[gws]

You are right, they lied, and people could have been harmed if there were a “bank run” on Tether. But in practice there was not and nobody suffered any damage, zero, nada, nicht. While big banks got fined for actually taking money illegally out of people’s pockets and nobody said let’s shut them down

[chrononaut]

Just because something is built upon fraud doesn't mean it will face imminent collapse. Usually it's events that put notable financial pressure on institutions that reveal their underlying flaws. The extent of the fraud notionally influences how easily it will end up collapsing. Hence why Madoff was able to keep up his scandal for quite a long time.

[notyourwork]

> But in practice there was not and nobody suffered any damage, zero, nada, nicht.

So I guess its ok. Might as well pack it up and let them carry on with manipulation, lying and profiting. I don't get your rationale whatsoever.

[Spivak]

It doesn’t make it okay, it just means it’s less bad than if there was actual harm.

Despite their lies, they were apparently able to meet their obligation to exchange tether for dollars for everyone who wanted it.

[ceejayoz]

Bernie Madoff was able to do that for decades, too. Until he couldn’t.

[fouric]

I don't see where the GP poster wrote anything like "I guess its ok. Might as well pack it up and let them carry on with manipulation, lying and profiting." - could you quote the relevant passage? Did they edit their comment?

[gws]

I did not edit :)

[iammisc]

Wow with logic like that you're well cut out for a career in financial law