3 ms·

To repeat the other reply: The primary suspicion about tether was lack of solvency, and the [edit: CFTC] subpoena went out in late 2017. It would not have take

To repeat the other reply: The primary suspicion about tether was lack of solvency, and the [edit: CFTC] subpoena went out in late 2017. It would not have taken more than some weeks to determine if the assets were not present. It's pretty hard to imagine the AG sat on tether insolvency for 18 months.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> The primary suspicion about tether was lack of solvency, and the subpoena went out in late 2017 Per the court filing, the investigation of Bitfinex and Tether began in 2018 and the subpoena went out on November 27, 2018.
- jpmattia 8y ago
  We're apparently talking about two different subpoenas. CFTC subpoenaed Tether back in 2017: See eg https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4hW_8LK03JcJ:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-30/crypto-exchange-bitfinex-tether-said-to-get-subpoenaed-by-cftc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4hW_8L...
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    So...the CFTC isn't a State of New York agency, so what does this have to do with the reading into a New York AG action that Tether must have been solvent otherwise the AG wouldn't have sat on information since then? (Also, the CFTC and US DoJ investigations were still active at least as recently as November of 2018, which doesn't sound like they found that things were A-OK, more like they were—and presumably still are—trying to nail down the details and responsibility/liability issues surrounding identified irregularities.)
    - jpmattia 8y ago
      > So...the CFTC isn't a State of New York agency, so what does this have to do with the reading into a New York AG action that Tether must have been solvent otherwise the AG wouldn't have sat on information since then? Because it's pretty hard to imagine the CFTC would not have communicated with the NY AG if they had the info about Tether's insolvency. Also hard to imagine NY AG not contacting CFTC before filing. > (Also, the CFTC and US DoJ investigations were still active at least as recently as November of 2018, which doesn't sound like they found that things were A-OK, more like they were—and presumably still are—trying to nail down the details and responsibility/liability issues surrounding identified irregularities.) Again, with regard to insolvency, it's pretty hard to imagine CFTC would allow Tether to continue operations for more than a year if they had evidence of insolvency.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Because it's pretty hard to imagine the CFTC would not have communicated with the NY AG if they had the info about Tether's insolvency It's also pretty hard to imagine that, in filing their own case, the NY AG would reveal sensitive information about a still-active federal investigation, but that's your apparent theory. > it's pretty hard to imagine CFTC would allow Tether to continue operations for more than a year if they had evidence of insolvency. It's pretty easy to imagine that of taking action would in any endanger the ongoing DoJ criminal investigation that it would hold back; it's worth noting that the ongoing law enforcement investigation exemption was among the exemptions CFTC cited in June of last year in declining to provide documents in response to an FOIA request about the Tether-related subpoena.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> The primary suspicion about tether was lack of solvency, and the subpoena went out in late 2017 Per the court filing, the investigation of Bitfinex and Tether began in 2018 and the subpoena went out on November 27, 2018.

jpmattia 8y ago
We're apparently talking about two different subpoenas. CFTC subpoenaed Tether back in 2017: See eg https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4hW_8LK03JcJ:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-30/crypto-exchange-bitfinex-tether-said-to-get-subpoenaed-by-cftc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4hW_8L...
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  So...the CFTC isn't a State of New York agency, so what does this have to do with the reading into a New York AG action that Tether must have been solvent otherwise the AG wouldn't have sat on information since then? (Also, the CFTC and US DoJ investigations were still active at least as recently as November of 2018, which doesn't sound like they found that things were A-OK, more like they were—and presumably still are—trying to nail down the details and responsibility/liability issues surrounding identified irregularities.)
  - jpmattia 8y ago
    > So...the CFTC isn't a State of New York agency, so what does this have to do with the reading into a New York AG action that Tether must have been solvent otherwise the AG wouldn't have sat on information since then? Because it's pretty hard to imagine the CFTC would not have communicated with the NY AG if they had the info about Tether's insolvency. Also hard to imagine NY AG not contacting CFTC before filing. > (Also, the CFTC and US DoJ investigations were still active at least as recently as November of 2018, which doesn't sound like they found that things were A-OK, more like they were—and presumably still are—trying to nail down the details and responsibility/liability issues surrounding identified irregularities.) Again, with regard to insolvency, it's pretty hard to imagine CFTC would allow Tether to continue operations for more than a year if they had evidence of insolvency.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Because it's pretty hard to imagine the CFTC would not have communicated with the NY AG if they had the info about Tether's insolvency It's also pretty hard to imagine that, in filing their own case, the NY AG would reveal sensitive information about a still-active federal investigation, but that's your apparent theory. > it's pretty hard to imagine CFTC would allow Tether to continue operations for more than a year if they had evidence of insolvency. It's pretty easy to imagine that of taking action would in any endanger the ongoing DoJ criminal investigation that it would hold back; it's worth noting that the ongoing law enforcement investigation exemption was among the exemptions CFTC cited in June of last year in declining to provide documents in response to an FOIA request about the Tether-related subpoena.