3 ms·
Did Citibank claim that its value was one-to-one backed with U.S. dollar reserves until they were caught not doing so? If not, they're probably not a relevant
by bpt3 4y ago
Did Citibank claim that its value was one-to-one backed with U.S. dollar reserves until they were caught not doing so?
If not, they're probably not a relevant comparison to Tether.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y agoIrrelevant because for >99% of depositors (NOTE - not total deposits) FDIC insurance will pay them out in the event of a bank run. For the vast majority of users - the difference in 1:1 backing and FDIC insurance is irrelevant. This is the reason you'll almost certainly never see a global bank run. It's the reason why we probably will eventually see a Tether bank run.
- bpt3 4y agoWe agree, the person I was responding to doesn't seem to grasp that.
- jpmattia 4y ago> Did Citibank claim that its value was one-to-one backed with U.S. dollar reserves until they were caught not doing so? If not, they're probably not a relevant comparison to Tether. I'm not getting what you're saying here: They should make good on their initial message from several years ago? They should now keep all assets in dollars and not earn interest?
- bpt3 4y ago> They should make good on their initial message from several years ago? Yes. > They should now keep all assets in dollars and not earn interest? Since that was how they initially generated interest in the asset, yes.