5 ms·

The difference is I can choose not to hold Tether. Removing my exposure to dollars as a US citizen is a lot harder. Not to mention people that are on a fixed in

by bko 5y ago

The difference is I can choose not to hold Tether. Removing my exposure to dollars as a US citizen is a lot harder. Not to mention people that are on a fixed income like my parents. So debasing fiat is a lot worse

itsoktocry 5y ago
>The difference is I can choose not to hold Tether. Removing my exposure to dollars as a US citizen is a lot harder. Did you miss the part about them lying? "I have a right to choose to buy something" for whom the value is deceptively obfuscated is quite the argument.
- roenxi 5y ago
  If the US Fed lies, do they get fined? Pretty sure the answer is no, because they have so much power they don't need to lie. They do what they like then change the rules so they can do the same thing legally. The argument here isn't that what Tether is going is good (it isn't). It is that if the government did it, it would come with "and all you plebs have to join in because bankers making money is good for us all".
spywaregorilla 5y ago
That is part of being part of the society, yes.
- anm89 5y ago
  So is having the right to hold other currencies and assets. Tell that to an Argentinian who has had their life ruined because of the lack of foresight from the the people who run their society.
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    Incorrect, no such right is necessarily guaranteed by societies. For example, during much of the 1900s you were required to sell gold to the US government for USD rather than keep it under your mattress, and if you refused they had the right to seize it with force. For another example, negative savings interest rates in certain European countries.
    - waterhouse 5y ago
      > during much of the 1900s you were required to sell gold to the US government for USD rather than keep it under your mattress, and if you refused they had the right to seize it with force Many considered this a violation of their rights. Justly so. I would say that "no such right is necessarily guaranteed" is only true in the sense that no rights at all are necessarily guaranteed.
      - floatingatoll 5y ago
        That's nice, but regardless, the law stood for forty years, even surviving the Supreme Court^. Society abrogates individual rights by its very existence, and anarchic utopias that exclude all abrogation tend to fail comically^^ and/or catastrophically^^^. It turns out that compromise is a necessary factor of coexistence with other human beings, especially those we disagree with. If you don't feel that your rights are being abrogated by society in some regard, then you either are unfamiliar with the unconscious rights we all take for granted, and/or your circumstances align with the corruption that rich and well-connected people benefit from. In the US, the Constitution guarantees you specific and inalienable rights, and lays out clear terms that the government is not permitted to violate without consequence. While corruption exists, and no constitution is ever written or enforced perfectly, your declaration that no rights are guaranteed is incorrect for US citizens in the US. Other countries have similar guarantees of rights, such as the EU and GDPR, not to mention many older ones as well, so that statement is incorrect in various ways for those as well. Societies vary wildly in who is granted rights and what rights those are and when they may be abrogated without consequence. Corruption is endemic to virtually all modern societies, small and large. Regardless, rights are granted in most of them. I respect those that feel that their rights are violated by the laws of the society they are members of, but that is no excuse to declare provably false statements ("no rights at all") as if they're facts. You'll need to invest more effort in your arguments to make headway with that declaration, or define what "rights" means to you that lets you declare that you have none, or declare that the society you are a member of does not guarantee you personally any rights whatsoever. ^ For example: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/294/330 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/294/330 ^^ For example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28441794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28441794 ^^^ A popular counterexample is an Icelandic system of government from a thousand years ago, frequently held up as an example of libertarian utopia that lasted for centuries. However, the governmental laws that implemented the godord specifically abrogated the rights of the citizens of Iceland, binding them without individual consent to the societal system of godords, laws, courts, judgments, and enforcements. If you ignored the judgment of the courts, you were stripped of your societal right to live; anyone could kill you without being punished for doing so. Ironically, this meant that in this ancient system, societal outlaws were truly freed from all abrogations of their rights, as they were cast out from society as a whole. However, being marked for murder by those who do accept societal abrogations tends to diminish the enjoyment somewhat.
frankbreetz 5y ago
I believe a tether collapse would have a significant effect on the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem
- kaashif 5y ago
  It would at least open the door to more regulation, not to mention prudence on the parts of investors. I can't escape the feeling some of these risks aren't being priced in properly. I don't think very many average people are invested in crypto significantly, if at all, despite the hype, so hopefully the harm would be limited.
  - fancifalmanima 5y ago
    ^ This is the reason why more folks in crypto should be worried about and enraged by tether. Inevitably, there will be a market condition that leads to tether being insolvent. And when that day comes the people that get hurt will be every day crypto holders. The people running tether will run off with many, many millions of dollars and many will wonder how the heck this happened. And it'll lead to regulation. And centralization.
- headmelted 5y ago
  This is the big question mark, and why I sigh when people shrug it off. How much of the demand for these tokens is being driven by money that never really existed? 100%? 50%? 0.02%? There’s no way of knowing until it crashes - then what? e.g. if the price dives by 50%, and that really equates to 200% of the actual capital ever invested, what happens then? I was listening to Darknet Diaries episode 102 today about the Canadian money printer, and I was thinking the entire way through it that it was basically describing tether but with paper and ink. It got especially eye-opening when he talked about having to manage how it was released into circulation slowly so as no-one could track where it was coming from.
- creepto 5y ago
  It would be a crash of epic proportions.
- deleted 5y ago
lupire 5y ago
Sure but "not holding Tether" is just "Tether not existing" but with extra wasteful steps.
8note 5y ago
You only need to change citizenships to get off the dollar. It's a package deal
tmcw 5y ago
Most people didn't own money market accounts or buy collateralized debt obligations in 2008, but the collapse of those things, ahem, affected them.

by bko 5y ago

itsoktocry 5y ago

>The difference is I can choose not to hold Tether. Removing my exposure to dollars as a US citizen is a lot harder. Did you miss the part about them lying? "I have a right to choose to buy something" for whom the value is deceptively obfuscated is quite the argument.

roenxi 5y ago
If the US Fed lies, do they get fined? Pretty sure the answer is no, because they have so much power they don't need to lie. They do what they like then change the rules so they can do the same thing legally. The argument here isn't that what Tether is going is good (it isn't). It is that if the government did it, it would come with "and all you plebs have to join in because bankers making money is good for us all".

spywaregorilla 5y ago

That is part of being part of the society, yes.

anm89 5y ago
So is having the right to hold other currencies and assets. Tell that to an Argentinian who has had their life ruined because of the lack of foresight from the the people who run their society.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  Incorrect, no such right is necessarily guaranteed by societies. For example, during much of the 1900s you were required to sell gold to the US government for USD rather than keep it under your mattress, and if you refused they had the right to seize it with force. For another example, negative savings interest rates in certain European countries.
  - waterhouse 5y ago
    > during much of the 1900s you were required to sell gold to the US government for USD rather than keep it under your mattress, and if you refused they had the right to seize it with force Many considered this a violation of their rights. Justly so. I would say that "no such right is necessarily guaranteed" is only true in the sense that no rights at all are necessarily guaranteed.
    - floatingatoll 5y ago
      That's nice, but regardless, the law stood for forty years, even surviving the Supreme Court^. Society abrogates individual rights by its very existence, and anarchic utopias that exclude all abrogation tend to fail comically^^ and/or catastrophically^^^. It turns out that compromise is a necessary factor of coexistence with other human beings, especially those we disagree with. If you don't feel that your rights are being abrogated by society in some regard, then you either are unfamiliar with the unconscious rights we all take for granted, and/or your circumstances align with the corruption that rich and well-connected people benefit from. In the US, the Constitution guarantees you specific and inalienable rights, and lays out clear terms that the government is not permitted to violate without consequence. While corruption exists, and no constitution is ever written or enforced perfectly, your declaration that no rights are guaranteed is incorrect for US citizens in the US. Other countries have similar guarantees of rights, such as the EU and GDPR, not to mention many older ones as well, so that statement is incorrect in various ways for those as well. Societies vary wildly in who is granted rights and what rights those are and when they may be abrogated without consequence. Corruption is endemic to virtually all modern societies, small and large. Regardless, rights are granted in most of them. I respect those that feel that their rights are violated by the laws of the society they are members of, but that is no excuse to declare provably false statements ("no rights at all") as if they're facts. You'll need to invest more effort in your arguments to make headway with that declaration, or define what "rights" means to you that lets you declare that you have none, or declare that the society you are a member of does not guarantee you personally any rights whatsoever. ^ For example: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/294/330 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/294/330 ^^ For example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28441794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28441794 ^^^ A popular counterexample is an Icelandic system of government from a thousand years ago, frequently held up as an example of libertarian utopia that lasted for centuries. However, the governmental laws that implemented the godord specifically abrogated the rights of the citizens of Iceland, binding them without individual consent to the societal system of godords, laws, courts, judgments, and enforcements. If you ignored the judgment of the courts, you were stripped of your societal right to live; anyone could kill you without being punished for doing so. Ironically, this meant that in this ancient system, societal outlaws were truly freed from all abrogations of their rights, as they were cast out from society as a whole. However, being marked for murder by those who do accept societal abrogations tends to diminish the enjoyment somewhat.

frankbreetz 5y ago

I believe a tether collapse would have a significant effect on the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem

kaashif 5y ago
It would at least open the door to more regulation, not to mention prudence on the parts of investors. I can't escape the feeling some of these risks aren't being priced in properly. I don't think very many average people are invested in crypto significantly, if at all, despite the hype, so hopefully the harm would be limited.
- fancifalmanima 5y ago
  ^ This is the reason why more folks in crypto should be worried about and enraged by tether. Inevitably, there will be a market condition that leads to tether being insolvent. And when that day comes the people that get hurt will be every day crypto holders. The people running tether will run off with many, many millions of dollars and many will wonder how the heck this happened. And it'll lead to regulation. And centralization.
headmelted 5y ago
This is the big question mark, and why I sigh when people shrug it off. How much of the demand for these tokens is being driven by money that never really existed? 100%? 50%? 0.02%? There’s no way of knowing until it crashes - then what? e.g. if the price dives by 50%, and that really equates to 200% of the actual capital ever invested, what happens then? I was listening to Darknet Diaries episode 102 today about the Canadian money printer, and I was thinking the entire way through it that it was basically describing tether but with paper and ink. It got especially eye-opening when he talked about having to manage how it was released into circulation slowly so as no-one could track where it was coming from.
creepto 5y ago
It would be a crash of epic proportions.
deleted 5y ago

lupire 5y ago

Sure but "not holding Tether" is just "Tether not existing" but with extra wasteful steps.

8note 5y ago

You only need to change citizenships to get off the dollar. It's a package deal

tmcw 5y ago

Most people didn't own money market accounts or buy collateralized debt obligations in 2008, but the collapse of those things, ahem, affected them.