3 ms·
You're asking a number of questions that have no bearing on whether they've produced financial information for the balance sheet. We can get to those issues, b
by jpmattia 6y ago
You're asking a number of questions that have no bearing on whether they've produced financial information for the balance sheet. We can get to those issues, but first I want to make sure you understand the difference between lawsuit discovery and the initial subpoena.
The initial subpoena requested financial information. I inferred that the time elapsed since the subpoena to mean tether backing was demonstrated. You mentioned that tether is fighting discovery, implying that financial information has not been provided. The subpoena and discovery are two entirely different matters, and moreover the reason discovery is happening is because Tether Inc complied with the subpoena.
It is the reason that all but the tinfoil-hat people have stopped worrying about tether. Their business might go under, but it wasn't the silly printing fraud that people like Bitfinexed were claiming.
- raesene9 6y agoSo you're inferring that iFinex provided information in response to the Subpoena, just based on it having been a while.... Do you have any evidence of iFinex having provided all the relevant financial information relating to their balance sheet to the NYAG (a court filing for example). All the court filing's I've seen relate to their case state that they're still fighting having to provide their financial information. Edit: you can read the latest court filing here https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=A7OmCd1LNbrQaRdGxJAzYQ== https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docInde... . Now IANAL but that does not sound to me like the NYAG was given the information needed. And the information they did provide was enough to cause the NYAG to initiate the martin act hearing they're currently contesting.
- jpmattia 6y agoFirst: Do you understand that the subpoena preceded lawsuit discovery?