[yieldcrv]

> It's well known in cryptocurrency circles that their coin is not backed 1:1 to USD

Its well known in the legal space and has already been addressed by multiple US courts. They're not looking for that and this isn't controversial.

Those court cases already happened in 2018-2020. Tether just needed to update its language. A financial institution not backed 1:1 to USD isn't a problem in any part of the banking sector, they just need a disclaimer that says that, and Tether updated their's and moved on. Those court cases were also about specific periods of time and were very intelligent and more nuanced than the Tether discourse in crypto spaces. Tether has periodically had more assets available, and its only controversy was about whether those were USD and US Treasuries amongst other things.

This is a probe about violating AML laws and sanctions. Which would likely only involve specific addresses in crypto and some onramps. But otherwise crypto-crypto trading won't be a part of this.

[JumpCrisscross]

> a probe about violating AML laws and sanctions. Which would likely only involve specific addresses in crypto and some onramps. But otherwise crypto-crypto trading won't be a part of this.

You think a dollar stablecoin won't be affected by being prohibited from touching dollars or the dollar financial system?

[yieldcrv]

I didn't say that, that statement doesn't imply that or suggest that.

The result of this probe likely won't be that as the DOJ is just emboldened by their Binance and CZ conviction, where the founder spent a couple months at a Southern California Federalbsummer camp and the DOJ got a few billion dollars, and Binance continues to operate as before and no further regulatory overhang is above them and all the money coming in and out is magically seen as clean.

[JumpCrisscross]

Fair enough. That said, Binance can co-operate with authorities in a way Tether may be technically limited in being able to.