3 ms·

If Tether collapses, you can certainly expect a panic in all cryptocurrency markets, but it has no direct means of manipulating Bitcoin. Only 6.02% of their re

If Tether collapses, you can certainly expect a panic in all cryptocurrency markets, but it has no direct means of manipulating Bitcoin. Only 6.02% of their reserves are held in "digital tokens," the rest are held in traditional assets and cash: https://tether.to/en/transparency/#reports https://tether.to/en/transparency/#reports (scroll down to "Reserves Breakdown").

vkou 4y ago
> but it has no direct means of manipulating Bitcoin. Imagine I am the director of Tether. I print $1 billion in Tether out of thin air. I then buy bitcoin with it on a UST/BTC exchange. Bitcoin price goes up.
- rglover 4y ago
  That's not a direct means of manipulation.
  - danShumway 4y ago
    Direct or not, in that scenario the Bitcoin price is still being artificially increased for the benefit of a private malevolent actor. If you want to call that something other than manipulation, then :shrug:, more power to you. But my main takeaway is still going to be that banannaise's original comment seems to be mostly accurate.
    - rglover 4y ago
      > But my main takeaway is still going to be that banannaise's original comment seems to be mostly accurate. I'd highly recommend taking the time to rethink that position. The systems being implemented now will permanently enslave you. Bitcoin is the only escape. And no, I'm not being hyperbolic.
      - danShumway 4y ago
        > The systems being implemented now will permanently enslave you. Recognizing that there are significant problems with current financial systems does not automatically imply that Bitcoin in specific is a reasonable or feasible alternative to those systems. Candy bars are unhealthy for me, and I can recognize that, but that doesn't mean I'm obligated to eat dirt. In other words, it's not enough for Bitcoin proponents to point out that traditional fiat systems have problems, they need to prove that Bitcoin meaningfully solves those problems or improves upon them. All of you've done so far in this thread is argue about how narrowly people should apply the word "manipulation", you haven't demonstrated that banannaise's original comment is wrong in a way that ordinary currency users would care about. I think most of the real-world evidence we have shows that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are just as manipulable as existing systems regardless of whether or not they have a fixed supply, and in fact are currently somehow impossibly managing to be regularly manipulated to an even higher degree than existing fiat systems.
        rglover 4y ago
        > you haven't demonstrated that banannaise's original comment is wrong in a way that ordinary currency users would care about. I already did but you didn't like my answer.
danShumway 4y ago
- "you can certainly expect a panic in all cryptocurrency markets" - "but it has no direct means of manipulating Bitcoin." How do square these two parts of the sentence? The ability to cause a panic in the Bitcoin space on command by crashing another cryptocurrency sounds a lot like manipulation to me.
- rglover 4y ago
  Direct implies that you can manipulate Bitcoin at the protocol/technology level. These are indirect effects as they are events that occur outside of Bitcoin but cause people who have Bitcoin to sell or trade it. You can cause panic in traditional finance markets, too. It's the exact same principle at play.
  - danShumway 4y ago
    As an end user, why should I care about a technicality over how exactly someone is manipulating a currency that I own? Why does it matter whether manipulation is direct or indirect? If the claim is that Bitcoin is only immune to specifically direct manipulation (where direct is a narrow sub-category of manipulation techniques), then... sure, maybe that's true, but it's also not that impressive and doesn't change all that much about the end-user's risks, since the more general forms of currency manipulation still seem to be entirely possible. > You can cause panic in traditional finance markets, too. It's the exact same principle at play. I don't think that's being debated, people are just pointing out that Bitcoin's price can be still be manipulated by powerful actors.
    - rglover 4y ago
      Bitcoin's price, yes, but not the actual currency itself. That will be the major psychological void to fill in for people: thinking about Bitcoin as a currency, not an investment or gambling device. I expect that to take decades as the government/media are and will continue to attack Bitcoin and influence public opinion as it directly interferes with their business model.

vkou 4y ago

> but it has no direct means of manipulating Bitcoin. Imagine I am the director of Tether. I print $1 billion in Tether out of thin air. I then buy bitcoin with it on a UST/BTC exchange. Bitcoin price goes up.

rglover 4y ago
That's not a direct means of manipulation.
- danShumway 4y ago
  Direct or not, in that scenario the Bitcoin price is still being artificially increased for the benefit of a private malevolent actor. If you want to call that something other than manipulation, then :shrug:, more power to you. But my main takeaway is still going to be that banannaise's original comment seems to be mostly accurate.
  - rglover 4y ago
    > But my main takeaway is still going to be that banannaise's original comment seems to be mostly accurate. I'd highly recommend taking the time to rethink that position. The systems being implemented now will permanently enslave you. Bitcoin is the only escape. And no, I'm not being hyperbolic.
    - danShumway 4y ago
      > The systems being implemented now will permanently enslave you. Recognizing that there are significant problems with current financial systems does not automatically imply that Bitcoin in specific is a reasonable or feasible alternative to those systems. Candy bars are unhealthy for me, and I can recognize that, but that doesn't mean I'm obligated to eat dirt. In other words, it's not enough for Bitcoin proponents to point out that traditional fiat systems have problems, they need to prove that Bitcoin meaningfully solves those problems or improves upon them. All of you've done so far in this thread is argue about how narrowly people should apply the word "manipulation", you haven't demonstrated that banannaise's original comment is wrong in a way that ordinary currency users would care about. I think most of the real-world evidence we have shows that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are just as manipulable as existing systems regardless of whether or not they have a fixed supply, and in fact are currently somehow impossibly managing to be regularly manipulated to an even higher degree than existing fiat systems.
      - rglover 4y ago
        > you haven't demonstrated that banannaise's original comment is wrong in a way that ordinary currency users would care about. I already did but you didn't like my answer.

danShumway 4y ago

- "you can certainly expect a panic in all cryptocurrency markets" - "but it has no direct means of manipulating Bitcoin." How do square these two parts of the sentence? The ability to cause a panic in the Bitcoin space on command by crashing another cryptocurrency sounds a lot like manipulation to me.

rglover 4y ago
Direct implies that you can manipulate Bitcoin at the protocol/technology level. These are indirect effects as they are events that occur outside of Bitcoin but cause people who have Bitcoin to sell or trade it. You can cause panic in traditional finance markets, too. It's the exact same principle at play.
- danShumway 4y ago
  As an end user, why should I care about a technicality over how exactly someone is manipulating a currency that I own? Why does it matter whether manipulation is direct or indirect? If the claim is that Bitcoin is only immune to specifically direct manipulation (where direct is a narrow sub-category of manipulation techniques), then... sure, maybe that's true, but it's also not that impressive and doesn't change all that much about the end-user's risks, since the more general forms of currency manipulation still seem to be entirely possible. > You can cause panic in traditional finance markets, too. It's the exact same principle at play. I don't think that's being debated, people are just pointing out that Bitcoin's price can be still be manipulated by powerful actors.
  - rglover 4y ago
    Bitcoin's price, yes, but not the actual currency itself. That will be the major psychological void to fill in for people: thinking about Bitcoin as a currency, not an investment or gambling device. I expect that to take decades as the government/media are and will continue to attack Bitcoin and influence public opinion as it directly interferes with their business model.