[shkkmo]

> Meaning that at one point and subsequently, Tether did match their leel of review, and at one point was backed 100%. Tether has had skepticism from the day it was created nearly 10 years ago, and a US authority got all the information was like "well that one time in 2018 we didn't like that". Tether is not 100% backed by dollars, it mostly is though.

This is some serious spin and misinformation. I can't believe you'd post this with a straight face.

The "100% USD backing" was at best more like 67% at the end of 2021, the rest is "commercial paper".

The "US authority" (OAG) was more like: you lied repeatedly about how you were backed, here's a big fine and you aren't allowed to do business here (New York) anymore.

Edit: The only reason we know that Tether was 2/3rds backed at the end of 2021 is because they are required to share that information as part of the settlement with the OAG.

[vmception]

CFTC, DOJ, and NY OAG

Yes, I was referring to the NY one, and I'm referring to how they were like "okay you went unbacked in 2018 and didn't disclose that to our standard, but at least disclose that its not USD". So now they paid a fine and disclose that. So at one point they were 1:1 USD, which is actually a major revelation because from 2014-2018 the same Tether FUD existed the same as now. In any case, now they aren't backed 100% USD, which is more relevant. Dollars and commercial paper isn't... horrible. Maybe they have a liquidity issue if 2/3rd of Tethers were attempted to be redeemed, maybe they don't.

[shkkmo]

> So at one point they were 1:1 USD, which is actually a major revelation

Is it a revelation or something you made up? NY OAG was confident they were able to prove that that Tether lied about backing in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Just because they don't have sufficient proof that Tether lied prior to 2017, doesn't make it a revelation that Tether was telling the truth. Indeed, given the trend, it seems quite reasonable to think that Tether was lying about backing at some point in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Who knows how much, they certainly aren't trustworthy.

[vmception]

ah okay, thats a perspective.

[shkkmo]

I'm curious why you feel the need to try to distort and spin stuff to benefit a company like Tether? They don't deserve your loyalty and they help give the crypto community a bad name.

[vmception]

It was actually my understanding of the situation, I feel I gave a balanced view. Not everything bad, not everything good. Like most things: somewhere in the middle and everyone is too emotional to look. It was new information to me that NYAG simply didn't investigate prior years at all, that's not the impression I got when I was reading that case. I think its an interesting way of reading it, like I said, a perspective.

Tether also grows in the same trajectory as USDC. or said another way, USDC grows in the same trajectory as Tether. That means if we were willing to assume it is actually functioning as detailed, then the same global sentiment perpetuates stablecoin growth.

What part of anything I wrote gave you the impression I have any loyalty to Tether. I was pretty explicit about the opposite of that.

> Let there be a run, I don't like to use Tether. I don't like algorithmic stablecoins more. There are options now, those options are holding up.

You're grasping just because I'm not auto-admonishing them. That's not necessary. It mostly works because its mostly dollars, the western-retail trader fud is not matched by western institutional sentiment[0], and is definitely not matched by eastern retail or eastern institutional sentiment. There is no surprise untethering, it would come from redemptions causing a liquidity issue after the dollars are all redeemed, or a crisis of confidence when redemptions are actually cut.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-12/money-mar...

If Tether's $25bn of commercial paper needs to be sold during a redemption run, after its $50billion of tethers were redeemed for dollars, then at that point there would likely be a liquidity issue spreading further to the all the Defi apps as Tether confidence shrinks, and some contagion to the "money markets". But the money markets should be able to absorb this size, commercial paper is a huuuuuuuge market.

The boogeyman stuff just is ... overblown. There is an objective reality, its not that bad, and doesn't mean you have to use it either way.

[shkkmo]

> It was actually my understanding of the situation, I feel I gave a balanced view. Not everything bad, not everything good. Like most things: somewhere in the middle and everyone is too emotional to look..

In what way was it balanced? It completely misrepresented the findings of the NYAG in the best possible light for Tether. If you were acurately representating your understanding of the situation, you need to seriously re-asses your sources.

> It was new information to me that NYAG simply didn't investigate prior years at all, that's not the impression I got when I was reading that case.

I never said that. What I said is that not bringing charges isn't evidence that Tether wasn't lying about their backing during those years.

> You're grasping just because I'm not auto-admonishing them. That's not necessary. It mostly works because its mostly dollars, the western-retail trader fud is not matched by western institutional sentiment[0], and is definitely not matched by eastern retail or eastern institutional sentiment.

The concern isn't that the peg can't be held through large downturns, with the assets that Tether has, it would take an extremely large down turn to _force_ them to break their peg. What the question comes down to is trustworthiness because there is nothing stopping the people running Tether from walking away with all the backing assets if they don't think it is worth it to hold the peg anymore.

Thus I think it is extremely important to not whitewash Tether's previous shady behavior since their trustworthiness is the prime concern.