Tether/USDT is two or three guys with a laptop in the Virgin Islands 'printing/minting' Tether coins digitally and releasing them into the crytpo closed loop universe......feeding liquidity and manufactured digital dollars as they please with bizarre conflicted relationships with various exchanges & cypto brokers where they've admitted to providing loans to these same affliates using customer deposits in the past. Lets be real here....these are all the same people.....in the real world they would be deemed related parties..tether/bitfinex/binance/bithumb
@tecate lets look at facts:
Tether claims it has $63 BILLION dollars of equity......for reference AIB & BOI have combined 24bn euro's of shareholder equity....so Tether is 2.2x the size of Ireland's largest two banks.
Tether claims $63bn of 'assets'.....broken down by their own addmision into cash/commercial paper/bonds/loans......the size/scope of the operation would have literally 1,000's of counter-parties to this paper....defaults/recoveries would be common across such a vast asset book requiring daily management across many departments - risk, recovery etc.
Whats supporting $63bn in assets?
Tether.to has 21 employees listed on Linkedin - most are kind of associate hogs claiming to be advisors to Tether while they 17 other roles listed running at the same time etc. I didnt make up the number 3. I can only find three employees who's full time non concurrent role is working for Tether.....lets say 50% of tether employees dont have a linkedin account (very unlikely given Tether would skew younger).....lets 2x 3 employees....we get to 6 employees
6 Employees running a $63bn what is in essense a credit fund just given their own disclosed asset mix
Hang on - you were pulled up on the 'facts' claim and then came back with another 'facts' claim which it seems is underpinned with a 'doesn't sound good'. In other words, you don't have firm evidence. You could express concern re. stuff that leads to a 'doesn't sound good' conclusion and suggest that more scrutiny/regulation is required. That's reasonable. What's not reasonable is jumping straight to baseless conclusions without evidence - which is what Tether Truthers have been (and are) doing. What doesn't in any way help their credibility is the fact that these people started out from the viewpoint that they hated everything to do with decentralised crypto/blockchain.Ok doesnt sound good but might be legit..
Anyone credible in the crypto space is looking for more transparency where Tether is concerned. At the end of the day, entities that are centralised - be they exchanges or stablecoin issuers - should be regulated on that basis. I've long since said that I don't trust any centralised entity - but equally, there's all sorts of shenanigans at play in the regulatory and political sphere relative to crypto.@tecate lets look at facts:
FOUR employee global organization nobody has ever heard off in the Cayman Islands, auditing a SIX person organization that is holding customer assets totalling $63bn across a portfolio of cash/bonds/commerical paper/loans.
I checked AIB it has 9,421 employees on LinkedIn!!@tecate lets look at facts:
Tether claims it has $63 BILLION dollars of equity......for reference AIB & BOI have combined 24bn euro's of shareholder equity....so Tether is 2.2x the size of Ireland's largest two banks.
Tether claims $63bn of 'assets'.....broken down by their own addmision into cash/commercial paper/bonds/loans......the size/scope of the operation would have literally 1,000's of counter-parties to this paper....defaults/recoveries would be common across such a vast asset book requiring daily management across many departments - risk, recovery etc.
Whats supporting $63bn in assets?
https://www.linkedin.com/company/tether/people/
View attachment 5759
https://www.linkedin.com/company/tether/people/
Tether.to has 21 employees listed on Linkedin - most are kind of associate hogs claiming to be advisors to Tether while they 17 other roles listed running at the same time etc. I didnt make up the number 3. I can only find three employees who's full time non concurrent role is working for Tether.....lets say 50% of tether employees dont have a linkedin account (very unlikely given Tether would skew younger).....lets 2x 3 employees....we get to 6 employees
6 Employees running a $63bn what is in essense a credit fund just given their own disclosed asset mix
Ok doesnt sound good but might be legit........so who's looking out for the $63bn of assets that have been given to these folks to look after......who's the dark knight checking and re-checking accounts, making sure the money is there.
These guys - Moore Cayman - are their accountants & auditors - https://www.linkedin.com/company/moorecayman/
View attachment 5760
FOUR employee global organization nobody has ever heard off in the Cayman Islands, auditing a SIX person organization that is holding customer assets totalling $63bn across a portfolio of cash/bonds/commerical paper/loans.
Even Bernie Madoff kept a team of 30 people around & managed to get E&Y to sign off on things.....and he only 'managed' ~$4bn
I think what letitroll has done here is reasonable and shows that Tether probably has few employees unless someone can reasonably demonstrate otherwise.You've claimed 'facts' again. Pulling up a LinkedIn profile is not 'facts'! You're making assumptions - and again, you're painting the worst of narratives with your '3 guys and a laptop'! How do you know that the company don't have a no LinkedIn profiles policy as part of OpSec? There's absolutely nothing definitive in pulling up a LinkedIn profile.
I can't say that I'm familiar with the intricacies of the stablecoin business but I highly doubt making a comparison with the staffing of a retail bank is in any way helpful. Tell me Duke, what is the correct staffing level for the issuer of a stablecoin? Follow up question: You have a $63 billion dollar business and decide to penny pinch a few million on salaries such that the business can't be run effectively on a day to day basis? Is that what we're really talking about here?I checked AIB it has 9,421 employees on LinkedIn!!
Yeah, an incredibly crafty move on my part given that I was the first in these parts to express concern about tether back in January 2018. Anyone credible in the crypto space wants more transparency where Tether is concerned. That's transparency - NOT people that so very badly want crypto to fail making claims that they cannot back up.I note @tecate is preparing his escape route for if and when Tether does implode.
I think what letitroll has done here is reasonable and shows that Tether probably has few employees unless someone can reasonably demonstrate otherwise.
Indeed that is the question. Is it a $63bn business with a LinkedIn presence 1 in 2,000 of AIB or is it Fred in the Shed having a good laugh, and cleaning up on the bitcoin manipulation.Follow up question: You have a $63 billion dollar business and decide to penny pinch a few million on salaries such that the business can't be run effectively on a day to day basis?
Tether could be cooking the books but no-where have I seen the suggestion that they can't/won't staff their operation to facilitate day to day activity. Many startups do originate with 'Fred in the Shed' - but they hardly have to make do with too few people - having built a business with a market cap of $63 billion.Indeed that is the question. Is it a $63bn business with a LinkedIn presence 1 in 2,000 of AIB or is it Fred in the Shed having a good laugh, and cleaning up on the bitcoin manipulation.
My own view is that the potential is always there - as they're a centralised entity. The problem with the nutty professor is that he wants so badly for crypto to fail so he will latch on to anything. Because he has quadrupled down - having originally declared bitcoin dead back when it was $13/bitcoin, there's no way out for him now. If bitcoin continues on its path, then the reputational damage for him is far greater than fax machine guy's internet screw up. His is not a pragmatic view - if it was, then he'd simply be calling for appropriate regulation. He (and the rest of the merry band of Tether Truthers) aren't doing that - they're throwing fuel on the fire and hoping that it will blow up. In actual fact, it's not unreasonable to imagine a scenario where Tether haven't done much wrong but the FUD becomes a self fulfilling prophesy - which could lead to panic selling and USDT losing its USD peg. It's happened on a number of occasions already - but who's to say that it doesn't get out of hand.But the huge anomalies that @letitroll has highlighted and your own call for greater transparency not to mention the wise words of Prof Roubini means I won't be keeping my dollars (if I had any) in Tether.
is vehemently and diametrically opposed to decentralised crypto.
What his bias means Brendan is that he has zero credibility. Given the stuff that he has come out with over the years, I couldn't even have a grain of confidence in anything that he comes out with. That doesn't in any way mean that there are not issues to be resolved within crypto projects or related to the crypto ecosystem or digital asset infrastructure, regulation, etc. etc. He may well start off with genuine grievances re. defective items relative to bitcoin, tether, terra/luna, etc - but given where his bias is at, I can in no way take his word on the step he has persistently gone with in claiming things that he can't substantiate.Hi tecate
I presume that this bias of his means that there was no UST crash or Bitcoin crash and that he was making it all up?
Brendan
What his bias means Brendan is that he has zero credibility. Given the stuff that he has come out with over the years, I couldn't even have a grain of confidence in anything that he comes out with.
I'm very clear in what I'm saying ->I am still confused. Are you saying that his report that UST and Bitcoin crashed is made up?
If there is anything in the above that you don't understand, come back to me. However, just so that we're clear, I have not seen anyone suggest that UST didn't lose its USD peg or that this saga (based on the LFG having taken a significant position in BTC) hasn't had a knock-on effect on Bitcoin's unit price.He may well start off with genuine grievances re. defective items relative to bitcoin, tether, terra/luna, etc - but given where his bias is at, I can in no way take his word on the step he has persistently gone with in claiming things that he can't substantiate.
If all someone is predisposed to do is to seize on anything they can grasp at to give it a dressing down and run it into the ground, that might provide validation to your position on the subject but that's as far as it goes.
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:
Bitcoin Sees the Grim Reaper
Mt. Gox trapping customers’ money could be the last straw for the virtual currency.nymag.com
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.
This is the point. The likes of Gerard have always claimed that a Tether collapse would spell the end for Bitcoin. Here we have an algorithic stablecoin of significant market cap. (and vested in bitcoin as a collateral asset) losing its peg and Bitcoin is still alive and kicking (albeit with a short term hit on unit price).I'm not worried about bitcoin, this is just another example of why not requiring backing in order to function is better than backing and why I never touch stable coins.
If there is anything in the above that you don't understand, come back to me.
I'm not seeing anything complicated in my answer although I'd wager there's a smattering of the rhetorical at play here.Why do you have to make it so complicated?
I am not stating that he was and is correct 'in his report of the facts'. I'm stating that nobody has disputed that UST lost its USD peg and that there was some short term impact on Bitcoin unit price. I'm also stating that Gerard's past record is to go beyond facts to make allegations he has been unable to substantiate.I asked a simple question and you could have confirmed that he was correct in his report of the facts.
I'm sorry if you find my responses tedious but respectfully, if I was to respond a second time, I wouldn't respond any other way - it's necessary in order to respond with some degree of context, nuance & accuracy.That is all I was trying to establish without having to read and parse a long essay on his history.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?