4 ms·

> Or more likely tether isn’t backed by anything at all. In order to believe this, you have to believe that Leticia James got the data from the NYAG subpoenas,

> Or more likely tether isn’t backed by anything at all. In order to believe this, you have to believe that Leticia James got the data from the NYAG subpoenas, and then ignored the fact that Tether has no backing. So no, not "more likely".

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
arcticbull 5y ago
Did you read the settlement? [1] > New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office says it found that Tether sometimes held no reserves to back its cryptocurrency’s dollar peg. It said that, from mid-2017, the company had no access to banking and misled clients about liquidity issues. [2] It also depends on what you believe the role of that settlement was. Some speculated it was a trial balloon for a federal suit. [1] https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2021.02.17_-_settlement_agreement_-_execution_version.b-t_signed-c2_oag_signed.pdf https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2021.02.17_-_settlemen... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/23/tether-bitfinex-reach-settlement-with-new-york-attorney-general.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/23/tether-bitfinex-reach-settle...
- jpmattia 5y ago
  > Did you read the settlement? Yes. It says that tether held securities/receivables denominated in dollars rather than actual dollars, despite Tether's claim that they held dollars. I could not find anywhere that the settlement claimed "no reserves", despite CNBC's quote. [edit: It came out of the AG press release, not the settlement. As near as I can tell the settlement makes no representation that tether is unbacked, only that it is unbacked directly by US dollars, which was the Tether advertising up until 2017.]
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    They lost all access to banking meaning that there was no physical way for them to create redeem Tethers. That makes it de facto un-backed. This is addressed in 14/ through 18/. They lost access to banking, and continued to issue Tethers. > 18/ Because Tether did not have a significant bank relationship in its name from at least March 2017 until September 15, 2017, it could not directly process any fiat deposits for purchases of Tethers by customers on either the Tether website or via the Bitfinex trading platform. And yet in that period they issued some 400M tethers.
    - jpmattia 5y ago
      > That makes it de facto un-backed. It makes them un-backed by US Dollars in a bank account. It does not make them un-backed by securities denominated in US dollars, which was my point. It's also likely why she never pursued a fraud case.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        That was a settlement for fraud under the Martin act. Fraud was the charge settled.
        jpmattia 5y ago
        Fine, a criminal fraud case. Nobody went to jail.
        ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
        do you have any reasonable justification to move the goalposts like that?
        jpmattia 5y ago
        The standard of evidence is very different between civil cases (preponderance of the evidence) and criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

arcticbull 5y ago

Did you read the settlement? [1] > New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office says it found that Tether sometimes held no reserves to back its cryptocurrency’s dollar peg. It said that, from mid-2017, the company had no access to banking and misled clients about liquidity issues. [2] It also depends on what you believe the role of that settlement was. Some speculated it was a trial balloon for a federal suit. [1] https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2021.02.17_-_settlement_agreement_-_execution_version.b-t_signed-c2_oag_signed.pdf https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2021.02.17_-_settlemen... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/23/tether-bitfinex-reach-settlement-with-new-york-attorney-general.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/23/tether-bitfinex-reach-settle...

jpmattia 5y ago
> Did you read the settlement? Yes. It says that tether held securities/receivables denominated in dollars rather than actual dollars, despite Tether's claim that they held dollars. I could not find anywhere that the settlement claimed "no reserves", despite CNBC's quote. [edit: It came out of the AG press release, not the settlement. As near as I can tell the settlement makes no representation that tether is unbacked, only that it is unbacked directly by US dollars, which was the Tether advertising up until 2017.]
- arcticbull 5y ago
  They lost all access to banking meaning that there was no physical way for them to create redeem Tethers. That makes it de facto un-backed. This is addressed in 14/ through 18/. They lost access to banking, and continued to issue Tethers. > 18/ Because Tether did not have a significant bank relationship in its name from at least March 2017 until September 15, 2017, it could not directly process any fiat deposits for purchases of Tethers by customers on either the Tether website or via the Bitfinex trading platform. And yet in that period they issued some 400M tethers.
  - jpmattia 5y ago
    > That makes it de facto un-backed. It makes them un-backed by US Dollars in a bank account. It does not make them un-backed by securities denominated in US dollars, which was my point. It's also likely why she never pursued a fraud case.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      That was a settlement for fraud under the Martin act. Fraud was the charge settled.
      - jpmattia 5y ago
        Fine, a criminal fraud case. Nobody went to jail.
        ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
        do you have any reasonable justification to move the goalposts like that?
        jpmattia 5y ago
        The standard of evidence is very different between civil cases (preponderance of the evidence) and criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt).