I admit that I only skimmed the article, but the first thing that jumps at me is counterparty risk; the same risk the author is trying to avoid in his rejected

I admit that I only skimmed the article, but the first thing that jumps at me is counterparty risk; the same risk the author is trying to avoid in his rejected "just short Tether" option. The proposal seems to put a bunch of crypto exchanges in the transaction path which, thinks me, can bring trouble* should the Tether collapse the way FTX did. More generally, while Tether may be a house of cards that will eventually collapse, placing a bet on it has actual costs. And "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" is an adage worth remembering. My 2c. *either directly, by failing to deliver the winnings should the trade go the authors way; or indirectly, via clawbacks when govvies and lawyers go after those who made profits to (minimally) compensate those who was left holding the bag.