Except we know of occasions they printed tether in return for collateral promises, rather than actually for cash. Not to mention filling a hole with Bitfinex stock when one of their processors got raided.
Now, it's just a question of degree: they're so profitable they can recover from being fractional rapidly. OTOH, why mess with a working formula?
Yes, the NY investigation was all about this: they patched up the loss and quietly changed their terms to being backed by cash or equivalents.
And they later detailed the $1bn Tether printed for Celcius in return for collateral (once Celcius collapsed and they claimed it was fully repaid).
Understand: for modern banks this kind of fractional behaviour is considered normal. It's only from the weird Bitcoin perspective that full reserve would be a requirement.
This is pretty hilarious coming from someone defending a company that refuses to produce a legitimate audit. (no, an "attestation" is not an audit)
If all they're doing is sitting on a giant big pile of cash and treasury bonds, it should be absolutely trivial to provide proof: here's where those assets are deposited.
If you can’t see the value in an attestation, you’re not familiar with the topic.
And I’m not “defending” anything other than the basic idea that when one has not proven something, one cannot claim it as true. Nobody has been able to prove Tether is a scam, so it isn’t.
Now, it's just a question of degree: they're so profitable they can recover from being fractional rapidly. OTOH, why mess with a working formula?