| Just watched the videos, a few thoughts: Coffeezilla says that Tether doesn't need to honor your redemption by point to the TOS. The TOS that he shows in the video says that Tether reserves the right to delay the redemption and pay it in-kind securities held by Tether. So if Tether is holding a bond, they reserve the right to give you that bond instead of selling the bond and giving you the proceeds. That's very different than his claim that Tether doesn't need to honor the redemption. His discussion about whether or not it was transparent that Bitfinex and Tether were owned by the same people. He plays sound clips that sound a little misleading: Phil Potter is prompted with "Tether is Bitfinex, right?" To which Phil Potter responds: "No, it's not." Is that really misleading. If someone asked Elon Musk, Twitter is SpaceX, right? Wouldn't the answer be no, even though they're owned by the same people? All the sound clips are less than 10 seconds longs, so it's really hard to understand everything in context. The leadership team of Tether does seem a little sketch. The part about Tether lending Bitfinex money to stay solvent while Bitfinex's money was held by the state pending investigation of their bank was sketchy, but technically the currency would still be backed by the loan, assuming Bitfinex can get their money back, which seems likely given that they weren't a party in the investigation holding up the money. I think the bottom line is that you have to trust the Tether team to handle the money wisely. Usually, you can't trust people to do that so using Tether is extremely risky. As for the video, I won't say it's wrong, but it certainly picked the least charitable interpretation of events and also cherry-picked sound-bites, which is kind of a misleading tactic to use that helps suit a narrative. |