Tether/Stablecoins are the hot air inside the Bitcoin bubble...their regulation will burst it

DeFi Stablecoins are the way forward but are still relatively immature in adoption and development and have suffered from their own liqudity events and price fluctuations.
Indeed they have. However, the fact remains that they exist and development is ongoing. If somehow, circumstances were to be forced, then I have no doubt but the industry would find a way forward.


Regarding the other stablecoins, USDT remains the dominant by market cap with USDC the next up. However, USDC follows a similar practice to USDT for allocation of its reserve assets. Thus the risk that exists with USDT also exists with USDC, the risk I defined is not mitigated by the fact of there being more stablecoins in circulation.

There may well be similar risks. However, the availability of USDC and other stablecoins means that there are other options if the crap hits the fan where USDT is concerned. Previously - with only USDT around, that would have been a disaster for bitcoin. Now, the odds of both USDT and USDC mismanaging themselves at precisely the same time - theoretically its possible but its far less likely. Furthermore, USDT remains dominant but USDC has been growing at a much faster pace more recently.



Stablecoins (USDT, USD, BUSD) etc remain an important part of the Bitcoin Network, for example as of today the top traded pair is BTC/USDT showing that it remains a significant component of the BTC market. Do you disagree?
See above - there's no reason why someone who uses USDT today couldn't use USDC tomorrow should the former go missing for some reason. Comentators such as Nouriel Roubini and others have talked in terms of btc being finished should USDT be shut down. To my mind, that's unlikely to be the outcome.
 
Indeed they have. However, the fact remains that they exist and development is ongoing. If somehow, circumstances were to be forced, then I have no doubt but the industry would find a way forward.




There may well be similar risks. However, the availability of USDC and other stablecoins means that there are other options if the crap hits the fan where USDT is concerned. Previously - with only USDT around, that would have been a disaster for bitcoin. Now, the odds of both USDT and USDC mismanaging themselves at precisely the same time - theoretically its possible but its far less likely. Furthermore, USDT remains dominant but USDC has been growing at a much faster pace more recently.




See above - there's no reason why someone who uses USDT today couldn't use USDC tomorrow should the former go missing for some reason. Comentators such as Nouriel Roubini and others have talked in terms of btc being finished should USDT be shut down. To my mind, that's unlikely to be the outcome.

I don't want to be accused of sounding arrogant again, some of this is second nature given my experience in risk management. Firstly, I agree that the likelihood of two firms mismanaging their assets is reduced. However, this is not the risk I highlighted in my original post. I will assume that I was not clear enough in my original statement rather than an intentional misinterpretation on your point.

The risk I am highlighting is with the Money Market and Commercial Paper markets rather than the individual use of these markets by USDT or USDC to maintain treasury assets. Commercial Paper is unsecured debt, so in the simplest form you lend money to a corporate and receive it back + interest, they default your money is lost with no recourse. When Lehman Brothers collapsed the commercial paper market essentially shut down and institutions lost money etc. There are two risks, the first is that an individual company you've lent money to defaults and you lose $x. I consider this relatively low risk and low impact. The second risk which I can't quantify is the impact of a significant liquidity effect the likes of the financial crisis, its hard to quantify given the market is regulated differently today vs then.

I am not trying to debate that BTC will be able to survive, and I am sure it will, maybe after it loses a lot of value or maybe not, both of us could only speculate on the outcome without certainty. Whilst somebody using USDT today could use USDC tomorrow, not everyone using USDT today could use USDC tomorrow without additional minting of USDC. Again I am sure that could be facilitated, unless there was a fundamental issue with something like the CP market.

The point I was seeking recognition / acceptance is that there is a risk for BTC associated with how Stablecoins maintain their treasury assets. This in my view ties BTC closer to established financial markets and will only be mitigated either by holding cash only or as you pointed out Defi Stablecoins.
 
I don't disagree with any of that. My understanding is that although USDT and USDC access the commercial paper markets, there are differences in how they're doing that. Beyond all that, my understanding of the thread from the outset was/is that stablecoin risk is being scrutinised relative to its ability / potential to upend bitcoin. I think a worse case scenario would see a temporary market crash to some extent but that it wouldn't be detrimental to the ongoing development of bitcoin over the longer run.
 
I don't disagree with any of that. My understanding is that although USDT and USDC access the commercial paper markets, there are differences in how they're doing that. Beyond all that, my understanding of the thread from the outset was/is that stablecoin risk is being scrutinised relative to its ability / potential to upend bitcoin. I think a worse case scenario would see a temporary market crash to some extent but that it wouldn't be detrimental to the ongoing development of bitcoin over the longer run.

What are the differences? I am much more comfortable with USDC rather than USDT. What I am not entirely sure of is where Tether got the extra $40bln to lend out to the CP market in the last 6 months. Any insights on how they raise funds?

There was an interesting piece regarding Facebooks Libra (or whatever it is called now) last year from the ECB, it had the potential to become the largest money market fund in the world (i.e. holding trillions of assets in reserve to support the stablecoin), this would have a negative impact on financial markets liquidity. This is why I assume regulators are paying close attention to stablecoins. In my view the growth in BTC in the last 6 months has been supported by an increase in stablecoins market cap, and the regulators will only let them get so big.
 
What are the differences? I am much more comfortable with USDC rather than USDT. What I am not entirely sure of is where Tether got the extra $40bln to lend out to the CP market in the last 6 months. Any insights on how they raise funds?
It's not something I know an awful lot about but my understanding is that there are differences in terms of the levels of CP between the two. Then there's speculation as to what markets tether are sourcing CP in (suggestions that it may be China) - and speculation as to real valuation as opposed to a potentially contrived valuation.
There was an interesting piece regarding Facebooks Libra (or whatever it is called now) last year from the ECB, it had the potential to become the largest money market fund in the world (i.e. holding trillions of assets in reserve to support the stablecoin), this would have a negative impact on financial markets liquidity. This is why I assume regulators are paying close attention to stablecoins. In my view the growth in BTC in the last 6 months has been supported by an increase in stablecoins market cap, and the regulators will only let them get so big.
I find it hard to get my head round this stuff but there's also speculation that the likes of USDC could negate the need for the yanks to develop their own FED coin and represent US interests just fine.
 
A U.S. probe into Tether is homing in on whether executives behind the digital token committed bank fraud, a potential criminal case that would have broad implications for the cryptocurrency market.

Tether’s pivotal role in the crypto ecosystem is now well known because the token is widely used to trade Bitcoin. But the Justice Department investigation is focused on conduct that occurred years ago, when Tether was in its more nascent stages. Specifically, federal prosecutors are scrutinizing whether Tether concealed from banks that transactions were linked to crypto, said three people with direct knowledge of the matter who asked not to be named because the probe is confidential.

Criminal charges would mark one of the most significant developments in the U.S. government’s crackdown on virtual currencies. That’s because Tether is by far the most popular stablecoin -- tokens designed to be immune to wild price swings, making them ideal for buying and selling more volatile coins. The token’s importance to the market is clear: Tethers in circulation are worth about $62 billion and they underpin more than half of all Bitcoin trades.

“Tether routinely has open dialogue with law enforcement agencies, including the DOJ, as part of our commitment to cooperation and transparency,” the company said in a statement. Its corporate structure consists of a tangled web of entities based in the British Virgin Islands and Hong Kong.

The Justice Department declined to comment.

Federal prosecutors have been circling Tether since at least 2018. In recent months, they sent letters to individuals alerting them that they’re targets of the investigation, one of the people said. The notices signal that a decision on whether to bring a case could be made soon, with senior Justice Department officials ultimately determining whether charges are warranted.

The probe is reaching a tipping point as stablecoins attract intense scrutiny from regulators. The U.S. Treasury Department and Federal Reserve are among agencies concerned that the tokens could threaten financial stability, and are obscuring transactions tied to money laundering and other misconduct because they allow criminals to make payments without going through the regulated banking system. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said last week that watchdogs must “act quickly” in considering new rules for stablecoins.

Tether's Dominance​

The token is by far the most popular stablecoin

A hallmark of Tether is that its creators have said each token is backed by one U.S. dollar, either through actual money or holdings that include commercial paper, corporate bonds and precious metals. That has triggered concerns that if lots of traders sold stable coins all at once, there could be a run on assets backstopping the tokens. Fitch Ratings has warned that such a scenario could destabilize short-term credit markets.

Tether was first issued in 2014 as a solution to a problem plaguing the crypto market: banks didn’t want to open accounts for virtual-currency exchanges because they feared touching funds tied to drug trafficking, cyberattacks and terrorism. By accepting Tether, exchanges could give traders a way to park their balances without being exposed to Bitcoin’s price gyrations. And funds could be transferred instantaneously from exchange to exchange.

But Tether’s corporate side still needed banks to hold its money and process customer transactions. One early relationship that soured was with Wells Fargo & Co. In 2017, the Tether Ltd. affiliate and Bitfinex -- a crypto exchange with common owners and executives -- sued Wells Fargo for blocking wire transfers that had been sought through Taiwanese banks.

In the lawsuit, Tether Ltd. and Bitfinex said Wells Fargo knew, or should have known, that the transactions were being used to obtain U.S. dollars so clients could purchase digital tokens. The companies dropped the case shortly after filing it.

Wells Fargo declined to comment.

In the course of its years-long investigation, the Justice Department has examined whether traders used Tether tokens to illegally drive up Bitcoin during an epic rally for cryptocurrencies in 2017. While it’s unclear whether Tether the company was a target of that earlier review, the current focus on bank fraud suggests prosecutors may have moved on from pursuing a case tied to market manipulation.

Tether has already drawn the ire of regulators. In February, Bitfinex and several Tether affiliates agreed to pay $18.5 million to settle claims from New York Attorney General Letitia James that the firms hid losses and lied that each token was supported by one U.S. dollar. The companies had no access to banking in 2017, making it impossible that they had reserves backing the tokens, James said. The firms settled without admitting or denying the allegations.
 

Jim Cramer makes reference to the Big Q hanging over Tether and by extension the BTC/ crypto market......Tether which holds a tiny fraction of every 'stable' dollar in actual dollars claims the rest is in commercial paper......short term high credit rating paper used by corporates etc. for cash flow bridging etc...........Tether should be doing literally billions upon billions in this space with all the counter-parties that facilitate this market (ratings agencies/brokers etc.) ............given their self reported commercial paper holdings (which they refuse to break out by coutnerparty). Tether Inc. should be one of the largest commercial paper market participants operating today.

Yet after extensive investigative reporting by Bloomberg/CNBC/WSJ no journalist has been able to identify any reputable commercial paper participant/counter-party that has done business with them.

Why does this matter?

Given that only 3% of Tether's digital dollars are backed by actual dollars....the Joe Biden, US Military backed, Nuclear bomb types that i prefer myself.....it means that 97% of USDT's that are chasing bitcoins, sh!tcoins & everything in between may be backed by thin air i.e. nothing...................and just given human nature......my guesses are two fold right now. My first (1) guess tries to be kind to the laser beam eyed Tether people, the other (2) is not so kind.

(1) They are true crypto evangelists.....but somewhere along the line the Tether amateurs who are effectively running a credit hedge fund got into trouble with their reserving and messed up with defaults/lent to Greensil or who knows what. They had a choice then and there whether to be honest and fess up and admit they messed up publicly BUT they decided to cover it up by putting their foot to floor & 'printing' more Tethers. In a Bearings Bank/Nick Lesson type of way their problems have only got worse over time and they are sitting on a massive reserving problem to the tune of billions of dollars of loses.....they can make riskier and risker loans to try and get back some reserves but it aint gonna work........like all good pyrmaid schemes it works till it doesnt work and one day they dont have enough real money to pay back people & in the meantime do a dance when asked whats backing their 'reserves'

(2) Not being so kind............the tether guys have been corrupted by system.....not that surpsiing in crypto scum land.......and once they had the power to print tehter and get away with it have decided to make themselves and friends outrageously rich..........and have effectively printed billions & billions of fake tethers made out of thin air......quite ironic.......that at the heart of crypto land there is effectively a Zimbawe-esque Digital Central Bank printing bullshit currency which is inflating the nominal value of its main trading pair (BTC)........but Tether is like the Hotel California you can check in but you can never leave i.e. everybody wont be able to walk out the door with their BTC converted to USDT converted to USD. The rally today, given its violence, feels like a precursor to a bunch of insiders getting ready to head for the fire exits. The final pump and dump to lure in some liquidity so people can get out with the last few tethers that can be paid 100c on the dollar.

Possibly it wont happen that quick........but its pretty clear that one of the many many scams running inside crypto land but by far its biggest in nominal terms and systemic importance is having a minski moment. When an entity who's very existance is based on the belief in its trustworthiness and robustness cant and wont come out and state what it holds in it reserves and with what counter-parties it does business you know there is big trouble brewing.

Especially when your business model is effectively producing the casino chips that are the accepted legal tender at the illustrious Casino Crypto where you dont even get a few free drinks for your troubles.
 
Last edited:
I'll try to keep this brief as the whole thing is pointless and in the longer run (whether tether exists or not), it will make no difference - bitcoin continues in its development either way.

- Tether were given every reason to be opaque in the information they have provided historically. The first few years of their existence involved moving from one banking old guard crisis to another. They were being locked out of the banking system - that was the strategy that was being pursued by the incumbent system to snuff crypto out. In the very article that's quoted above, there's an acknowledgment that tether reserves were below what they should have been because they'd been frozen out of their own funds in the legacy banking system.
- In the same vein, these fresh claims are not fresh claims at all - and refer to tether not providing full disclosure to banking partners. This is not from today - this is from years ago - and its for the very same reason. They were being snuffed out by the legacy system - and so they were forced to be opaque in terms of disclosures.
- I've long since said that I don't necessarily trust tether as a centralised entity. But in this perennial FUD, I most certainly don't trust those that are driving the counter narrative. There's talk above of 'proof' of this and that - and yet thats exactly what there isn't. It's alleged that Tether have an agenda. Fine. Well, to my mind, they're far from the only ones with an agenda.
- Lets assume the worst. Someone above mentions the potential horror as there won't be enough US dollars to go around. Sorry - but that's not how the ship goes down. The race will be into BTC - not US dollars. BTC price will go up. When the dust settles, maybe the market suffers some shock - and temporarily, it tanks. In the grander scheme of things it will mean nothing. USDC and other stablecoins will fill the void - and life (and bitcoin development) will go onwards.
 
Tether and other stable coins remain a critical component of Bitcoin at this point of adoption.

The case for Bitcoin is that it is 'algorithmic authority' free from centralized control, Tether and other Stable coins are not algorithmic authority. They are private entities operating in established financial markets. Based on Tethers disclosures it puts it in the Top 10 of Commercial Paper participants, rubbing shoulders with some of the biggest wall street banks.

The debate here on whether Tether is a fraud or not, well maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but what remains is that it could be as it is open to the same fraudulent activities as any entity operating in the Fiat-based system.

In the example of Bitcoin that debate could not be entertained due to algorithmic authority.

Love them or hate them, Wall Street banks operating in the Commercial Paper markets are regulated, have controls, compliance team and provide full disclosures. For maximum comfort, I would prefer if Tether and other Stable coins did the same given their size and importance to Bitcoin right now.
 
I'm seeing alot of centralization....which is hilarious....for an invention whose main calling card has been the claim its decentralized with no central authority & not under the influence of any one entity/person/government. To name four right now:

Elon Musk
Tether (which is what 3 or 4 guys in the Virgin Islands with laptops?)
Jack Dorsey
Michael Saylor

Are just four that spring to mind who could probably crash BTC's price 50% with a tweet....or in the case of Tether just 'pulling the rug' as they say.

Say what you will about the monetary system in the EU/USA.......but these are OUR institutions & democratically controlled and ultimately if you started a party who's flag pole policy was to fix the supply of money.....and you got enough votes.....well thats what would happen.
 
Last edited:
There was a time when the Mt Gox exchange was something like 90% of all bitcoin trading. They said if it failed 90% of the market would be gone, can you see where they went wrong with that logic?
 
I'm seeing alot of centralization....which is hilarious....for an invention whose main calling card has been the claim its decentralized with no central authority & not under the influence of any one entity/person/government. To name four right now:

Elon Musk
Tether (which is what 3 or 4 guys in the Virgin Islands with laptops?)
Jack Dorsey
Michael Saylor
Your claim is disingenuous. You've set out to suggest that bitcoin isn't decentralised and backed that up with allegations of individuals that may influence that market. Those are two very distinct things. At the end of the day, If I want to transact 0.0005 BTC to anyone on the planet today, I can and there isn't anyone that can prevent or reverse the transaction. None of the people on your list included.

Are just four that spring to mind who could probably crash BTC's price 50% with a tweet....or in the case of Tether just 'pulling the rug' as they say.
If you'd like to speak to market influence rather than centralisation, no problem. In the case of Tether - you have not presented any conclusive evidence that they're issuing USDT out of thin air. By all means, come back to us when you have that evidence. Otherwise, whatever Tether do - in the longer run - bitcoin existed before Tether did - and it will remain intact long after its gone. I'm sure there would be some short-medium term drama in a tether downfall scenario - but it is not a showstopper where bitcoin is concerned. @DazedInPontoon has given you an example of a much more dramatic event that didn't kill off bitcoin in the past.

Dealing with the others separately as they fall under the category of 'influencers', Elon's tweets have impacted the conventional market. Claims/statements/fud on CNBC does so every day re. the conventional market. It's a lot more pronounced where crypto is concerned as its nascent and subject to a hype cycle - with an ever increasing intake of new folk becoming stakeholders. On-chain metrics have shown that those who rushed in after Elon were also the late/new-comers who exited when his later tweets were not perceived to be as complementary.

Say what you will about the monetary system in the EU/USA.......but these are OUR institutions & democratically controlled and ultimately if you started a party who's flag pole policy was to fix the supply of money.....and you got enough votes.....well thats what would happen.
We had Church and State and they have been largely disentangled. Hardly anyone heretofore had ever considered why the state should have a monopoly on money but that has changed/is changing. It seems to me that the time has come to address that. How is competition and the availability of options bad for society?
 
Last edited:
Semantics - your future new world currency has traded democratically appointed civil servants like Christine Lagarde & Jerome Powell......for Elon Musk & Michael Saylor.......the freedom you've gained is the right send money to anyone, anywhere in the world.......the last time I checked I could do that too (& the places I couldn't Iran/North Korea...well I'm happy to do my little bit to slow down global terrorism)
 
Last edited:
Semantics - your future new world currency has traded democratically appointed civil servants like Christine Lagarde & Jerome Powell......for Elon Musk & Michael Saylor.......the freedom you've gained is the right send money to anyone, anywhere in the world.......the last time I checked I could do that too (& the places I couldn't Iran/North Korea...well I'm happy to do my little bit to slow down global terrorism)
It's permissioned. It depends on whether someone permits it or not. It depends on if someone will allow access to the banking system in the first instance. Going back to the original claim, by contrast you're incorrect to say that bitcoin isn't decentralised because bitcoin is an open network. Anyone can use it. Nobody can be prevented from making a transaction on the bitcoin network and transactions can't be reversed - by anyone.

If you're happy with the current system, then keep on using it. You do you. You'll notice though that you keep on making the very same mistake - you don't look beyond your own needs. I recently moved funds out of a country that applies capital controls. Rather than deal with their bs (and possibly never be able move funds), I converted to crypto - job done.

As regards sanctions, I'm happy to see that sanctions aren't going to work very effectively any more. Imagine weaponising the money system in order to make conditions so bad on the ground as to force ordinary people to be desperate enough to rise up. I know Venezuelans who have lost family members when a basic procedure would have saved them - due to the application of sanctions. Meanwhile, the regime leaders and supporters in sanctions-hit countries won't be the ones that will be short of these things.
 
I recently moved funds out of a country that applies capital controls. Rather than deal with their bs (and possibly never be able move funds), I converted to crypto - job done.

What do you mean by capital controls for you personally? Are you referring to tax?


In this example you converted fiat currency to crypto and then accessed in account in another country and converted it back to local fiat?
 
What do you mean by capital controls for you personally? Are you referring to tax?


In this example you converted fiat currency to crypto and then accessed in account in another country and converted it back to local fiat?
Of course I'm not referring to tax - if I was referring to tax, I would have said tax. I'm referring to capital controls. Many governments and banking systems in the world make life very difficult in certain scenarios - especially when the individual is looking to remove funds from the jurisdiction. They don't want to see your their money go bye-bye. @letitroll thinks that the whole world has access to his privilege and his experience is everyone elses. I introduced that example to demonstrate that there's all sorts of mayhem that goes on in the world - when it comes to banking/moving funds, etc.
 
At the end of the day, If I want to transact 0.0005 BTC to anyone on the planet today, I can and there isn't anyone that can prevent or reverse the transaction. None of the people on your list included.
This can be a little more nuanced do you agree? It is true for you and I as bitcoin holders providing we store in our own wallets. However conventional government / regulators can prevent new market participants entering (binance UK recent ban) or for those keeping coins in exchange wallets don't have full ownership (MT.Gox hack). Like it or not for Bitcoins adoption to continue it does need to maintain a good relationship with traditional financial market participants i.e. regulators. This is a conversation on Tether and given it is a Top 10 player in thr global Commercial Paper they should be making the same disclosures as Banks. What reason do they have for not? Any supporter of Bitcoin knows that it operates on a public Blockchain...that's part of how we achieve consensus. Having a major player in the eco system not being fully transparent doesn't sit well with me. How have you got yourself comfortable with their Disclosures?

I agree if Tether turns out to be a fraud that it won't be the end of Bitcoin. However it will likely have a severe impact on the price and given that for a lot of people Bitcoins success is based on the price increasing rather than adoption.


@DazedInPontoon has given you an example of a much more dramatic event that didn't kill off bitcoin in the past.
I don't remember people saying that My.Gox would be the end of Bitcoin, that was really the early days of Bitcoin. But if that is what they said back then given Bitcoin is largely unchanged why would it have been a valid argument then and not today or vice versa?
 
Last edited:
If tether fails I bet you'll basically see articles almost word for word like this one except with Tether in place of Mt Gox:


I held coins through that, I was of course unaffected directly since I self-custody. In the ecosystem/price it was short term chaos, but long-term irrelevance for those who had not kept coins on Gox.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top