore, too many
| old wallets and whales dumping. Too much regulation.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Depends on your timescale and when to buy and sell.
|
| Depending on the reason, I'd also say it would be worth
| buying Meta, NVDA, TSLA, etc. on a 20% dip, especially if
| they were going into a season where, historically, they makes
| their largest gains.
| 100k wrote:
| Zeke Faux's Number Go Up (https://www.amazon.com/Number-Go-Up-
| Cryptos-Staggering/dp/05...) started as an investigation into
| Tether. He found some extremely suspect clues, but he wasn't able
| to crack it. Hopefully the feds are able to shed some light on
| it.
| stogot wrote:
| From what I've seen, they waited a couple years longer than they
| should have. I expect tether deleted evidence by now
| gws wrote:
| For those doubting that Tether is fully backed, note that Howard
| Lutnick, CEO of Cantor Fitzgeral, one of the largest investment
| banks and a public company, has stated that Cantor Fitzgeral
| manages Tether's money and indeed the money is all there and
| invested in US treasury bonds
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Howard Lutnick, CEO of Cantor Fitzgeral, one of the largest
| investment bank and a public company, has stated that Cantor
| Fitzgeral manages Tether's money and indeed the money is all
| there and invested in US treasury bonds_
|
| Source? I'm seeing Fitzgerald say "Cantor Fitzgerald manages
| 'many many' of" Tether's assets (not all) and that he can vouch
| for their balance sheet [1]. But _not_ that Cantor manages all
| of its assets nor that it 's all in Treasuries.
|
| [1]
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-16/tether-s-...
| gws wrote:
| The most comprehensive and forceful statements are in this
| video: https://youtu.be/IjR3Hj0aRW4?si=s2D0wjQOIS5uiFKh
| pfisherman wrote:
| What are the incentives at work here? What is their risk
| exposure to a collapse of tether? What would be the reputation
| al risk to their firm if tether was a scam?
|
| I personally would take this with a grain of salt as they have
| a direct financial interest in Tether looking solid and
| prestigious and continuing its present operations.
|
| I am old enough to remember when investment banks touting their
| mortgage backed securities business before the collapse in
| 2008.
| jerry1979 wrote:
| I'm very curious to see how this investigation plays out,
| especially considering the debt situation here in the US. It
| appears (according to tether's audit reports) that tether went
| from about 64 billion in treasuries mid-2023 to about 92 billion
| mid-2024. That's 27 billion in demand for treasuries over that
| one year period which (if my math and research is correct) is
| about 3% of all treasury demand for roughly that time period.
|
| It does appear that tether holds short-term maturity treasuries,
| and I don't know how that fits into the larger demand picture.
|
| https://assets.ctfassets.net/vyse88cgwfbl/63oJePOHqIvrcnXWMP...
|
| https://assets.ctfassets.net/vyse88cgwfbl/6h4YWqZOXbwtBaPtYg...
|
| https://ticdata.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-cent...
| paulpauper wrote:
| This is just another example of how shorting Bitcoin during
| market hours is such an effective strategy, which is as
| profitable now at $60k as it was at $20k. This takes advantage of
| the tendency of bad news to drop when the stock market is open.
| Federal government offices are closed on weekends, so if bad news
| is dropped or a rumor of bad news, it will be on a weekday and
| when the market is open, as has been the case.
|
| Good news can also drop, but there is a major asymmetry favoring
| bad news and liquidations, and consequently sudden drops of the
| Bitcoin price. You don't have to work at a hedge fund to find
| great methods like this.
|
| It also shows why Bitcoin is an inferior investment compared to
| tech stocks, in which investors do not have to worry about these
| regulatory risks (except for antitrust, which is a slow, drawn-
| out process and this can be mitigated with diversification). QQQ
| has far outperformed Bitcoin even as far back as 2020.
| domoregood wrote:
| https://archive.is/bCRd3
| ironyman wrote:
| Tether's press release: https://tether.io/news/tether-slams-wsjs-
| irresponsible-repor...
| lolinder wrote:
| Is it actually just those two paragraphs, or is something not
| rendering correctly?
|
| If that's all there is, it's not a great defense. Maybe they
| felt like the WSJ article was just so unfair it didn't deserve
| a response, but then... just don't respond. This kind of
| righteous indignation with no actual rebuttal isn't persuasive.
| cryptica wrote:
| If Tether is a fraud then the entire financial system is clearly
| a fraud as well. What kind of financial system allows a fraud of
| this size to continue for over a decade? Let me guess, nobody
| knew anything. Yet the government knows about every transaction
| over $600 on all our accounts. It's clown world.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-25 23:01 UTC)