3 ms·

> No one has ever been scammed by Bitfinex or Ether. There is no monetary loss, ever. Yet. Like all frauds, they succeed until they don't. People thought they

> No one has ever been scammed by Bitfinex or Ether. There is no monetary loss, ever. Yet. Like all frauds, they succeed until they don't. People thought they made money in Enron, Madoff, etc until it unraveled and there was nothing. > When Bitfinex got hacked a few years ago, they worked out a repayment program, and fully repaid all creditors. Tether is so monumentally different. In fact, Bitfinex repaid creditors with tokens, the value of which are denominated in USDT and almost certainly have been inflated through Tether issuance. So basically Bitfinex repaid a hack with massive fraud. > While Tether made misrepresentations after a banking fiasco When your core business is trust and transparency, this isn't an "oh well" type of issue. > The USG doesn't tend to settle unless they are satisfied. Categorically untrue. Also, the NYAG is not the USG in the slightest. If I were Tether, I would be a lot more concerned about the SDNY USAG than I would be about the NYAG.

dannyw 5y ago
> When your core business is trust and transparency, this isn't an "oh well" type of issue. As a user, the core business prop of BFX/Tether is that they keep my money, and maintain my ability to use the platform without KYC. If I want a super-duper legit stablecoin, I'd use USDC. Tether is about bringing stability to the chaos of non-KYC, anonymously-operated exchanges, like the 100x leverage ByBit, or the various smaller no-banking, Tether-only exchanges. And they've done that. When you place copper (Tether) next to burning trash (balances held on anonymously operated exchanges), the former looks like gold. Sure, it's not as good as actual gold, but that doesn't mean it's a scam. Bitfinex and Tether has weathered and survived a variety of doomsday scenarios, from Crypto Capital, US seizure of bank accounts, the Bitfinex hack, and the NYAG investigation. I think you're expecting Bitfinex or Tether to be Coinbase. They're not. If you look between the lines, and look at how Tether is used, the whole point is that you can have safe USD without any AML or KYC. And since 2014, Bitfinex and Tether has fulfilled that promise despite so many obstacles. For someone trying to move capital out of China for example, Tether considerably is safer than Yuan in an onshore bank account. For people prosecuted by the USA, like the founder of Sci-Hub, Tether is safer than any USD bank account.
- qeternity 5y ago
  > If I want a super-duper legit stablecoin, I'd use USDC They are morphing into Tether. Look at recent legal structure change, attestations, reserves breakdown, etc. But your core premise (Tether as a dollar substitute for the unbankable) is predicated on there being two states of the universe (USD in risky places vs. Tether) which isn't true and ignores the key issue: all of those Tethers may not hold any value. In the real world, Tether is not the only alternative, nor is USDC. For instance, the Sci-Hub founder can hold any other major currency or frankly any non USD asset. The crypto world constantly create false equivalencies to justify their casino. Fiat sucks long term? Yeah, by design...money velocity is a good thing, you shouldn't be holding cash, and few people do. This is why there are trillion dollar markets for other productive assets, like equities.
  - dannyw 5y ago
    The Sci-Hub founder can hold any other major crypto, sure, but it's volatile. How do you propose she allow international donations? Via a SWIFT bank account? Via cash in the mail to a postal address? The easiest and most liquid mechanism is for people like her to accept crypto donations (e.g. Bitcoin), and convert it to non-KYC stablecoins like USDT so the purchasing power is preserved. It's not hard to explain the 60B market cap when you combine "non-KYC" and "stablecoin", and if you believe it's not backed by anything, you can open a short on USDT right now, using DeFi like Compound. Your upside is 100%, your downside is the cost of borrowing (about a few percentage a year). The market believes $1 = 1 USDT, with a volume of $53 billion in the past 24 hours.
    - qeternity 5y ago
      > The Sci-Hub founder can hold any other major crypto, sure, but it's volatile. Why do you guys do this? It's so painful speaking with crypto die-hards. I said she could hold any other major currency, which of course implies fiat. How about EUR? How about CHF? How about GBP? I don't know enough about her but hell she could hold RUB...still less volatile than crypto. > How do you propose she allow international donations? That's her problem. This goes with the territory of running an illegal website, no matter how idealistic you find her cause. But basically once again, crypto's primary use-case (as you've outlined) is skirting laws. That's fine, it's a real use-case. But just quit pretending that crypto is the future of money. > It's not hard to explain the 60B market cap when you combine "non-KYC" and "stablecoin", and if you believe it's not backed by anything, you can open a short on USDT right now, using DeFi like Compound. Your upside is 100%, your downside is the cost of borrowing (about a few percentage a year). I agree, it's very easy to explain. That's what this video is all about. As for shorting USDT, that's about the dumbest thing you could do, and your DeFi example is absolutely naive. I want to be short USDTUSD...I can't do that in DeFi. I can be short Tether against something else whose value at the moment is determined by circulating Tethers. If you think DAI survives a Tether implosion, you're dreaming. And if it did, I still need a fiat offramp and if you think Coinbase is a good counterparty in that scenario, well then I am beginning to understand you a little bit. In my career as a hedge fund trader, I don't think I've come across a worse trade than shorting USDT. > The market believes $1 = 1 USDT, with a volume of $53 billion in the past 24 hours. Yes, and? If the market didn't believe this, then there wouldn't be a story here.

dannyw 5y ago

> When your core business is trust and transparency, this isn't an "oh well" type of issue. As a user, the core business prop of BFX/Tether is that they keep my money, and maintain my ability to use the platform without KYC. If I want a super-duper legit stablecoin, I'd use USDC. Tether is about bringing stability to the chaos of non-KYC, anonymously-operated exchanges, like the 100x leverage ByBit, or the various smaller no-banking, Tether-only exchanges. And they've done that. When you place copper (Tether) next to burning trash (balances held on anonymously operated exchanges), the former looks like gold. Sure, it's not as good as actual gold, but that doesn't mean it's a scam. Bitfinex and Tether has weathered and survived a variety of doomsday scenarios, from Crypto Capital, US seizure of bank accounts, the Bitfinex hack, and the NYAG investigation. I think you're expecting Bitfinex or Tether to be Coinbase. They're not. If you look between the lines, and look at how Tether is used, the whole point is that you can have safe USD without any AML or KYC. And since 2014, Bitfinex and Tether has fulfilled that promise despite so many obstacles. For someone trying to move capital out of China for example, Tether considerably is safer than Yuan in an onshore bank account. For people prosecuted by the USA, like the founder of Sci-Hub, Tether is safer than any USD bank account.

qeternity 5y ago
> If I want a super-duper legit stablecoin, I'd use USDC They are morphing into Tether. Look at recent legal structure change, attestations, reserves breakdown, etc. But your core premise (Tether as a dollar substitute for the unbankable) is predicated on there being two states of the universe (USD in risky places vs. Tether) which isn't true and ignores the key issue: all of those Tethers may not hold any value. In the real world, Tether is not the only alternative, nor is USDC. For instance, the Sci-Hub founder can hold any other major currency or frankly any non USD asset. The crypto world constantly create false equivalencies to justify their casino. Fiat sucks long term? Yeah, by design...money velocity is a good thing, you shouldn't be holding cash, and few people do. This is why there are trillion dollar markets for other productive assets, like equities.
- dannyw 5y ago
  The Sci-Hub founder can hold any other major crypto, sure, but it's volatile. How do you propose she allow international donations? Via a SWIFT bank account? Via cash in the mail to a postal address? The easiest and most liquid mechanism is for people like her to accept crypto donations (e.g. Bitcoin), and convert it to non-KYC stablecoins like USDT so the purchasing power is preserved. It's not hard to explain the 60B market cap when you combine "non-KYC" and "stablecoin", and if you believe it's not backed by anything, you can open a short on USDT right now, using DeFi like Compound. Your upside is 100%, your downside is the cost of borrowing (about a few percentage a year). The market believes $1 = 1 USDT, with a volume of $53 billion in the past 24 hours.
  - qeternity 5y ago
    > The Sci-Hub founder can hold any other major crypto, sure, but it's volatile. Why do you guys do this? It's so painful speaking with crypto die-hards. I said she could hold any other major currency, which of course implies fiat. How about EUR? How about CHF? How about GBP? I don't know enough about her but hell she could hold RUB...still less volatile than crypto. > How do you propose she allow international donations? That's her problem. This goes with the territory of running an illegal website, no matter how idealistic you find her cause. But basically once again, crypto's primary use-case (as you've outlined) is skirting laws. That's fine, it's a real use-case. But just quit pretending that crypto is the future of money. > It's not hard to explain the 60B market cap when you combine "non-KYC" and "stablecoin", and if you believe it's not backed by anything, you can open a short on USDT right now, using DeFi like Compound. Your upside is 100%, your downside is the cost of borrowing (about a few percentage a year). I agree, it's very easy to explain. That's what this video is all about. As for shorting USDT, that's about the dumbest thing you could do, and your DeFi example is absolutely naive. I want to be short USDTUSD...I can't do that in DeFi. I can be short Tether against something else whose value at the moment is determined by circulating Tethers. If you think DAI survives a Tether implosion, you're dreaming. And if it did, I still need a fiat offramp and if you think Coinbase is a good counterparty in that scenario, well then I am beginning to understand you a little bit. In my career as a hedge fund trader, I don't think I've come across a worse trade than shorting USDT. > The market believes $1 = 1 USDT, with a volume of $53 billion in the past 24 hours. Yes, and? If the market didn't believe this, then there wouldn't be a story here.