3 ms·

Banks can be rescued by governments. Tether can not. Banks are allowed to have fractional reserve. Tether's whole promise was that they would keep 1:1 reserves

Banks can be rescued by governments. Tether can not. Banks are allowed to have fractional reserve. Tether's whole promise was that they would keep 1:1 reserves.

garydevenay 3y ago
[flagged]
- rglullis 3y ago
  The fact that you are using loaded words (stolen from the population) and putting words in my mouth (by asserting that I agree with banks getting bailouts) shows that you are absolutely dishonest.
  - broken-kebab 3y ago
    But exchange like: - A is better than B! - B has bailouts fearure! Clearly implies that you either really mentioned bailouts as a positive feature, or that commentary of yours makes no sense. Why do you call your opponent dishonest? If you mean something else it's probably better to explain than to immediately enter holywar mode.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      My point is that you can not compare Tether with a bank and say "Tether has more reserves than banks" and ignore why it is so. It's pure gaslighting and I'm honestly surprised that so many people are buying this bullshit.
      - yieldcrv 3y ago
        and my point is that their overlapping features of custody and their overlapping vulnerability to bank runs (or lack thereof) is more important if banks operate at 3-10% reserves or immediate liquidity, all the time, then tether is just as or more resilient. if you need to move the goal post to insurance, simply to look at differences, its apt to remember that banks are private corporations that thought it would be funny to codify state sponsored insurance to bolster their own business of deposits. putting the con in congress. similarly uninsured products have been covered in bailouts for the exact same reason. And can happen again. There is zero history that suggests crypto products would be excluded simply for being crypto. Its far more likely that crypto industry grows big enough, and crypto friendly personnel run regulatory agencies and congress to be ready to act and advocate for it. But even that isnt important to me, only an observation. I dont need that confidence game just to move the goalpost even further on tether, you might. My only point is that we’re clear on what the controversies are and why. Its withstood extremely trying macroeconomic environments because it is designed better, and that was the only thing people were worried about. That being said, I would like an even better designed product. Overcollateralized stablecoin with completely onchain collateral. We’ve been close but not quite.
  - garydevenay 3y ago
    I certainly had no intention of attempting to put words in your mouth, but I believe the words you wrote have the implications that I highlighted. I disagree that I am being dishonest. I stand by the fact that the money is stolen. Bank rescues are financed through the monetisation of government debt, this causes monetary debasement which directly confiscates purchasing power of those who hold the money, without their permission. This fits the definition of theft.

Banks can be rescued by governments. Tether can not. Banks are allowed to have fractional reserve. Tether's whole promise was that they would keep 1:1 reserves.

garydevenay 3y ago

[flagged]

rglullis 3y ago
The fact that you are using loaded words (stolen from the population) and putting words in my mouth (by asserting that I agree with banks getting bailouts) shows that you are absolutely dishonest.
- broken-kebab 3y ago
  But exchange like: - A is better than B! - B has bailouts fearure! Clearly implies that you either really mentioned bailouts as a positive feature, or that commentary of yours makes no sense. Why do you call your opponent dishonest? If you mean something else it's probably better to explain than to immediately enter holywar mode.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    My point is that you can not compare Tether with a bank and say "Tether has more reserves than banks" and ignore why it is so. It's pure gaslighting and I'm honestly surprised that so many people are buying this bullshit.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      and my point is that their overlapping features of custody and their overlapping vulnerability to bank runs (or lack thereof) is more important if banks operate at 3-10% reserves or immediate liquidity, all the time, then tether is just as or more resilient. if you need to move the goal post to insurance, simply to look at differences, its apt to remember that banks are private corporations that thought it would be funny to codify state sponsored insurance to bolster their own business of deposits. putting the con in congress. similarly uninsured products have been covered in bailouts for the exact same reason. And can happen again. There is zero history that suggests crypto products would be excluded simply for being crypto. Its far more likely that crypto industry grows big enough, and crypto friendly personnel run regulatory agencies and congress to be ready to act and advocate for it. But even that isnt important to me, only an observation. I dont need that confidence game just to move the goalpost even further on tether, you might. My only point is that we’re clear on what the controversies are and why. Its withstood extremely trying macroeconomic environments because it is designed better, and that was the only thing people were worried about. That being said, I would like an even better designed product. Overcollateralized stablecoin with completely onchain collateral. We’ve been close but not quite.
- garydevenay 3y ago
  I certainly had no intention of attempting to put words in your mouth, but I believe the words you wrote have the implications that I highlighted. I disagree that I am being dishonest. I stand by the fact that the money is stolen. Bank rescues are financed through the monetisation of government debt, this causes monetary debasement which directly confiscates purchasing power of those who hold the money, without their permission. This fits the definition of theft.