[HN Gopher] Tether ordered to produce documents showing backing ... ___________________________________________________________________ Tether ordered to produce documents showing backing of USDT [pdf] Author : seo-speedwagon Score : 317 points Date : 2022-09-21 15:06 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (storage.courtlistener.com) (TXT) w3m dump (storage.courtlistener.com) | tiku wrote: | I highly doubt they have given out Tethers for free, exchanges | paid dollars for them. And even banks don't have all their money | in stock. That is why it is illegal to incite bankruns. | ogogmad wrote: | They can print Tether for free and use it to buy crypto. This | pumps the price and then they can sell. | | Also, Tether is owned by Bitfinex, which enables them to print | Tether to cover their own losses. | Tenoke wrote: | You can do the same if you have a lot of USD in the first | place or alternatively with reserves. Printing Tether isn't | required and it is questionable if a pump and dump at quite | this basic of a level is profitable on average. | dsr_ wrote: | "There is this other scam you can commit with less work" is | not an argument that the first scam isn't happening. | Tenoke wrote: | It's not 'other scams'. It's that printing - the only | thing Tether can do which others can't and seemingly the | main reason why they suggest Tether is the one doing it - | doesn't add much of anything to the scam. | banannaise wrote: | The mechanism of a pump-and-dump like this is to spend your | company's assets to boost the price of your personal | (crypto) holdings. The exchange and the coin don't profit | from the scheme; they lose money, while the owners of | Tether/Bitfinex win big with their personal assets. | | It's a way of cashing out company funds. | Closi wrote: | > They can print Tether for free and use it to buy crypto. | | Ah yes, they can just operate a classic ponzi scheme! | | They can use new investors money to cover for the ficticious | assets that previous investers were told that they hold! | paulgb wrote: | > They can print Tether for free and use it to buy crypto. | This pumps the price and then they can sell. | | I've never understood this theory. It implies that the market | moves when they buy, but not when they sell? | | If you're unscrupulous and you have a money printer, you | don't need to resort to market manipulation to print money, | you just... print money. And you can offer a 20% APR to | people who are willing to pay real USD for your money, to | keep the music from stopping too early. | notahacker wrote: | > I've never understood this theory. It implies that the | market moves when they buy, but not when they sell? | | That's not an unreasonable assumption when the asset isn't | held and bought mostly by professionals trading based on | its fundamentals, but by people that get very excited by | "line goes up" and diehard HODLers. This isn't specific to | Tether, it's standard pump and dump behaviour. Printing | money is great, but getting further gains on your printed | money (and a plausible "massive growth in crypto interest" | story to make your printed money seem more real) is better | still. | | Plus chances are Bitfinex did the pump bit but actually | holds onto a lot of the crypto it bought anyway. | paulgb wrote: | Successful pump-and-dumps usually involve spreading a | narrative (e.g. false rumors) in addition to the price | action, though. | | > Plus chances are Bitfinex did the pump bit but actually | holds onto a lot of the crypto it bought anyway. | | Yeah, this is a theory that makes more sense to me. | Tether may have driven up the price over time by buying | and holding bitcoin. The more they bought, the more they | drove up the price, reinforcing their decision to buy. | Similar to Archegos, but with bitcoin instead of | equities. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > I highly doubt they have given out Tethers for free, | exchanges paid dollars for them. | | Tether and Bitfinex (one of the biggest exchanges) are both | owned by the same people: iFinex. They're effectively one in | the same. | | Not coincidentally, both of them have already been caught and | fined for Tether not being fully backed and for commingling | reserves and customer funds: | https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8450-21 | | Also, you can't assume that exchanges paid dollars for them. | Tether could print a lot of Tethers, transfer them to | exchanges, and exchange them for crypto. No dollars are | involved in the transaction and it all relies on everyone | believing that Tethers are worth $1 because Tether says they | are. | Tenoke wrote: | Bitfinex has 42 times less volume than Binance so it likely | doesn't add up to all that much of the total exchange USDT | usage to make a big difference. | | 0. https://www.coingecko.com/en/exchanges | skybrian wrote: | Not for free, but they very likely exchanged Tether for assets | that are not dollars and whose value has since dropped. In some | cases we know that those assets were very dubious and they had | trouble getting the money back. | | Banks have losses too. But they raise money by selling stock, | which provides a cushion against losses. The stockholders lose | money first. | vuln wrote: | > but they raise money by selling stock | | How does this work with credit unions? The one I joined I had | to "buy a share" for 5$ and keep that minimum of one share | (5$) to keep my account active. The credit union is not | publicly traded so the shareholders are the account holders. | skybrian wrote: | Good question. Looks like technically, you are a | shareholder and get dividends instead of interest for a | "share draft account" [1] which is backed by share | insurance. [2] | | I don't understand how that can work as risk capital. Maybe | it just isn't. | | [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/share-draft.asp | [2] https://www.ncua.gov/support-services/share-insurance- | fund | erostrate wrote: | It's less direct than that. Some crypto fund has say 10M$, they | want to buy a lot of BTC, so they borrow 20M$ denominated in | USD but settled in USDT from iFinex treasury, and use it to buy | BTC. iFinex can now claim that they are backed by USD assets, | crypto fund effectively has taken a leveraged BTC long | position, pushing BTC up, everybody is happy. Until BTC goes | down too much or everybody tries to withdraw USDT, or both, | then everything unravels. | | You can also replace "crypto fund" by any crypto project that | uses leverage to deliver extraordinary returns - as long as | everything goes up. | MichaelCollins wrote: | > _I highly doubt they have given out Tethers for free, | exchanges paid dollars for them._ | | Why do you doubt that? They have motive and opportunity, and | they're obviously not on the level so any appeal to general | assumptions of honesty go out the window. | advisedwang wrote: | They may have spent or lost some of those dollars though! | jandrese wrote: | I'm sure they will be able to produce those documents, just so | long as there are no followup questions or inquires into their | actual account status. | | I don't know why they would stop lying now. | cuteboy19 wrote: | They literally invented their own non-GAAP system of | accounting! | wmf wrote: | Doesn't GAAP have some obviously stupid rules about crypto? I | don't mean to excuse scam accounting but I don't consider | GAAP automatically optimal either. (Putting aside that Tether | shouldn't be backed by crypto.) | rhodorhoades wrote: | Yeah - GAAP definitely doesn't work with crypto. Is eth an | asset, currency, or inventory? If I'm a big crypto firm and | I regularly use eth for chain fees, do I calculate that as | a sale of an asset? If my eth has appreciated since it's | purchase, did I just make a sale? | | When I'm adding liquidity to a common pair that I utilize a | lot and get a divergent loss between the two assets, should | that be impairment at the time of the transaction or only | when all the coins are converted to USD? | | I can go on and on and on about the impossibility to comply | with tax regulations and crypto. I'm an avid crypto user, I | like making bots for all the games, I think NFTs are cool | and always like meeting the programmers turned artists, I | participate in 10+ exchanges and 50+ liquidity pools across | the map. | | When it came time to do my taxes this last year, I had to | hire a crypto specific tax person. His advice was that | every time I transfer crypto off an exchange, it is 'sold' | for that price and I have to pay taxes on the minuscule | difference between my purchase price and the 10 seconds it | take me to transfer into the meta verse. It's literally | impossible to do it otherwise. | jandrese wrote: | I think the rules are "stupid" only in that it would expose | too much fraud if the companies followed them. Crypto | currencies are no different than any other speculative | asset for tax purposes. Treat them like stocks. | cliftonk wrote: | Virtually every take I read on this forum is uninformed. To hear | it straight from the horses mouth, here's Matt Levine + SBF | getting into the realities of tether (skip to 48 minutes): | https://open.spotify.com/show/1te7oSFyRVekxMBJUSethH?si=05bd... | | I agree with the general sentiment around tether acting very | opaque / shady. That said: | | 1. creation/redemption of tether (read: actual USD wire | transfers) has been done on the magnitude of billions of dollars | a time by major players in the space | | 2. during UST collapse, something like $15b of tether was | redeemed in less than 2 weeks. so they obviously had that much | cash on hand at the time. | | 3. the academic paper that attempted to show that tether was | being created to pump up bitcoin has an extremely simple | alternative explanation: as bitcoin went up, holders of bitcoin | sold it for tether on centralized exchanges on the way up. | | so, IMO they could very likely have some bad commercial paper on | their books, but i think its much more likely than tether is | worth 90 cents on the dollar and not 0, and in the case that it | is worth 90 cents on the dollar, it would be extremely likely to | continue to trade at par as there's very unlikely to be a | scenario which forces any kind of large-scale redemptions. | darcys22 wrote: | I think people dont fully understand the risk of debanking in | crypto. If you go to the regular players with a billion dollars | in cash, say you are cryptocurrency firm and would like a bank | account they will turn you around. | | This is such a major factor with every cryptocurrency company. | Especially 5 years ago when tether was made. | | Tethers 'dodgy' investments is partially driven by there being | no other options. | VHRanger wrote: | Having looked into tether really deeply I think they're between | 50% and 90% backed as you stated. | | https://www.singlelunch.com/2022/06/14/the-state-of-stableco... | | Tether depegging would be an apocalypse nonetheless | ikeboy wrote: | This mentions the Celsius loan without mentioning that it was | overcollateralized and liquidated with no loss to tether | (confirmed by tether at the time and by Celsius's lawyers in | court filings). | VHRanger wrote: | As noted in the article, they announced that the loan was | liquidated at a date where the difference in BTC price | between when the loan was emitted and the loan was | liquidated was greated than the overcollateralization | ratio. | | It's a fairly easily checkable lie. | ikeboy wrote: | This is just nonsense. Please show your math including | sources for the purported ratio and dates. | cliftonk wrote: | definitely agree that if there were a ~50% depeg in tether | things would get very, very ugly in crypto | AlexandrB wrote: | If Tether was 50% backed and there was a depeg it would | probably be much worse than 50%. Presumably USDT would be | redeemed at $1 until Tether's reserves were almost gone at | which point Tether would have to stop accepting redemptions | and the price of USDT could fall arbitrarily close to $0 in | a short time. | phphphphp wrote: | SBF is not the horse, and he has a vested interest in ensuring | that the market believes that the market is not built on sand. | | Bitfinex and Tether have a history of fraud, of losing money, | for Tether to be backed today would mean Bitfinex/Tether did a | complete 180 and went legit after years of bad dealings. Even | if you believe they did a 180, how did they rectify the mess | from before they went legit? How did tether become solvent? | cliftonk wrote: | and btw there are liquid tether credit risk products you can | trade if you believe that tether is going to collapse that cost | around 20bp / month (so something like 40x payout on annualized | premium if tether goes to 0). | erostrate wrote: | Do you know by what mechanism Tether gets CP for USDT? Would | they be paying CP issuers with USDT directly? What would they | do with it? | | I believe you're right just curious about the mechanism. | cliftonk wrote: | They would be paying CP issuers with USD out of a bank | account (the same USD used for creation/redemption of USDT). | erostrate wrote: | So in that theory they do get sufficient USD to cover USDT | (as opposed to printing it out of thin air) but are using | it to buy questionable CP. | | I think many people believe they don't even have enough USD | to start with, eg because some of their assets are loans | collateralised by crypto (such as the Celsius 1B loan). | | I believe both are true - Tether printed USDT against non- | cash, and used some of the actual cash to buy dodgy assets | for more yield. | qeternity wrote: | Taking SBF's word as gospel is about the least informed thing | you can do. Do you notice how they say things like "redeemed" | and "backing" which are very vague terms. In a normal security, | redemption is clearly defined. But Tether isn't normal. We know | from players like Celsius that Tether will issue loans | collateralized by crypto. You say yourself it's likely they | have other toxic assets on their balance sheet. | | So imagine this scenario: | | 1. I issue a note for $1B to Tether and they send me 1B USDT. | | 2. I go about my business, trading crypto, doing whatever, and | hopefully I end up with more than 1B USDT. | | 3. When I redeem, I send my 1B USDT back and Tether retires my | note (or sends me back my crypto collateral) likely less some | fees. | | No actual dollars changed hands. And yet this fits in exactly | with their narrative and language. | | I mean hell they have issued a huge amount of USDT over | weekends when you couldn't possibly have wired any money | (mayyybe some people banked at Deltec and could transfer | between accounts, or via Finex...maybe) | rossdavidh wrote: | If their backing were as solid as you suggest, it is difficult | to understand why they have been so unwilling to demonstrate | that fact, given how much uncertainty exists around it. Their | willingness to sue in NY to keep their backing out of public | record, does not suggest that they are at ~90%. | rini17 wrote: | > as bitcoin went up, holders of bitcoin sold it for tether on | centralized exchanges on the way up. | | How does this work exactly? Who is the counterparty selling | tether here, and how come it wasn't newly minted USDT? | laserlight wrote: | For those who are like me, wondering what the hell is SBF, it | stands for Sam Bankman-Fried [0]. He is the founder of | cryptocurrency exchange FTX. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Bankman-Fried | ogogmad wrote: | It's not backed. Once the Tether scam unravels, it's not clear | how badly it will affect Bitcoin's price. But it's going to be | bad. | | There's a chance that Tether has been pumping BTC. | [deleted] | swalsh wrote: | USDC is the only reliable stable coin. Some dislike it because | they have shown that they will use the blacklist feature (which | USDT has too, to be fair) but frankly, I'd prefer my bank | backed stablecoin is compliant with US law. | rossdavidh wrote: | Well, it's possible "backed", in the sense that there are | dollar-denominated assets backing it. They've already admitted | that it's not actual dollars, and that some of them at least | are foreign assets. | | Which probably means it's Chinese dollar-denominated debt, | perhaps stuff like Evergrande bonds that you could get for | $0.05 on the dollar. So, it is "backed", perhaps, in that there | are dollar denominated assets. | | But, functionally, it's probably not backed in a way that does | anyone any good. So your basic point is correct. At some point, | people rush for the exits, and when they do, BTC may collapse | with it. | laserlight wrote: | What are these dollar-denominated assets? US treasury bonds? | erichocean wrote: | > _US treasury bonds?_ | | Would you accept the lowest rated Chinese junk bonds | instead? | | Asking for a friend... | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _US treasury bonds?_ | | It's hard to accumulate $100bn Treasuries without the | dealers noticing. | rossdavidh wrote: | No. | laserlight wrote: | What are they then? | vkou wrote: | Could be a piece of tissue paper with an IOU for a | trillion dollars from Deadbeat Dan. Could be a deed to | lovely waterfront property on the moon. Could be a | controlling interest in Bitfinex. We don't know. | lottin wrote: | They won't say. | michaelt wrote: | I believe Tether's claim is essentially "We can't tell | you what dollar-denominated assets we're backed by, or | get any competent auditors to sign off on our accounts, | but the reserves are there. Trust us. Would a | cryptocurrency company lie to you?" | evdubs wrote: | From [1] | | - U.S. Treasury Bills: $28,856,434,491 | | - Commercial Paper and Certificates of Deposit: | $8,402,426,505 | | - Money Market Funds: $6,810,253,431 | | - Cash & Bank Deposits: $5,418,232,067 | | - Reverse Repurchase Agreements: $2,992,015,954 | | - Non-U.S. Treasury Bills: $397,150,678 | | - Corporate Bonds, Funds & Precious Metals: $3,486,896,735 | | - Other Investments: $5,551,836,303 | | - Secured Loans: $4,494,373,260 | | - Total: $66,409,619,424 | | [1] https://assets.ctfassets.net/vyse88cgwfbl/2xJyKdUKicdRU | WpC9b... | ufo wrote: | I wouldn't be surprised if it were even worse than that, e.g. | promissory notes from Bitfinex (themselves) | puffoflogic wrote: | If it's good enough for the SSA why not for tether? | meepmorp wrote: | This will be a useful analogy if/when bitfinex gains | sovereign power along the lines of the US government. | lazide wrote: | And the worlds largest military, and one of the worlds | largest captive tax bases. | looknee wrote: | A close friend of mine does banking in Nassau, Bahamas and | works with Tether, and according to him Tether is where they | sling all of their lowest rated junk chinese bonds. | | He has been telling me to go nowhere near it for the last 5 | years and I have not. | robocat wrote: | How has Tether prevented information leaks? | | Ex-employee, whistleblower, service dependency, . . . | | With billions at stake, there are highly motivated players. | Similar to paying for dirt on mudge: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32823548 | lottin wrote: | They only have seven employees. | onepointsixC wrote: | Which beats the previous highest assets to employee ratio | of Madoff. | [deleted] | epolanski wrote: | Tether is highly backed by BTC and only partially by cash. Then | they print Tether to buy Bitcoin which pumps the backing | value.. | cypherpunks01 wrote: | Wouldn't Tether have unraveled during the huge amount of | withdrawals during the Luna collapse? I thought it was going | to, but surprised that it appears to have made it through | processing everyone's withdrawals. | htrp wrote: | Very few people converted to cash. It was mostly crypto to | crypto iirc (Luna -> Terra -> Tether -> BTC/ETH) | | Also Terra was the algorithmically pegged stablecoin to Luna | (not Tether in case that was the confusion) | Tenoke wrote: | There was sufficient pressure on USDT, as well as cashing | out to the point of USDT briefly dropping in price by a few | cents, so this isn't quite accurate. | hi5eyes wrote: | UST is the algostable, terra is the chain | ahnick wrote: | They are likely not solvent (i.e. they have enough liquid | funds to cover everyone withdrawing their money all at once), | but they apparently can cover a high percentage of USDT | withdrawals. It is still very fishy b/c if you look at the | lending rates on Bitfinex there is currently an 18.825% APR | for USD. If there was really zero risk with USDT I think | you'd see a whole lot more volume pumping through that | system. | Canada wrote: | How much of those are to cover the leverage of customers? | [deleted] | liuliu wrote: | How do we know they processed withdrawals to plain USD and | how much? Is there any tracker on that? Thanks! | distortedsignal wrote: | I think a good way is to check out CoinMarketCap's Market | Cap tracker. Let me elaborate. | | _I think_ Market Cap = (value per asset) * (total # of | assets in the market). So the Market Cap of USDT SHOULD BE | roughly equal to the number of Tethers on the market | (assuming the price of a single Tether is stable, which isn | 't a bad assumption _right now_ ). | | Since "every Tether is backed 1:1 by USD" and Tether is | (more-or-less) pegged 1:1 to USD, if you see the market cap | drop by a significant margin, it's likely that the drop was | an outflow to currency. If we check the Luna crash event | (~early May - ~early June 2022), we can see that USDT lost | ~18B in market cap over that period. So (I think) we can | assume that there was (roughly) 18B of dollar outflow over | that period. | | If any of my statements here are incorrect, please correct | me. I'm a software engineer, not a finance artist or an | MBA, and the last business class I took was summer school | in High School in like 2006. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _we can assume that there was (roughly) 18B of dollar | outflow over that period_ | | Couldn't Tether burn tokens it holds on its own or | affiliates' books to create that impression? | distortedsignal wrote: | This is a good point - the issuer of Tether (iFinex?) | could burn USDT that they hold without paying out to | currency. I'm not sure how holding Tether would benefit | the issuer of Tether, though, since anytime anyone | transferred USDT to the issuer they would expect a cash | payout. So I guess my statement "USDT is backed 1:1" | should _actually be_ "circulating USDT is supposedly | backed 1:1 by USD." Any "burnable Tether" should be | subtracted from the Market Cap to find the actual "backed | Tether." | | I don't know of any way to find how much USDT is held by | the issuer of Tether (or their coparties) and how much is | held by other wallets at any given time. I suspect that | calculation would require a significantly greater | knowledge of the blockchains that USDT is on than what I | have. | wmf wrote: | You can see the "Authorized but not issued" numbers at | https://tether.to/en/transparency/ and a detailed outside | analysis of redemptions | http://jpkoning.blogspot.com/2022/06/watching-tether.html | fckgw wrote: | USDT experienced it's longest de-pegging event ever during | the Luna collapse. It didn't drop as low as previous events | but it went on a long time. | josu wrote: | >USDT experienced it's longest de-pegging event ever during | the Luna collapse. | | This is not true: https://trading.bitfinex.com/t/UST:USD | fckgw wrote: | A $1 stable coin being worth 99 cents is a depeg, and it | was at that price for nearly a month after Luna/Terra | collapse. | jimmydorry wrote: | But it was not the longest period of de-pegging, which | was your original claim. | roflyear wrote: | What was? I can't really get that by just looking at some | charts on an exchange... | josu wrote: | It depegged for much longer periods in 2019. | | EDIT: Screenshot https://www.tradingview.com/x/I92ccibV/ | ARandumGuy wrote: | Tether (and the various exchanges that use it) has enough | liquidity to process withdrawals, and likely has enough slack | in the system to process periods of higher then normal | withdrawal amounts. | | As long as Tether has some liquidity, things will keep | operating as normal. However, if the amount of money | withdrawn is greater then the amount deposited, eventually | Tether's reserves will dry up. Once that happens, anyone with | outstanding USDT will be stuck with a worthless asset. Only | Tether knows how close we are to that point, and they aren't | saying. | gonzo41 wrote: | The fun begins! | Geee wrote: | Stop spouting lies and non-sense. There is no evidence | whatsoever that Tether is a "scam" or that it has been | "pumping" BTC. You might as well claim that 911 was an inside | job and we didn't go to the moon. Same type of people spout | these "truths". Claiming something to be true in the complete | absence of evidence, or contrary to existing evidence, makes | you a nutjob. | | Tether is an integral part of the whole cryptocurrency | ecosystem, and it's insane to claim that the global industry | operates closely with a "scam that soon unravels" without the | industry players being worried at all. Large exchanges are not | some shadowy operations which can just close their eyes when | they are exposed to risk. | AlexandrB wrote: | You'd think that after 2008 it would be obvious that even | experienced financial institutions can be fooled into | ignoring red flags when money is on the line. Greed is a hell | of a drug. | | This same comment could have been posted about LUNA and large | crypto investors like 3AC 6 months ago. | | > LUNA/UDT is an innovative part of the whole cryptocurrency | ecosystem, and it's insane to claim that the global industry | operates closely with a "scam that soon unravels" without the | industry players being worried at all. Large investors are | not some shadowy operations which can just close their eyes | when they are exposed to risk. | | The red flags around Tether are many, but the biggest is that | it would be _easy_ for them to prove that USDT is backed 1:1 | with USD _if_ it actually was. The fact that they 've | consistently avoided offering such proof is all the evidence | I need. It's the same reason no one believes Craig Wright is | Satoshi. | Geee wrote: | They have provided transparency reports with third-party | audits: https://tether.to/en/transparency/#reports | | There is no evidence that they have been fabricating those | numbers. | r00fus wrote: | It makes sense if you consider all of crypto as a scam | (greater tulip theory). | jazzyjackson wrote: | > Large exchanges are not some shadowy operations which can | just close their eyes when they are exposed to risk. | | is this sarcasm? because the 2008 mortgage crisis showed that | yes, large non-shadowy institutions can absolutely keep their | eyes closed. | tromp wrote: | There's no way it's fully backed. I doubt that if Tether | liquidated all their assets, they could cover even 90% of | outstanding Tether. But they can spin all kinds of BS about how | those assets are really worth more on paper... | mistrial9 wrote: | the whole of the US stock exchanges and many of the | supporting assets, are already like that. | quickthrowman wrote: | Stocks aren't pegged to the dollar, you're comparing apples | and wrenches. Tether is much more like a money market fund | than an equity or bond. | | If your point is that there isn't infinite liquidity at the | current market price for an equity or bond, you're correct, | but it's irrelevant since tether is nothing like an equity | or bond. | potatolicious wrote: | +1 on all of the above, and to add: there isn't infinite | liquidity on securities, and that's ok. And that's | exactly the problem: Tether is pretending _not be be an | security, even though it transparently is_. | | Heck, to generalize on this, this is kind of the ur- | problem with crypto generally: a bunch of things | pretending to be currencies but are actually securities. | The whole subterfuge is intentional, to foist risky | assets on people by lying about their nature, and to | avoid the (hard fought and hard justified) regulations | around said risky assets. | YawningAngel wrote: | Can you explain why USDT is a security but the US Dollar | is not? It seems like the only real difference is that | one has a wealthier and more powerful issuer than the | other (which, obviously, is enormously significant still) | nightski wrote: | USDT's value is pegged to $1. USD is not pegged to | anything else really. | kmeisthax wrote: | It is almost a rule of banking that pegs are made to be | broken. | | If you say that one of something is worth one of the | other, you are promising that you have a bottomless | supply of the currency on both sides of the peg. This | almost never actually happens and whoever is running the | peg will inevitably be caught with their pants down. | Bankers specifically love breaking pegs and have the | means to do so. | | If USDT was run by the Federal Reserve nobody would | question the system; because then they'd have the | capability to issue both the USDT token and the dollars | backing it. They would be considered as fungible as | dollars in the bank versus dollars in your hand. | selectodude wrote: | the US Dollar is a currency. USDT is a security backed by | things that aren't US Dollars. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _US Dollar is a currency. USDT is a security backed by | things that aren 't US Dollars_ | | Meh, plenty of currencies--from the Emirati dirham to the | Hong Kong dollar--are pegged [1]. International investors | would just shit bricks if any of them dared the lack of | transparency Tether pulls on crypto users. | | [1] | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/061015/top- | excha... | selectodude wrote: | They're not pegged to assets though and as such can't | lose value. Currencies can only go down vis-a-vis each | other. When you buy an HKD you're not buying a slice of a | USD, you're buying an HKD. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _When you buy an HKD you're not buying a slice of a | USD, you're buying an HKD_ | | You're also buying a commitment from the Hong Kong | Monetary Authority (HKMA) to convert between Hong Kong | and U.S. dollars at fixed exchange rates [1]. That | promise is backed by the HKMA's reserves [2]. Tether | closely resembles a pegged currency, albeit a banana | republic's. | | [1] https://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/key- | functions/money/linked-excha... | | [2] https://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/news-and-media/press- | releases/20... | selectodude wrote: | Hong Kong's central bank prints their own currency. They | defend the value of it by engaging in open market | operations. If they fail, you can still pay your taxes in | Hong Kong with it. | | Tether does not print their own currency. If USDT goes to | zero, you have nothing. It's good nowhere. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Tether does not print their own currency. If USDT goes | to zero, you have nothing. It 's good nowhere._ | | Tether prints Tethers. The HKMA prints Hong Kong dollars. | They both derive their value from the U.S. dollar. If the | HKD goes to zero, one has as much as if Tether goes to | zero. (This is tautology.) | | The Hong Kong dollar is backed by the Hong Kong | government. Tether is backed by no government. Tether is | probably lying about its reserves. Hong Kong could just | as well convert everyone's HKD to renminbi overnight. | | Point is, there isn't something fundamentally currency- | like about one versus the other other than state backing. | mjhay wrote: | > Point is, there isn't something fundamentally currency- | like about one versus the other other than state backing. | I'd say that's as fundamental as you can get. One is | backed up by guns, the other is backed up by literally | nothing. | danaris wrote: | Isn't that effectively like saying "there's no | fundamental difference between my three friends who like | to talk about how democracy works and the Hong Kong | government"? | | The fundamental difference between Tether and HKD (or any | other currency) is that Tether _is not a legally | recognized currency_. | | That may mean nothing to you, or to various other people | who think that laws mean less than code, but it means a | hell of a lot to most of the world. | YawningAngel wrote: | That's just a restatement of the premise. It doesn't | explain _why_ dollars are a currency and tethers aren 't | lazide wrote: | For one, currencies are issued and backed by sovereign | nations generally, and recognized as legal tender | _somewhere_. USDT is not on either count, as far as I am | aware. | | It might technically count as a 'crypto ecosystem | currency' since it is often used to exchange value | between different chains/coins/exchanges. But it is very | difficult to convert to a recognized currency, so a lot | of folks also get unknowingly stuck with it thinking they | have dollars. There is a reason USDT is the ticker they | pushed for, not TETH or whatever. | mrsteveman1 wrote: | > But it is very difficult to convert to a recognized | currency, so a lot of folks also get unknowingly stuck | with it thinking they have dollars. | | When Voyager entered bankruptcy, quite a few people | suddenly discovered that the USDC they held on the | platform was not the same as USD, did not enjoy the same | legal protections USD would have, and that much of it had | been loaned out to 3 arrows capital and was not coming | back. | | The distinction became even more significant when the | bankruptcy judge agreed that the bank accounts that were | holding actual USD customer deposits were not part of the | bankruptcy estate and had to be released back to those | customers. | mistrial9 wrote: | yes, the distinctions you make are relevant; my point is | exactly that there is NOWHERE NEAR the liquidity in | ordinary markets.. I was too quick to object and with | insufficient distinction, I stand corrected | hahaxdxd123 wrote: | Ok but US money markets are not backed by Evergrande debt | sizzle wrote: | Isn't tether USDT built on ethereum? How does it affect btc | exactly? Can you buy BTC with USDT or am I missing something | about the connection between the two? | papercrane wrote: | It's generally assumed that if USDT collapsed it would drag | down the entire crypto market. | tinus_hn wrote: | > It's not backed. | | Then again, neither is a typical bank account. | righttoolforjob wrote: | The typical bank account is backed by a properly regulated | financial institution, whereas USDT is backed by some shady | foreign company. | smt88 wrote: | Absolutely wrong. Typical bank accounts in the US are FDIC- | insured. | anonymoushn wrote: | Up to any amount of deposits? | warkdarrior wrote: | Each account is insured up to $250k, and you can open as | many accounts as you wish. | | Source: https://www.fdic.gov/resources/deposit- | insurance/faq/index.h... | Scoundreller wrote: | Nononono!!!! | | > Deposits are insured up to at least $250,000 per | depositor, per FDIC-insured bank, per ownership category | | If you want have more than $250k insured in regular | accounts, spread it across multiple banks (or put some in | a joint acct, but that has its own risks). | | Opening a chequing account and a savings account at the | same bank doesn't give you $500k of coverage if you were | to put 250k in each. | spookthesunset wrote: | > Once the Tether scam unravels | | We've all been saying this for literally years now and yet here | we are. The crypto market doesn't make any sense at all. | | It has to crash sometime, right? I mean it is obvious to | anybody paying any attention that tether is a scam. How has it | gone on this long? What will finally do it in? | ravingraven wrote: | I was short on Tether for years. Had to give up my position | because "Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay | solvent." | swalsh wrote: | I gave up my Chinese Market shorts for the same reason | alangibson wrote: | Indeed. Especially when the west in question is | systemically important. How were you shorting? | Scoundreller wrote: | What's it usually cost to short a tether for a year? | | At least it's a non-productive asset so that'll keep the | cost down a bit, no? | lern_too_spel wrote: | A ponzi can keep going indefinitely if all the investors HODL | without cashing out and no regulators check the books to | trigger a run. As soon as enough people try to cash out their | paper returns, the scheme unravels very quickly. | andirk wrote: | I agree, but we can't all cash out all of our money from US | banks either. That much money simply does not exist. These | comments have a lot more faith in FDIC than me, so maybe | I'm missing something. | cool_dude85 wrote: | Maybe you have missed the US government's reputation of | paying its debts and the FDIC's near 100 year history of | paying out? It's hard to miss but I'm sure for some | people it's possible. | rossdavidh wrote: | Things which cannot go on forever, will stop. | | Unfortunately, it is very difficult to know when. | bb88 wrote: | 1. The people using it don't care if it is, as they may be | trying to grift each other anyway, or be using it for short | term holding, transferring between crypto accounts. | | 2. We would only see this on a massive sell off when Tether | can't prop up the price fast enough with their reserves (by | buying USDT with USD). This almost happened on May 11 of | 2022. | | 3. The Madoff scam went years and years before finally being | outed in 2008. Decades perhaps? | rhodorhoades wrote: | Tether is hard coded to bounce between their float. Tether | made a mega fuck ton of money when that float widened and | so did all the hft firms. Most of the tether is held by | insiders and they can utilize that tether to obtain 100x | leverage. You can literally see on chain when the yield | widened back in may 11th, that sythetix and other leverage | platforms got a huuuge influx of USDT and they used that | USDT to purchase more USDT on the low... and guess what? | Made a killing. | | They are too powerful with too much money and too much | centralized collusion to fail on their own. And the US | policy still can't define crypto, let alone police it | properly. Only the full might of the US judicial system | will make tether fail. | [deleted] | Animats wrote: | Madoff kept it going for 17 years. | | If you pay low or no interest, a Ponzi can be kept going for | a long time. Eventually, though, the end of growth plus | ongoing withdrawals catch up. | [deleted] | jbirer wrote: | What's wrong? They are doing fractional reserve banking. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | Fractional reserve banking means that banks must _reserve_ a | _fraction_ of the deposits. They lend out the rest. The | deposit is still on record and the obligation to repay it | still exists. | | If a bank never takes deposits, they have nothing to lend | out. If Tether was printing Tethers without having deposits | in place, they're not doing fractional reserve banking. | scotty79 wrote: | Do you think they have no money kept? Because if they kept | fractions then it's fractional. | Wata26363 wrote: | No, a tether is not accompanied with an iou to the | "bank". In fact it's the other way around. If they're not | fully covered its simply theft. | banannaise wrote: | Fractional reserve banking still means having assets that | cover your liabilities; those assets simply may not be | liquid (i.e. they are loans that will be paid back over a | period of years). | | If you don't have assets on your books, and have instead | either walked with or lost a large portion of the money, | then you're not doing fractional reserve banking, you're | running a confidence scheme. | | If Tether, as suspected, was largely "backed" by crypto | assets and Bitfinex shares, then they're gambling with | the bank funds... and the recent losses in the crypto | markets mean that they have been losing those bets. | | (I edited the last portion of this substantially to make | it more concise.) | cuteboy19 wrote: | Two cases | | 1. You deposit $100 in the bank. It keeps $30 as cash and | lends out the rest to someone. The money is still there | on the balance sheet (but with a risk that it might not | be returned) | | 2. You deposit $100 with Mr. Paulo in return getting | 100USDT. Mr. Paolo spends $70 on private jets and | ho*kers. If you ever want back more than $30, you're out | of luck. | RHSeeger wrote: | Admittedly, unless the reserve amount required is 0 | | From https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reserver | eq.htm | | > As announced on March 15, 2020, the Board reduced reserve | requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26, | 2020. This action eliminated reserve requirements for all | depository institutions. | | --- Feel free to correct me on this; my financial knowledge | is only just a bit higher than that 0% rate noted above. | kasey_junk wrote: | The reserve requirement was removed because banks were | holding too many reserves for the feds liking. | | Every US bank still has asset & liability requirements | including having at least as many assets as liabilities | and stringent rules on what the assets are. Further they | have reporting requirements as well. | iLoveOncall wrote: | > There's a chance that Tether has been pumping BTC. | | A chance? It's an absolute certainty. | | Not only most exchanges have only a USDT:BTC pair and not a | USD:BTC pair, but if you look at recent (~1.5 years) sudden | spikes in BTC price, they correspond almost always to a new | supply of USDT being released by Tether. | | The only upward momentum Bitcoin has had since the last ATH has | been due to Tether printing money, so it's safe to say that not | only it's pumping it, but it's probably contributing 80%+ of | its value. | | If Tether dies, it's the end of cryptocurrency, period. | kranke155 wrote: | It's end of cryptocurrency as a wild speculative asset. | Ethereum and decentralised apps will still exist, which is | all that matters. | | Bitcoin is a failed open source project turned Ponzi. I can't | wait for tether to take it to the absolute bottom and end the | current epoch of crypto-as-speculation. Crypto will have its | uses as a decentralised application platform. | tehjoker wrote: | You say that, but the only plausible non-substitutable use | of bitcoin I've seen is sending money overseas or buying | drugs. If its monetary value collapses, I don't see these | other uses at all replacing it. It could just die, though | more likely some marginal stuff will continue indefinitely | trying to recapture lost glory. | kranke155 wrote: | NFTs have actually solved a real problem in the art | world. I've said it many times before here so you can | browse through my comment history to see why. | | Spoilers: - saying "but there is fraud" is not an | argument against NFTs, because actually an automated | solution for NFT fraud is conceivable. And the fact that | there is fraud does not take away from the thousands of | artists using it legitimately. Plus, authenticating you | are buying from a real artist in the NFT space is | actually not that hard. | | I actually think there is a huge potential to | decentralized applications, but this is essentially faith | for now so I won't add much more to the discussion. | ohgodplsno wrote: | > Ethereum and decentralised apps will still exist, which | is all that matters. | | Will they, when ETH collapses to being worth less than 10 | bucks because you can't exchange it for funny drug money | and it's only usable as funny slow distributed computer | coins ? When users can't speculate on it, when stakers lose | money on running a node because they're getting 5 bucks | worth of rewards every other month ? | | Thankfully for the Ethereum Foundation, they conveniently | prevented people from taking out their stake then did the | merge, so that now that someone is in Ethereum, they cannot | back out of it. Some might say it was something that only a | malicious actor would do, but then again, the crypto | community has never really been that bright when it comes | to detecting scams. | kranke155 wrote: | This is essentially FUD, since it's obvious that | withdrawals are the next thing in the list for the | Foundation. No one forced anyone to stake either. Users | did that knowing there was uncertainty on when it would | be activated. | jazzyjackson wrote: | is there a decentralized app you like that isn't a defi | exchange or play2earn "game" ? | | just curious because I haven't seen a practical use for the | EVM, it just seems like the slowest, most expensive VM ever | conceived. | edgyquant wrote: | I'm really tired of people assuming decentralized = eth | derivative. The practical use cases of federated and | decentralized apps have been shown (no one source of | truth, tampering or failure) but practical apps aren't | going to use a cryptocurrency why the hell would they. | | At scale we've been building completely decentralized | applications for a decade and a half. They're just | internal to some organization not public. Taking this and | placing the database in the users hands is an interesting | way to go but not exactly an order of magnitude more | complex at that point. | | But this doesn't require some dumbass blockchain currency | and ethereum is super forced. | michaelchisari wrote: | | _They're just internal to some organization not | public._ | | That's because technological decentralization is much | easier with political centralization. | | But technological _and_ political decentralization | together is incredibly difficult. | | In my experience, federated systems are more practical | than decentralized systems and provide 98% of the | benefits. | | I agree that cryptocurrency is not necessary (or ideal) | for either. | kranke155 wrote: | Yes. NFTs have actually solved a real problem in the art | world. I've said it many times before here so you can | browse through my comment history to see why. | | Spoilers: - saying "but there is fraud" is not an | argument agaisnt NFTs, because actually an automated | solution for NFT fraud is conceivable. And the fact that | there is fraud does not take away from the thousands of | artists using it legitimately. Plus, authenticating you | are buying from a real artist in the NFT space is | actually not that hard. | iLoveOncall wrote: | > NFTs have actually solved a real problem in the art | world. I've said it many times before. | | Saying something wrong many times doesn't make it right. | kranke155 wrote: | You can ignore the empirical evidence. NFTs work. | vkou wrote: | Work to do what? Prove ownership? They don't. Attribute | IP rights? They don't. Persist the art in an immutable | state? They don't. Bundle any other perks with the art? | They don't. Provide a channel for artists to 'sell' their | art? Okay, I guess they do, but so do a million other | services, ranging from websites to the coffee shop two | blocks down from my apartment. | | They are signed URLs that you can trade around on an | exchange. This solves no problem that anyone making art | has ever had. | swalsh wrote: | In my crypto investing thesis, I simply can't explain what | role Bitcoin and its outdated technology can play. But I | know not to bet against it. It's still the music to the | merry-go-round. | beaned wrote: | Isn't correlation also what you would expect in an honest | scenario as well? If there's demand for acquiring tether to | trade Bitcoin, and it has to be printed, so it is, and then | it's used for Bitcoin trading, I don't understand where the | fishy-ness is. At least not from that one timing perspective. | righttoolforjob wrote: | People buy Bitcoin with regular money, not with USDT. | People exchange from cryptocurrency to USDT because they | really want USD, but that is significantly harder to | convert to. | 111111101101 wrote: | > If Tether dies, it's the end of cryptocurrency, period. | | That's what I thought about MtGox. How wrong I was. | epolanski wrote: | MtGox involved few thousands people. There's more than 100M | people at least who speculated on crypto. | spookthesunset wrote: | > That's what I thought about MtGox. How wrong I was. | | It's mind boggling how long this has gone on, really. I've | been following the crypto scam for like 10 years now and it | just keeps going. | lui8906 wrote: | It's almost like it's not all a scam isn't it? | AlexandrB wrote: | And Scientology is not a cult. Something being around for | decades is no indication of whether it's legitimate or | not. | 111111101101 wrote: | Or maybe it's just the most brilliant scam to ever be | conceived? A ponzy scheme with a built-in rinse and | repeat function that also put the final nail in the | coffin of the war on drugs. Scam or not, it was a | revolutionary idea which was executed perfectly. | pwinnski wrote: | It's not even that! It's just that most people seem to | have no idea how long most scams are able to run. Bernie | Madoff was operating for 17 years before things fell | apart, and he was just one man. The layers of scam | involved in crypto will take many, many, many more years | to unravel. | | It doesn't take cleverness, just complexity. | iamacyborg wrote: | The technology may not be but certainly it's hard to | argue that a large number of participants in the space | are not committing scams. | solveit wrote: | I agree that Tether has certainly been pumping BTC with money | they don't have, but | | > if you look at recent (~1.5 years) sudden spikes in BTC | price, they correspond almost always to a new supply of USDT | being released by Tether. | | is what you would expect to see even if Tether was 100% | legit. As you say, most BTC liquidity is in USDT, so people | buying Bitcoin would first buy (mint) USDT from Tether, and | then use that to buy BTC. | lui8906 wrote: | Seems kinda obvious. New Tether is issued because people | typically want to onboard into crypto assets. | jandrese wrote: | Criminals still need to launder money. Suburbanites still | need to buy drugs. Cryptocurrencies won't completely | disappear. | 0x457 wrote: | > Suburbanites still need to buy drugs | | Lol, you think these transactions done with crypto? Don't | be silly. | jandrese wrote: | You are saying the Silk Road and the numerous clones | aren't real? | tomjakubowski wrote: | Silk Road was a drop in the ocean, in total a hundredth | of a percent of just the United States' spend on the most | popular illicit drugs. | | _Silk Road ... facilitating annual sales estimated at | almost_ $15 million. | | https://reason.com/2013/04/09/bitcoin-vs-big-government/ | | _Researchers estimate that from 2006 to 2016, the total | amount of money spent by Americans on these four drugs | fluctuated between_ $120 billion and $145 billion _each | year._ | | https://www.rand.org/news/press/2019/08/20.html | missedthecue wrote: | They comprise a negligible amount of the drug trade. | People are more likely to use Venmo than mess around with | crypto wallets | somewhereoutth wrote: | When the casino admits it doesn't have the cash to back the | chips out on the floor - pandemonium ensues. | Scoundreller wrote: | I wonder what percentage they consider "lost" every year and | book as revenue? | SMVS wrote: | Tether asked for proof reserve is backed with dollars, not just | ketamine. | eutropia wrote: | (IANAL) Tether was trying to claim that requesting essentially a | complete financial report for Tether and Bitfinex was overbroad, | but has so far refused to produce any example of a more specific | and limited set of information, so the court said "open your | books": ...In the absence of agreement between | the parties (id., Ex. 1 at 5 ("Plaintiffs remain open to | considering an alternate proposal ... but cannot do without | some indications of what the B/T Defendants intend to | produce[.]")), the Court finds that Plaintiffs' financial records | RFPs are not overly broad, particularly given that | Defendants have had opportunities to make sample | productions of the financial records RFPs, but have failed | to do so despite Plaintiffs' agreement to such proposal | (id., Ex. 1 at 5). Plaintiffs plainly explain why they need this | information: to assess the backing of USDT with US dollars, and | to allow a forensic accountant to assess the USDT | reserve... The documents sought in the transactions | RFPs appear to go to one of Plaintiffs' core allegations: | that the B/T Defendants engaged in cyptocommodities | transactions using unbacked USDT, and that those | transactions "were strategically timed to inflate the market."... | Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the B/T Defendants to produce | documents in line with the revised RFPs 22-25, 29, 31, and | 72 | jsmith45 wrote: | I found this format of a court order to be rather unique. I've | never before seen a court order that reproduces a document from | the docket (#245), and appends the actual order (with no header | or anything) to the end. | davidgerard wrote: | I've seen some that are a letter from one side, and the judge | has scribbled a note at the top accepting it and signed that. | iudqnolq wrote: | It's normal[1] to give a judge a proposed order they just | have to sign. | | Judges don't have to care about formatting and headers. Each | judge generally gets to write their own rules for how they | want lawyers to format filings in their cases. | | [1] Or at least I often see them when browsing through cases | as an interested layperson and I've heard lawyers discussing | doing it in a tone that suggests it's the norm. | can16358p wrote: | Why is the letters and words garbled to an unreadable level | especially on the first page? | shrubble wrote: | The good thing about Tether is that you can look at Tether, then | look at the Federal Reserve's behavior. | | Tether throws into sharp relief the excess of the Fed. | jazzyjackson wrote: | the fed never promised they were backed by cash | jc_811 wrote: | The Federal Reserve is a US government created organization, | with specific public mandates, and has the full backing of the | entire US and global financial & monetary systems. | | Tether is a private company, controlling $67B in assets, with | less than 10 FT employees, a CEO who hasn't been seen in public | for years, with no transparency into their backing, has been | caught lying multiple times in court, and has been involved in | multiple civil and criminal investigations. | | There's no comparison. | [deleted] | dang wrote: | Url changed from https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stablecoin- | issuer-tether-orde..., which points to this. | [deleted] | dang wrote: | We changed the URL from | https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stablecoin-issuer-tether-orde... | to the ruling it points to, since the latter is readable enough | and the former doesn't really add anything. | iudqnolq wrote: | Here's the docket that links to this order and the other | filings in the case if anyone wants context. | | https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16298999/in-re-tether-a... | | (I'm posting this because it's slightly unintuitive to go from | the PDF download back to the page it came from if you're not | familiar with the site) | can16358p wrote: | While I find Tether super-shady, it's also one of the longest- | going stablecoins which has stayed strong while many others | failed catastrophically. | | Not to defend them or anything for sure, I find them and their | Bitfinex/price manipulation schemes super shady too, but it's | also a success that they came this far when many people expected | them to collapse for years. | anm89 wrote: | I think this is the correct sentiment. I would be shocked if | there's nothing shady going on at Tether, but given the 5 years | of apocalyptic tether predictions while Tether plugs on through | things like the Terra collapse with zero issues, it seems very | likely to me that the sentiment is overly negative, not that | the risk is understated. | cowtools wrote: | > Tether plugs on through things like the Terra collapse with | zero issues | | Being more stable than Terra is not a very high bar. | anm89 wrote: | It's a binary event. It's either stable or it isn't stable. | It isn't "more stable than Terra". It's stable (so far). | WFHRenaissance wrote: | As of 2021, their reserves consist of: | | Cash & Cash Equivalents & Other Short-Term Deposits & Commercial | Paper (75.85%): | | - Commercial Paper (65.39%) | | - Fiduciary Deposits (24.20%) | | - Cash (3.87%) | | - Reverse Repo Notes (3.60%) | | - Treasury Bills (2.94%) | | Secured Loans (none to affiliated entities) (12.55%) | | Corporate Bonds, Funds & Precious Metals (9.96%) | | Other Investments (including digital tokens) (1.64%) | | Anyone saying Tether is not backed in any way is illiterate or a | conspiracy theorist. | advisedwang wrote: | I would guess that the lawsuit alleges either: | | a) These percentages are true, but they don't actually add up | to the amount of tether issued. | | b) This was true in 2021 but is no longer true | | c) This numbers were not an accurate representation. | ohgodplsno wrote: | I'll borrow 100 bucks from you, they'll be backed too: | | - $25 in my gas tank (50.0%) | | - $10 in a crumpled bill in my pocket (20%) | | - $15 of groceries that are in my fridge (40%) | | don't worry about how much it adds up to or if it's liquid, | it's backed | WFHRenaissance wrote: | But the numbers do add up? | pwinnski wrote: | The _percentages_ add up. Are you certain that for every | $100 in USDT they issue, they acquire another $2.94 in | T-bills, $3.87 in cash, take out a secured loan for $12.55, | and so on? | | They could indeed have all of those percentages, in exactly | that relationship, all combined worth... a million dollars. | That would be far, far, far, far short of what it should | be. | evdubs wrote: | The attestation reports tell you the actual numbers (not | percentages) of holdings grouped by asset type. [1] | | > The Group's consolidated total assets amount to at | least US$ 66,409,619,424. | | > The Group's consolidated total liabilities amount to | US$ 66,218,725,778, of which US$ 66,204,234,509 relates | to digital tokens issued. | | > ... US Treasury Bills ... $28,856,434,491 | | > ... other holdings by asset type | | [1] https://assets.ctfassets.net/vyse88cgwfbl/2xJyKdUKicd | RUWpC9b... | jwozn wrote: | I love that these percentages add up to 110%, and even more | so when comparing the dollar amount and associated | percentages in relation to the original $100 and to each | other. | EdwardDiego wrote: | ..what's the worth of that commercial paper? What's the | _trustworthiness_ of it? Who is it from? | evdubs wrote: | From [1], the value of that commercial paper was | $24,165,815,363. $23,615,946,340 of it was rated A-2 (Tier-2) | or better (A-1/Tier-1 and A-1+/Tier-1+). This is equivalent | to BBB or better (A to AAA) rated bonds. The report does not | specify the CP issuer. | | Tether's consolidated reserves have since changed | composition. [2] The most recent report shows (approximate | percentages): | | - US Treasury Bills (43.45%) | | - Commercial Paper and Certificates of Deposit (12.65%) | | - Money Market Funds (10.25%) | | - Cash & Bank Deposits (8.15%) | | - Reverse Repos (4.5%) | | - Non US Treasury Bills (0.59%) | | - Bonds, Funds, Metals, Other, Loans (20.37%) | | So the commercial paper was so far trustworthy enough to | allow them to rotate out of much of their CP position and | into US Treasury bills. | | [1] https://assets.ctfassets.net/vyse88cgwfbl/4hiNJsZ98LlZqCJ | HKz... | | [2] https://assets.ctfassets.net/vyse88cgwfbl/2xJyKdUKicdRUWp | C9b... | AlexandrB wrote: | Since April of this year USDT has lost ~20% of its market cap. | Presumably, this was tethers being redeemed for USD. Would be | interesting to know which of the listed assets Tether sold off | to fund these redemptions and whether they had to sell any of | them at a loss. | WFHRenaissance wrote: | It was likely Tether being swapped for other stablecoins, or | Tether swapped as a TETHER/USD pair on a centralized crypto | market. | lawn wrote: | Allegedly. | | And I'm sure it's _partially_ backed by something, the issue | how much is it really backed and by what. | LawTalkingGuy wrote: | There isn't a single dollar in a vault. They've been a scam since | the beginning. | | They clearly did NOT have any assets when they were pretending to | be audited or they would have completed the audit. | anm89 wrote: | This is just a cartoonishly naive take. This is like saying the | Fed or JP Morgan is insolvent because they don't have the sum | of their balance sheet located in some metal vault with dollar | bills inside of it. It turns out having stacks of paper in a | metal cage isn't how solvency is defined in 2022. | LawTalkingGuy wrote: | Their whole promise is having a dollar in a vault for every | tether issued. | anm89 wrote: | Well, you are wrong. But ok. | yieldcrv wrote: | I think some of the most extreme criticism doesn't go that far. | | Bitcoin crowd doesn't like less than 100% backing. The argument | isn't that they have nothing. | | When Tether had disrupted fiat redemptions and lost banking, | people would find the banks they likely moved to by looking at | massive increases in the bank's reported deposits. | LawTalkingGuy wrote: | Nobody likes 0% backing. Yes, the argument is that they have | NOTHING, zero, $0. Never did. | bell-cot wrote: | With some financial engineering, an "absolutely 100% dollar- | backed" asset can be backed by a "more than 99% for-sure" mix of | assets, which are in turn backed by a "96% good in even the worse | case" mish-mash, which are in turn backed by a "I'd bet my left | arm that more than 91% are okay" heap of stuff, which are in turn | backed by a "we have checked on 84% of 'em" pile of smelly | things, which are in turn... | Grimburger wrote: | > we have checked on 84% of 'em" pile of smelly things, which | are in turn... | | For the posterity of this thread American banks are no longer | required to hold any reserve requirements at all[1]. | | Though I guess that is a " _different_ " issue depending on who | you ask here. | | Ask yourself this - can everyone in the country take their | money out at the same time | | For these shitty stablecoins: nearly everyone | | For the actual money you use everyday: Maybe 2-3% of people can | cash out of the system properly. | | A system built on trust works until it doesn't. | | [1] | https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm | drc500free wrote: | Which is why FDIC insurance is a thing. | jcranmer wrote: | > For the posterity of this thread American banks are no | longer required to hold any reserve requirements at all[1]. | | That is misleading. Banks are no longer required to hold a | certain fraction of their deposits in their bank account at a | Federal Reserve bank--that's the reserve requirement that was | reduced to 0%. Keep in mind that only money in the bank | account qualifies as reserves that requirement; a literal | pile of dollar bills would contribute not one cent. | | Instead, banks are required to keep on hand sufficient equity | for a percentage of their risk-weighted assets--money that, | if the assets go to 0, can be raided to make up the losses. | The requirement here starts at I believe 8%, and increases if | you're a more important bank. | | (If I'm computing it correctly, Tether has disclosed a | capital ratio of approximately 0%, FWIW. Were Tether actually | held to the same standards as a bank, Tether would be | considered dangerously undercapitalized if not outright | insolvent.) | rlucas wrote: | This is misleading to those who read "plain English" meanings | and not familiar with jargon. Banks call "Capital" or | "Equity" the unencumbered safe assets like cash they hold. | | Banks do have strict Capital requirements. | | The "reserve" requirement going to zero is different. | rchaud wrote: | Depositor insurance is why people don't try to take out all | their money at the same time. | | Stablecoins don't offer that. They have their own stabilizing | mechanism where in a crisis, the peg collapses so quickly | that it's not even worth trying to take any out after | considering peak traffic tx fees. | lazide wrote: | Bwaha, you had me in the first half. | | Glorious. | mywittyname wrote: | What's so funny? | | The FDIC has a track record of payouts and they keep | meticulous of every bank they insure, going back to the | program inception in 1933. | belter wrote: | NFTs All The Way Down... | ur-whale wrote: | You've just described the _entire_ (USD-backed or otherwise) | world financial system - unless that is - if you have hard | assets buried in a hole somewhere in the ground in a place only | known to you as well as enough firepower to prevent anyone from | taking it by force when you try and access it. | rhodorhoades wrote: | I can't tell if this is a joke about financial engineering | tether slowing lowering its backing publicly? Maybe a double | entendre? | | Tether was originally 100% 'backed' and after more and more | pressure, they literally did that exact same thing with the | percent that was backed in USD. | | "It's 100%. Okay, it's absolutely backed by 99% usd. JK, 96! I | think they are at like 74% now publicly backed by USD? | zen_1 wrote: | All AAA mortgages, I'm sure. | GaveDrohl wrote: | S&P & Moody's would not lie!/s | andrepd wrote: | Is AAA even meaningful? Shit ratings were a major part of the | 2008 meltdown, but we've all collectively decided to ignore | that and keep relying on the big three's Divinely Inspired | Appraisal. Sounds odd. | lazide wrote: | It is only meaningful in a relative sense - AAA is less | likely to be allowed to fail (or maybe actually fail?) than | BBb or whatever. Usually. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | AAA NFT mortgages in the metaverse. | londons_explore wrote: | It's all zuckerberg's one meta-house remortgaged a million | times... | metacritic12 wrote: | Much less the case after 2008. | | And definitely was never the case if that chain of assets had | the same par value. | | E.g. a 100% dollar-backed worth $1000 can never be backed by | $1000 of B-rated mortgages. It would have been e.g. $2000 of | B-rated mortgages. Obviously, this still had a massive flaw as | we saw. | | The point still stands though that USDT's profits are probably | all based on it's float, so they want to go as risky as | possible to generate more profits. They get all the upside of | high-yield assets, and not the downside. | zmgsabst wrote: | To elaborate: | | The problem in 2008 is correlated risk -- basically, the | difference between rolling once per mortgage (uncorrelated | defaults) or just once that impacts all the mortgages | (correlated defaults). Creating a "more secure" investment | out of nominally more "less secure" for investments depends | on the risk being uncorrelated, ie every risky investment is | a separate roll. | | But as we saw in 2008, many people may default at once if the | economy becomes unhealthy. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _problem in 2008 is correlated risk -- basically, the | difference between rolling once per mortgage (uncorrelated | defaults) or just once that impacts all the mortgages | (correlated defaults)_ | | It was ignoring solvency != liquidity. Most of the | structured mortgage products paid out fine. You really can | skim cream off crap through payment prioritisation. But | that was not clear _ex ante_. If you're leveraged or in | dire straits, that a security will pay as promised over the | coming decade is little comfort when it's going at a dime | on the dollar. | roflyear wrote: | The problem with the securities may have been correlated | risk, but that didn't cause 2008. 2008 did not have a | single problem, it had a lot of problems. | ISL wrote: | Crypto is growing up. The little tyke we got to know in 2014 is | getting its first meaningful encounters with the consequence of | young adulthood. | | Growing up is hard, but the outcome can be positive. | cowtools wrote: | How is tether considered a cryptocurrency here? It's centrally | minted and controlled. | davidgerard wrote: | It's important to note that a lot of the demanded records _don 't | exist_. | | e.g., we know from the CFTC settlement that for a while, Tether | didn't keep anything so tawdry as "accounts" - the only | documentation of the reserve was a single shared spreadsheet. | purpleblue wrote: | If you own Tether right now, and you don't liquidate immediately, | you 100% deserve to lose all your money. This thing is going to | collapse. There's no reason why Tether would keep its holdings | secret unless it's hiding a secret. So be warned, if you don't | want to suffer the same fate as Terra you need to liquidate right | now. | phphphphp wrote: | Very few people hold Tether so it's not a very helpful warning: | most "USDT" exists within exchanges and is used to transact. | | The Luna fiasco was a consequence of Luna specifically | encouraging people to hold UST, encouraged with unsustainable | incentives. That dynamic doesn't exist in the context of USDT, | there's no benefit to holding USDT. | | The problem with USDT is that so much of the current | cryptocurrency market has been propped up by USDT that probably | isn't backed by any real assets. | | Tether print $1bn of USDT -> buy $1bn worth of BTC on an | exchange that uses USDT (e.g: their own...) -> price goes up | and increases the market cap by orders-of-magnitude more than | $1bn. | | If you have exposure to the cryptocurrency market (whether you | hold USDT, or BTC or own $COIN stock) and tether blows up, you | will very probably be hurt in the fallout. Buying BTC with any | USDT held is a false sense of security. | | If you don't want to be exposed to the tether blowup contagion, | sell everything now into cash-in-your-bank-account (not "cash" | on an exchange) and wait. | renewiltord wrote: | Want to buy a USDT put? I'll send someone to meet you in SF. | $10k min, if you're okay with in-person. Premium discussed when | you suggest expiry date. | | If you want the smart contract, I'll do a $25k min. Once you | give me the money, I'll do this: | | 1. Load a smart wallet with 1.2x equivalent value of ETH (which | I'm long) | | 2. Tie it to a smart contract using a price oracle that will | liquidate the ETH if the ETH/USDC price (using some combination | of high-volume exchanges) drops to 1.01x of the amount of USD | you should get | | 3. At any point of time, you can transfer in your strike USDT | to exercise the option and receive USDC in return | | This way I get to be long ETH and you get to be short USDT so | long as you trust USDC (which is audited) | purpleblue wrote: | I would LOVE to buy a USDT put but I would only do it on a | known exchange. Not some back-alley mechanism where I would | likely get scammed. As far as I'm concerned, the entire | crypto ecosystem is at risk, and all it will take is BTC | below $15k to see a lot of fallout and collateral damage. | jimmydorry wrote: | If Tether blows up, all of the exchanges with USDT pairs will | be holding bags of various sizes. Where do you expect one | would be able to redeem the USDC without significant risk of | the exchange folding before paying out your USDC redemption? | If the past is anything to go by, in quick order, exchanges | will limit withdrawls ("cash" balances included). | renewiltord wrote: | You could mean two things: | | 1. I won't be able to liquidate the ETH to USDC and | transfer it to you => We can force me to liquidate using a | DEX or Uniswap pool. Alternatively, if you're very worried | about this, I'll just charge a higher premium and post USDC | into the account. That's just a pricing problem | | 2. You won't be able to redeem the USDC I give you => | You'll have to trust Circle here, yeah. If you don't trust | their audits, we can use another stable coin, but I think | USDC is more trustworthy than BUSD and there aren't pairs | for ETH to very many other stable coins that have enough | volume to keep the spread down so I can safely liquidate | Lionga wrote: | Expiry in 12 months 100K smart contract. Premium? | setgree wrote: | For context, Bloomberg's "Anyone Seen Tether's Billions?" is a | fun read, and was discussed here: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28784745 | therealmarv wrote: | I'm sure it's 100% backed by a lot of magic fairy dust and | somehow I also imagine rainbows and unicorns in the asset list. | DonHopkins wrote: | Line up for free ice cream, kids!!! | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbYWhdLO43Q | cm42 wrote: | Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the JPM/NYAG report | essentially say USDT isn't [sufficiently?] backed, but doing | something about it might collapse the financial system because | of, among other reasons, This One Weird Trick To Print Free | Bitcoin in China That Satoshi Really Hates? | rossdavidh wrote: | You are not wrong. | LatteLazy wrote: | Crypto and Covid are 2 great examples of how the less information | people have, the more sure they are. | | There are already 2 comments here that are 100% sure tether has | zero dollars backing it. I am not saying it has a 100% backing, | or any other value. I do not know. But that fact people are so | sure they know and know exactly and at the very extreme of the | possible range is very telling... | Invictus0 wrote: | What is even the point of this comment? You say you have no | clue what the truth is, but still twirl your mustache on the | oh-so-very-nuanced stance that it's more likely a 50% scam than | a 100% scam. | olalonde wrote: | It's a common occurence on HN. My theory is that people make | authoritative comments, even when they should know better, | because those comments tend to attract more up votes. This is | especially problematic on topics that can't be easily verified. | cageface wrote: | Occam's Razor. If it was backed then they would have produced | the evidence long ago instead of dancing around the issue for | years and doing phony "audits". | LatteLazy wrote: | That is fine, as long as it is your belief and you admit you | might be wrong. | | The issue is when you say Occam Razor is a form of proof and | you are "certain"... | Ensorceled wrote: | cer*tain (sur'tn) adj. | | 3. Established beyond doubt or question; indisputable: What | is certain is that every effect must have a cause. | | 5. Having or showing confidence; assured: | | When someone says, "I am certain .." they are are clearly | using definition 5. and especially in this context. Your | insistence that they are using definition 3. is | unreasonable, especially since you KNOW they came to this | opinion via Occam's Razor. | cageface wrote: | Occam's razor is an heuristic for proceeding in the absence | of certainty. Anyone claiming otherwise doesn't understand | it. | | As for Tether I'm certain enough to advise anybody | investing it or any currency supported by it to not invest | money they can't afford to lose. | LatteLazy wrote: | So you are certain, but you have no hard facts to base | that on, just a heuristic you yourself say should NOT be | used to claim certainty? | | You see my point now? | cageface wrote: | You're just being pedantic now. We make decisions every | day all on imperfect information. There are enough red | flags around Tether that I wouldn't bet any real money on | it or on the things its propping up. | | The burden of proof is on Tether. They're the one making | the claim they're fully backed. | LatteLazy wrote: | I am fine with people making decisions on imperfect | information. I am not saying Tether is fine. It almost | certainly is not. | | I am just confused why everyone seems to BOTH say they do | NOT know AND then advise people and act like it's obvious | and clear!? | Smaug123 wrote: | The point is that absence of evidence is evidence of | absence - in this case, rather strong evidence of | absence. Without perfect information, of course nobody | _knows_ - but most people do in fact know with sufficient | certainty to not bet on Tether (and to advise people | similarly not to). Merely "not being certain" of | something does not, in fact, mean that it's unclear what | to do. | cuteboy19 wrote: | If I tell you that I am a Nigerian Prince and that I | definitely have a billion dollars somewhere and that you | need to just send me a small sum of 10k to release that | money, would you not tell people that it's an obvious | scam? | | I mean you don't know for a fact that I am NOT a prince | right? And if you ask me for any documents I'll just say | they got lost or it's too difficult to produce them. | | In this case the absence of information is the proof that | you need to say that tether is a scam. | Smaug123 wrote: | (Downvoted for apparently wilful failure of reading | comprehension. "Certain enough to advise [caution]" | obviously doesn't mean what you are using "certain" to | mean.) | LatteLazy wrote: | So "certain enough to advise" means "not certain"!? | Smaug123 wrote: | ... yes? I can be full enough that I don't want to eat | any more rice, but not so full that I can't squeeze in | some pudding. The word "enough" is right there in front | of you, indicating that the adjective it modifies has a | quantity. If I am full, I don't want any more food; if I | am full enough not to want X, that doesn't mean there is | no food I will eat. | lend000 wrote: | That's different than saying they have zero dollars, like the | sibling comment that the parent was probably alluding to. In | fact, there have been ~$20 billion in withdrawals during the | last few months as the market has turned bearish and the | market is reacting to a likely collapse below market | capitalization in Tether's non-dollar-backed assets [0]. Are | they backed 100%? Probably not during bear markets because | they seem to be doing discretionary trading with deposit | money. But the options aren't limited to "they have $0" and | being 100% backed. | | [0] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether/ | cageface wrote: | Serious skeptics of Tether are not claiming they have $0. | Just much less than they claim to have. | tsimionescu wrote: | Sure, but the content that started this thread is | explicitly complaining about people who do claim that | Tether has $0 backing it - of which there are a few in | this thread. | | The OP was not complaining that people think Tether is | not well enough backed, they were complaining that some | are "certain" that it is not backed at all - the least | informed being the most certain. | darcys22 wrote: | I dont get why people think the assurance reports they make | are phoney. | | https://assets.ctfassets.net/vyse88cgwfbl/2xJyKdUKicdRUWpC9b. | .. | | Its not like BDO are going to stick their neck out for tether | here | ceejayoz wrote: | > There are already 2 comments here that are 100% sure tether | has zero dollars backing it. | | Yes, that's a silly claim. Pretending that's anything near the | _average_ criticism of Tether is also silly. | milin wrote: | Tether does not have USDT backing. Some people are going to end | up in prison for life. | DonHopkins wrote: | Oops. [Tether web site turns into nginx install page.] | freemint wrote: | How can i short Tether? | awestroke wrote: | Sell your tether, sell your other crypto, move out into the | forest, build a log cabin, hunt wild game | evdubs wrote: | Sell short USDTUSD on Kraken | https://www.kraken.com/prices/tether?quote=usd | ProjectArcturis wrote: | Have several million to invest and ask an investment bank to | write you a tether swap. It won't be cheap. | djbusby wrote: | Exit any position and then ignore it. | almostkorean wrote: | not a defi expert, but I think the most common way to do this | is to use Aave: 1. borrow Tether 2. swap | it for USDC (or stablecoin of choice) 3. wait for Tether | to crash 4. pay off your Tether loan at a fraction of its | original value | | risk is that your tether loan will be accruing interest | (currently 1.4%) so if it doesn't crash or takes too long to | crash you could be liquidated. | mook wrote: | There's also the risk that USDC (or alternate) will lower in | value due to Tether crashing, even if they were merely also | crypto. It may be necessary to convert to non-crypto assets | instead. | | Of course, then there's the risk that non-crypto assets will | be affected by the same... | colinmhayes wrote: | Be careful with this, tether is semi-regularly manipulated to | briefly go way above $1 in order to squeeze shorts. | freemint wrote: | So many small positions. Got it. | anm89 wrote: | If you need to ask this question you should not be doing this. | It's been plugging away without issues for years. What makes | you think you can suddenly outtime the market on its collapse? | freemint wrote: | Attention by regulators. | anm89 wrote: | You haven't gained any competitive advantage in timing | though unless you have some unique insight. You just read a | press release that is available to every other market | participant, some of whos full time job is to do things | like analyze balance sheet risk. | | Anyway good luck, just beware that you aren't making some | kind of smart money play. | cuteboy19 wrote: | The places you can do so have a vested interest in keeping | tether afloat. Do not play in a rigged casino | lawn wrote: | I think you can do it on Kraken. | Marazan wrote: | Do not short Tether. | | Doing so is betting against The House. | | Not just any house, The House. The House in which all other | houses are built. | | You _cannot_ win shorting Tether. | cowtools wrote: | Not my house. I use kraken so I think I will remain less | affected than users of other, less credible, exchanges. | | Cryptocurrency has been working just fine before tether, and | it's going to work just fine without it. We've seen ups and | downs. So I don't think it's that crazy when the house has | failed many times in the history of cryptocurrency. | Marazan wrote: | Tether is The House. It doesn't matter what exchange you | trade on, the price of Bitcoin (and by extension all | crypto) is settled in Tether. | freemint wrote: | Well Tether can only have two stable states $1 or $0. A | Tether is never going to be worth $2 so at worst i am paying | interest on the short. | ceejayoz wrote: | > Well Tether can only have two stable states $1 or $0. | | Instability is often what kills short sellers. | Marazan wrote: | If Tether goes to zero your counter-party risk goes to | infinity. | | In the meantime it has all the hallmarks of a scam | manipulated asset. Shorting it will get you liquidated at | the whim of the manipulators. | hmate9 wrote: | On FTX you can short the USDT-PERP future. You pay about 4% a | year in funding fees while the position is open. | hiq wrote: | How much time do they have to produce these documents? Can they | legally avoid doing so for now, via an appeal of some sort? | [deleted] | Snarwin wrote: | IANAL but it looks like the default is 30 days: | | https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_34 | mihaic wrote: | How the hell do governments sleep for years on this sort of | stuff? | jjtheblunt wrote: | my guess is they let novel ideas play out for a while, since | most every innovation that endures starts as a crazy idea? | mihaic wrote: | That sounds about right, but when it gathers about a billion | dollars in it I'm a bit shocked it's still "just a start-up". ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-21 23:01 UTC)