[throwawaylolx]

They mint Tether during market crashes because that's when there is the highest volume on USDT pairs, and when Tether needs to create tokens to maintain the exchange rate around $1. Have you read their whitepaper?

Further, there is more proof that Tether has the funding to back up the USDT than proof that Tether does not have the funds:

https://blog.bitmex.com/tether/

https://blog.bitmex.com/tether-addendum-new-financial-data-r...

Reddit memes, medium posts with no research, and "correlation implies causation" assumptions does not make rumours true.

[lagadu]

Well, right on tether.to they say, and I quote:

> Our reserve holdings are published daily and subject to frequent professional audits. All tethers in circulation always match our reserves.

They've been around for years and the grand total of independents audits is 0 (zero).

Sure, assumptions don't make rumors true but them flat-out lying about audits and transparency speaks louder than anything else and we're not even getting into how it took the Panama papers leak for the public to find out that several of the people in charge of Tether and the people in charge of Bitfinex being the same.

[anonymouz]

Even worse, they tried to get an audit, but it ended up with them and their auditor ending the process without producing an audit. Apparently they weren't too happy the auditor wanted to actually take a close look:

“We confirm that the relationship with Friedman is dissolved. Given the excruciatingly detailed procedures Friedman was undertaking for the relatively simple balance sheet of Tether, it became clear that an audit would be unattainable in a reasonable time frame. As Tether is the first company in the space to undergo this process and pursue this level of transparency, there is no precedent set to guide the process nor any benchmark against which to measure its success.” - Tether spokesperson

See https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/bitfinex-and-tether-is-unaudi...

[spookthesunset]

The fact that people still support tether after getting fired by their auditor and then releasing the statement you quoted astounds me.

It is the most clear cut indicator that there is some super sketchy shit going on ever.

People seem to be willing to believe whatever they want despise clear signs they are wrong. Especially when there is the possibility of getting lambo-rich with Bitcoin....

[throwawaylolx]

>It is the most clear cut indicator that there is some super sketchy shit going on ever.

Yes, there is something that they're hiding, but there is no evidence that this has anything to do with their 1:1 USD reserve being a bogus. It's far more likely they are encountering regulation problems given the regulation uncertainty surrounding crypto.

>People seem to be willing to believe whatever they want despise clear signs they are wrong.

Or perhaps I'm not willing to commit to conspiracy theories based on baseless speculations.

[SilasX]

So wait, am I reading this right? They want to say that their holdings are audited, but want an auditing process that stops at "yes, this bank account as a $X balance" and doesn't include anything about who actually owns the account or what its liabilities are?

In fairness, I can kind of understand the bind: it seems that use-case of tethers depends on not being a legally enforceable claim to dollars, specifically so they can't legally be regulated as such (which would trigger reporting requirements, accreditation as a money transmitter, etc). But that's a double-edged sword: it also means that no (ethical) auditor will sign off on a statement saying they legally own the assets they claim to have.

[ttul]

For example... let’s say Bitfinex really does have $2.4B (or whatever) in the bank. But they have borrowed $2.3B using the cash as collateral. This is the sort of shenanigans that come out during an audit.

[carrja99]

Their cheerleaders usually reply claiming that they're under no obligation to publish audits and pretend that statement doesn't exist on the website, or is an old outdated webpage they forgot to remove.

[tomjakubowski]

> Sure, assumptions don't make rumors true but them flat-out lying about audits and transparency speaks louder than anything else and we're not even getting into how it took the Panama papers leak for the public to find out that several of the people in charge of Tether and the people in charge of Bitfinex being the same.

An interesting fact is that all of the original RealCoin/Tether founders (Brock Pierce, Reeve Collins, Craig Sellars) are now associated with a pair of connected blockchain startups: BLOCKV[1] and vAtomic[2].

[1]: https://blockv.io/#team

[2]: https://www.vatomic.io/ (this is, incidentally, another of vAtomic's founders, "accused of paying $2.5 million of bribes to two technology executives at the bank, so they would arrange $10.4 million of contracts to inflate his company’s revenue." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-servicemesh-cba-bribery/e...)

[throwawaylolx]

>flat-out lying about audits

Huh? They did do audits https://tether.to/announcement-transparency-update/ and they don't say they must be as public or as comprehensive as the community demands.

[lagadu]

Erm, quoted from the exact announcement you linked (including the typo):

> These consulting services do not constitute anaudit or attestation engagement

They're saying themselves that they weren't audited.

[throwawaylolx]

Not quite--they're saying that the consulting services that Friedman offered on top of the audit procedure they were hired to do are not an audit. Friedman audited Tether, but it was not "a full audit" (https://www.coindesk.com/tether-confirms-relationship-audito...) and, according to Tether, the reason for the that is as follows:

>Given the excruciatingly detailed procedures Friedman was undertaking for the relatively simple balance sheet of Tether, it became clear that an audit would be unattainable in a reasonable time frame. As Tether is the first company in the space to undergo this process and pursue this level of transparency, there is no precedent set to guide the process nor any benchmark against which to measure its success."

[JumpCrisscross]

> there is more proof that Tether has the funding to back up the USDT than proof that Tether does not have the funds

There is no way Bitfinex has $2.2 billion in bank accounts. If a bank handles U.S. dollars, they are under U.S. jurisdiction. Bitfinex cannot show who own Tether; that makes beneficial ownership tracing, rules surrounding which became stronger twelve days ago, impossible.

Had they picked any other currency, the claim could have been plausible. But $2.2 billion in anonymously digital U.S. dollars? (Physical cash, too, might have been plausible.) Not likely.

[FireBeyond]

Right, not to mention that phase 3-6 months ago where they were supposedly injecting several rapid (a few times a week) multi-hundred million dollar issuances. That's the kind of thing that raises red flags. "Hey, Mr Banker, here's $200M USD", three days later, "Hey, I have another $150M for you", and a few days after that, "Another $150M. Business is go-ooo-d!".

[otoburb]

>>If a bank handles U.S. dollars, they are under U.S. jurisdiction.

I've always thought of Tether as the loose cryptocurrency equivalent of a eurodollar[1] facility. If the eurodollar was Bitfinex's original inspiration, then Bitfinex probably thought that keeping their USD deposits (which allegedly back Tethers 1:1) in custody of foreign banks (i.e. non-US domiciled banks) would place them outside of US jurisdiction.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurodollar

[throwawaylolx]

Have you looked at any of the links I posted? https://blog.bitmex.com/tether-addendum-new-financial-data-r...

[hndamien]

I think the supposed trick is that they are not in bank accounts.