| > 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. |