This kind of argumentation makes cryptocurrency proponents so insufferable. There’s no evidence Tether is backed, but somehow we can just assume in a parenthesis that they probably are, and then go on a tangential rant about banks or fiat or digital gold or something.
At least banks have to operate within the realities of regulations and legal recourse. It’s not perfect, but it does provide a forcing function to make them think long and hard before doing anything that might be fraudulent.
Cryptocurrency proponents like to tout crypto’s ability to escape regulation as a good thing, while ignoring that the same property makes it a dream come true for financial fraud schemes.
That is beside the point: "(probably now)" is an entirely fanciful and blatantly self-serving attempt by a cryptocoin proponent to avoid the very real problem Tether poses for Bitcoin.
Tether is Tether. Bitcoin is Bitcoin. The fact that exchanges exist which allow you to trade one for the other does not make them the same kind of thing.
Let's not ignore major funds and companies investing in BTC like crazy, that's what is propping up the price not the "Tether scam" that's being going on for 5 years unproven.
If I could buy tulips on cryptoexchanges with freshly printed Tether, I could bid the price of tulips up. If the majority of tulip trades took place on crypto exchanges and much of that was bidding the price up with newly printed Tether, tulips would be exactly as useful as before, but cost a lot more. As such, if Tether were to collapse, people's bulbs would be worth a lot less. Tulips would still be tulips, but they'd be part of a Tether bubble.
Seems logical they would given the investigations and the reason they supposedly didn’t have the funds at the time. I don’t think tether is necessary or a good idea, simply stating what I see.
Frankly, the AG admitted it was backed, just not “the entire time”.
> Frankly, the AG admitted it was backed, just not “the entire time”.
The AG did not. Certainly not completely, nor to the extent that Tether claims that it is. The AG merely acknowledged that Tether had some portion of the funds it claimed to.
>This kind of argumentation makes cryptocurrency proponents so insufferable. There’s no evidence Tether is backed, but somehow we can just assume in a parenthesis that they probably are, and then go on a tangential rant about banks or fiat or digital gold or something.
Ah yes, because all cryptocurrency proponents are pro-tether.
The comment you're responding to isn't implying they are. It's implying a larger issue: that claims are often made by cryptocurrency proponents without any evidence to back them.
You can take redemption from tether and they will wire you the money, they are in fact registered and regulated. on several exchanges it can be exchanged into fiat, for smaller participant.s
It would collapse a long time ago, if it weren't backed.
Heh. I just made another comment saying that Tether is not like Madoff, so of course I now need to make one comparing Tether to Madoff.
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities was also registered and regulated, and also had to wire people their money when asked. Even though they didn't actually have all the assets they said they did. He was able to keep it up for 3 or 4 decades.
It will only collapse if outflows exceed inflows for long enough to deplete their supply of assets. Which is something that is unlikely to happen for as long as this Bitcoin rocket keeps racing toward the moon.
> You can take redemption from tether and they will wire you the money
Tether says they will. Has anyone successfully done this?
> on several exchanges it can be exchanged into fiat, for smaller participant.s
No one says you can't trade USDT. But that requires a counterparty, and if it turns out that Tether is mostly backed by air they may evaporate as well.
That’s usually the way these things work. That’s why the AG is making statements like “stop the illegal activity” and stuff, it degrades trust. However, if you read the statement it’s a win for the crypto exchange. Only an $18m fine for supposedly “billions in fraud” (course if you read deeper, they found no fraud).
Please name the regulators you think have verified Tether's backing. And once you've listed them, please explain why even though they missed the specific points at which the NYAG has proved Tether was not fully backed, you still think they can be trusted.
(I ask only for my own entertainment, of course. If Tether were actually backed, they'd publish regular third-party audits from a responsible accountant. Anybody thinking it's backed is a fantasist that could make Baron Munchausen seem resonable.)
This kind of argumentation makes cryptocurrency proponents so insufferable. There’s no evidence Tether is backed, but somehow we can just assume in a parenthesis that they probably are, and then go on a tangential rant about banks or fiat or digital gold or something.