3 ms·

New York AG: Tether lost $800m and then funded it from their crypto exchange. Bitfinex: Poland seized half a billion, Portugal nearly all the rest. Is it real

New York AG: Tether lost $800m and then funded it from their crypto exchange. Bitfinex: Poland seized half a billion, Portugal nearly all the rest. Is it really beyond Bloomberg to actually go and ask the Polish or Portuguese government this rather than play he said, she said? There's so many Dunning-Kruger comments/opinion pieces on the matter and years of HN threads about tether that it's all a bit tiring. Bitfinex doesn't serve US customers, people have been calling it's imminent implosion from day one, there's now All-American stable-coin alternatives that surely want their business, ulterior motives could be anywhere. For anyone with yet another confident assertion of it's demise, please jump in and short it against USD right here: https://trade.kraken.com/markets/kraken/usdt/usd/1h https://trade.kraken.com/markets/kraken/usdt/usd/1h Put your money where your mouth is :)

dmos62 7y ago
A bit off topic, but Kraken has a history of really bad technical problems with their platform. Culmination as far as I'm concerned, was when it went dead for days after a botched upgrade. So, given that you're criticizing a product for unreliability, there's some irony in that you finish by directing people to Kraken.
- ShorsHammer 7y ago
  Not really following here, which product was I criticising? Bloomberg? I generally expect a better standard even though it is classed opinion. They've had an entire working day to parse the basic assertions by both parties. As for Kraken, is it preferable they didn't take their time fixing the issue and instead let people deposit money into a bug-ridden neon-flashing hacker target? Caution should probably be appreciated in these matters, the alternative path isn't pretty.
  - dmos62 7y ago
    I wasn't attacking your position. I was warning people about Kraken.
FireBeyond 7y ago
> Bitfinex doesn't serve US customers A large part of the contention is that Bitfinex, unlicensed to operate at all in NY, has NY-based employees, and customers, even after its "No US customers". That was the initial driver for the NY OAG to go after them.
- ShorsHammer 7y ago
  Someone getting a loan and falsifying all the documents is the one facing prosecution, not the bank. All seems to be a bit upside down here, given the prevalence of mortgage fraud and who ends up in court. As for remote employees living in NY I guess that probably does constitute operating there, then again I'm no lawyer with a knack for arguing semantics. Does this count for someone living in an Brooklyn airbnb for a month and working from their laptop?
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    Not quite that simple. If you're not licensed as a business to trade in a state, and you accept a customer in that state, then you're on the hook (yes, if customer falsifies documents, then that's on them). Tether/Bitfinex didn't always forbid NY customers, and didn't always forbid US customers, and the OAG's allegation is that they continue to knowingly serve NY customers (the US prohibition is a business decision, not a regulator). KYC/AML says that you must make a good faith effort to verify documentation/ID, etc. The contention is more that they're doing so "under the radar". Just like "friends of Bitfinex" - employees/friends who have agreed to use their personal bank accounts to enable wire transfers on Bitfinex's behalf (I mean, WTF...).

dmos62 7y ago

A bit off topic, but Kraken has a history of really bad technical problems with their platform. Culmination as far as I'm concerned, was when it went dead for days after a botched upgrade. So, given that you're criticizing a product for unreliability, there's some irony in that you finish by directing people to Kraken.

ShorsHammer 7y ago
Not really following here, which product was I criticising? Bloomberg? I generally expect a better standard even though it is classed opinion. They've had an entire working day to parse the basic assertions by both parties. As for Kraken, is it preferable they didn't take their time fixing the issue and instead let people deposit money into a bug-ridden neon-flashing hacker target? Caution should probably be appreciated in these matters, the alternative path isn't pretty.
- dmos62 7y ago
  I wasn't attacking your position. I was warning people about Kraken.

FireBeyond 7y ago

> Bitfinex doesn't serve US customers A large part of the contention is that Bitfinex, unlicensed to operate at all in NY, has NY-based employees, and customers, even after its "No US customers". That was the initial driver for the NY OAG to go after them.

ShorsHammer 7y ago
Someone getting a loan and falsifying all the documents is the one facing prosecution, not the bank. All seems to be a bit upside down here, given the prevalence of mortgage fraud and who ends up in court. As for remote employees living in NY I guess that probably does constitute operating there, then again I'm no lawyer with a knack for arguing semantics. Does this count for someone living in an Brooklyn airbnb for a month and working from their laptop?
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  Not quite that simple. If you're not licensed as a business to trade in a state, and you accept a customer in that state, then you're on the hook (yes, if customer falsifies documents, then that's on them). Tether/Bitfinex didn't always forbid NY customers, and didn't always forbid US customers, and the OAG's allegation is that they continue to knowingly serve NY customers (the US prohibition is a business decision, not a regulator). KYC/AML says that you must make a good faith effort to verify documentation/ID, etc. The contention is more that they're doing so "under the radar". Just like "friends of Bitfinex" - employees/friends who have agreed to use their personal bank accounts to enable wire transfers on Bitfinex's behalf (I mean, WTF...).