> I think Tether is pretty obviously at least mostly solvent. 95% solvent at a bank-like entity (where you are supposed to be able to redeem at par) is a bank

> I think Tether is pretty obviously at least mostly solvent. 95% solvent at a bank-like entity (where you are supposed to be able to redeem at par) is a bank run. > My own theory of what's actually going on here is that Tether is intentionally obtuse They have been proven to have committed fraud and lied in the past (NY settlement). They have an incredible number of red flags, including management that has committed fraud in previous companies, refusing basic transparency and a shadowy executive team (e.g. refusal to identify CIO, CEO has basically never spoken publicly). I don't know of any organization in history of anywhere near this size that has had as many red flags. 100% guarantee that they have participated in major wrong doing beyond the NY settlement. Organizations on the up and up have no reason to act the way they do. Your theory that a bank-like entity would pretend to be insolvent is implausible: the main thing a bank depends on is its solvency, it's too 4-d chess to think you can somehow manage to persuade the market that you are a little-bit insolvent. That said, as the article points out, making money on this apparent wrong-doing is more difficult for a number of reasons. One of which not mentioned in the article is that they may have done some fraud that doesn't affect the value of tethers. For example, they were undercollateralized for a time but now higher interest rates have made them whole. Or they are laundering money but are fully collateralized (though I would expect a money laundering charge to tank the value of tether also).