4 ms·

> To me, its more like they leaned into what the assumptions about them because they couldn't shake the assumptions Ah yes, the reasonable defense of "Your hon

> To me, its more like they leaned into what the assumptions about them because they couldn't shake the assumptions Ah yes, the reasonable defense of "Your honor, I only robbed the bank because someone thought I was going to. Therefore, it's not my fault."

vmception 5y ago
its not a defense, I'm not an apologist. corporations lie. I don't actually find that controversial maybe because we are not 4 years old anymore. this is what happened, they settled, does your passion over how you frame this topic actually matter?
- freejazz 5y ago
  you literally explained a completely nonsensical reason as to why they did what they did. call it whatever you want...
  - vmception 5y ago
    its not different than someone that everyone overwhelmingly trusts was found to have moved the reserves. here everyone just expected them to be doing that, and eventually they did it, not different than someone nobody expected to be doing that eventually being found to have done it as well. these cases prove that at one point they had not, even when everyone assumed they were. its like taking a time machine back to 2016 and telling people "hey actually they're fully backed", its interesting to find out, from the state's investigations, that they actually were. thats the only chronology I explained. lets play a new game: what's inaccurate about what I said? seems like thats a much more productive discussion. the reason I think the distinction matters is because its resolved now. And that resolution involves Tether still existing. So our passion about a systemic threat to crypto and maybe the broader financial system will not involve the state doing something about that. which is fairly important to understand, both for your decision to use it even if briefly, or for espousing your passion about why others shouldn't use it.

4 ms·

> To me, its more like they leaned into what the assumptions about them because they couldn't shake the assumptions Ah yes, the reasonable defense of "Your hon

by nrmitchi 5y ago

vmception 5y ago
its not a defense, I'm not an apologist. corporations lie. I don't actually find that controversial maybe because we are not 4 years old anymore. this is what happened, they settled, does your passion over how you frame this topic actually matter?
- freejazz 5y ago
  you literally explained a completely nonsensical reason as to why they did what they did. call it whatever you want...
  - vmception 5y ago
    its not different than someone that everyone overwhelmingly trusts was found to have moved the reserves. here everyone just expected them to be doing that, and eventually they did it, not different than someone nobody expected to be doing that eventually being found to have done it as well. these cases prove that at one point they had not, even when everyone assumed they were. its like taking a time machine back to 2016 and telling people "hey actually they're fully backed", its interesting to find out, from the state's investigations, that they actually were. thats the only chronology I explained. lets play a new game: what's inaccurate about what I said? seems like thats a much more productive discussion. the reason I think the distinction matters is because its resolved now. And that resolution involves Tether still existing. So our passion about a systemic threat to crypto and maybe the broader financial system will not involve the state doing something about that. which is fairly important to understand, both for your decision to use it even if briefly, or for espousing your passion about why others shouldn't use it.