5 ms·

Read MY point, please prove (or show any evidence) that it did not happen. You are claiming something that there is literally NO EVIDENCE of, while vast piles

Read MY point, please prove (or show any evidence) that it did not happen. You are claiming something that there is literally NO EVIDENCE of, while vast piles of available evidence points to the very opposite. Tether is, has been, and will continue to be insolvent. The only question is when people will notice.

sumedh 5y ago
> Read MY point, please prove (or show any evidence) that it did not happen. It does not work like that, you are making the claim not me. You have to show the evidence.
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  I did show the evidence. Again, read MY point. Goodbye, troll. (BTW, actually, you made the claim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28924975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28924975 )
  - sumedh 5y ago
    I did not make any claim, that is fact. You can check the BTC price yourself. Where is the evidence that Tether is insolvent?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
perl4ever 5y ago
I don't believe in Tether, but on the other hand, my logic that insolvency should lead to immediate destruction means...I should believe they are solvent. I mean, that's basically it. Everything points to insolvency, but if it was, it would be history. Therefore, it must not be. Anyone who "notices" should make it all fall apart instantly. And loud mouth short sellers have certainly been wrong before.
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  > my logic that insolvency should lead to immediate destruction But it doesn't. And it shouldn't. Businesses can and do survive insolvency (sometimes without the public ever knowing!). Insolvency just means that either liabilities are greater than assets, or cash flow does not meet expenditures. Either one can be a temporary situation which can be solved with things like bridge loans. (Or bankruptcy proceedings!) More nefariously, in the case of Tether, so long as they don't see redemptions exceeding their assets, they can continue to hide the fact that they are insolvent indefinitely.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    You are equating liquidity with solvency, it seems to me. People don't seem to want to admit insolvency is inherently worse than illiquidity. It may be empirically true that entities can hide insolvency. But it doesn't seem logical for anyone who knows they are insolvent to ignore it. If they are solvent, sure, ignore the possibility of a bank run. Why should it start? But if they are insolvent, then someone will lose their money, and you and everyone else who finds out should want to not be last in line, which should make it collapse almost instantly, provided that the information leaks to any number of people. It seems sometimes like a lot of things are sort of like Wile E Coyote not falling until he looks down. Something can be widely known, but not believed until some catalyst makes it impossible to deny or rationalize or BS. Still, learning that something is insolvent ought not to follow that pattern too much, because again, it doesn't matter if everyone else in the world is ignoring the problem, if you are certain it exists, you need to act.
    - jfrunyon 5y ago
      No, I'm not equating liquidity with solvency. Running out of liquidity is one way of becoming insolvent. Having more liabilities than assets is the other way. If you think otherwise, go Google the definition of insolvent. Thanks. > In accounting, insolvency is the state of being unable to pay the debts, by a person or company, at maturity > the state of being insolvent; inability to pay one's debts. > unable to pay debts owed.

sumedh 5y ago

> Read MY point, please prove (or show any evidence) that it did not happen. It does not work like that, you are making the claim not me. You have to show the evidence.

jfrunyon 5y ago
I did show the evidence. Again, read MY point. Goodbye, troll. (BTW, actually, you made the claim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28924975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28924975 )
- sumedh 5y ago
  I did not make any claim, that is fact. You can check the BTC price yourself. Where is the evidence that Tether is insolvent?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

perl4ever 5y ago

I don't believe in Tether, but on the other hand, my logic that insolvency should lead to immediate destruction means...I should believe they are solvent. I mean, that's basically it. Everything points to insolvency, but if it was, it would be history. Therefore, it must not be. Anyone who "notices" should make it all fall apart instantly. And loud mouth short sellers have certainly been wrong before.

jfrunyon 5y ago
> my logic that insolvency should lead to immediate destruction But it doesn't. And it shouldn't. Businesses can and do survive insolvency (sometimes without the public ever knowing!). Insolvency just means that either liabilities are greater than assets, or cash flow does not meet expenditures. Either one can be a temporary situation which can be solved with things like bridge loans. (Or bankruptcy proceedings!) More nefariously, in the case of Tether, so long as they don't see redemptions exceeding their assets, they can continue to hide the fact that they are insolvent indefinitely.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  You are equating liquidity with solvency, it seems to me. People don't seem to want to admit insolvency is inherently worse than illiquidity. It may be empirically true that entities can hide insolvency. But it doesn't seem logical for anyone who knows they are insolvent to ignore it. If they are solvent, sure, ignore the possibility of a bank run. Why should it start? But if they are insolvent, then someone will lose their money, and you and everyone else who finds out should want to not be last in line, which should make it collapse almost instantly, provided that the information leaks to any number of people. It seems sometimes like a lot of things are sort of like Wile E Coyote not falling until he looks down. Something can be widely known, but not believed until some catalyst makes it impossible to deny or rationalize or BS. Still, learning that something is insolvent ought not to follow that pattern too much, because again, it doesn't matter if everyone else in the world is ignoring the problem, if you are certain it exists, you need to act.
  - jfrunyon 5y ago
    No, I'm not equating liquidity with solvency. Running out of liquidity is one way of becoming insolvent. Having more liabilities than assets is the other way. If you think otherwise, go Google the definition of insolvent. Thanks. > In accounting, insolvency is the state of being unable to pay the debts, by a person or company, at maturity > the state of being insolvent; inability to pay one's debts. > unable to pay debts owed.