[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.