> Why does tether seem to bring out the tinfoil theories from people that have absolutely 0 background in finance or crypto market structure or econ in general.
Hilarious. People with backgrounds in finance are for the most part the group of people that have made an issue about this, myself included.
But more curiously, I'm not even sure what you're attempting to to convey with this comment? Do you think that a background in finance, or econ, is necessary to understand the incredibly simple business that Tether operates, and the even simpler reasons of why it is likely problematic (if not an outright fraud)?
>The argument some people have is that tether is printing fake money to prop up crypto market.
I don't think that's actually supported by evidence. AFAIK there are concerns about tether's solvency (because one of their bank accounts got frozen), but evidence of money printing is lacking.
>This kind of argumentation makes cryptocurrency proponents so insufferable. There’s no evidence Tether is backed, but somehow we can just assume in a parenthesis that they probably are, and then go on a tangential rant about banks or fiat or digital gold or something.
Ah yes, because all cryptocurrency proponents are pro-tether.
Tether is one of the most maddening scams out there.
Who really believes that Tether had a cool billion dollars conveniently transferred into their banks so they could mint a huge chunk of synthetic dollars to inject into the cryptocurrency world? That's a suspiciously round number for such a large transaction.
Yet people who are heavily invested in crypto will find any excuse to ignore the absurdity of this whole operation, mostly because admitting the Tether problem would be admitting that the value of cryptocurrency everywhere is artificially inflated.
> many poorer and financially illeterate people have been tricked
I’m sorry, but it’s worse than that. Whenever I’ve said “Tether is a scam waiting to blow up, and the evidence is obvious”, none of my smart peers had anything to say, either.
The BTC price is hells high by this fake USD money printer.
> > none of my smart peers had anything to say, either.
> It's because they know. I think everybody knows that crypto is a bubble.
You're conflating 2 different things. Your parent poster was talking about Tether specificly and why it's a scam. Whether the whole asset class is in a bubble or not is a whole different discussion.
>Recall what happened to Ripple last month when the SEC reached a conclusion on their activities.
Yes, Tether seems to be in all sorts of legal trouble, especially in the US, but it is COMPLETELY different from XRP. Why would you even mention XRP/Ripple here? XRP has always been trying super hard to comply with the rules and cooperate with banks and etcetera, though I think it is probably really a kind of scam, IMHO.
But Tether and Bitfinex are always lurking in some kind of dark international space where the law is not clear, they are not like XRP. I hope you can see that, yes?
Edit: What you're stating as fact is actually only your own opinion, and that has become even clearer when the only evidence you could offer to prove your case against Tether is not even about Tether, but about a totally different organization: XRP/Ripple. So it might be better if you did not comment at this time, because you seem to have no interesting facts to offer us, only your opinions
[I mean that this has little to do with the XRP/Ripple situation]
But the reason it's exciting is, among other things, because it should radically drive down the cost of borrowing money. So yeah, I'm probably literally on the most bullish person on crypto on HN, but that's why it's so easy for me to see how the folks chasing those double digit interest rates on FTX aren't exactly the innocent victims they're being portrayed as.
I'm hardly an economist, but even the most financially illiterate people know that interest rates should be vaguely proportional to risk.
> Can you explain how does one launder money w/ NFTs? Because it's absolute nonsense.
They fact that a person understand something doesn't make it nonsense - and way too high a percentage of internet arguments boil down to essentially this.
>
But the entire point of Tether hinges on it being perceived as AAA.
No, the entire point of Tether hinges on everyone pretending that it's AAA, and just letting the Tether money printer lift all crypto boats.
Anyone paying attention knows its a fraud, but are happy to look the other way, because it's the reason BTC is $30K, instead of $600 right now. Sure, they'll lose whatever they have invested at the moment when the house of cards collapses, but if you can't predict when the music will stop, the smart move today is to keep playing.
> everyone in the space knows that Tether is a scam
People seem to say this every time one of these big crypto companies fails, yet it’s just plainly false. Tons of people put money into these companies and are left holding the bag when things inevitably collapse. At what point do we run out of rugs to pull and just agree the whole thing was a mistake?
> Point one one single argument that you have made to me, that I did not respond to head-on. Just one. I'll wait.
> point out a single example of me engaing in bad-faith argumentation with you. A single actual example. And then.
Sure, how about this very comment?
> Ah, yes. Like the argument that "Tether is being investigated for fraud" thus "every stablecoin is essentially fraud". Seems like a water-tight argument you have there.
You're misrepresenting my statement in a way to obfuscate the very real fraud accusations against Tether and other stable-coins. I never said all stablecoins are fradulent. Why are you focused on that falsified version of my argument rather than arguing against the fact that Tether is indeed fraudulent?
> I'm talking about deliverable perpetual futures.
It's a nonsensical term (like many other nonsensical terms) that only exists in the crypto space. And only works in the highly volatile market like crypto. This is short-to-medium term currency speculation, and I'm sure there are plenty of services that allow you to do that in "traditional finance". As I'm not interested in currency speculation, I couldn't tell you what they are.
> Now perhaps you see what I am getting at? It's not accessible
You've selected a single service revolving around currency speculation and you call "traditional finance" inaccessible because of that. That... is not what accessibility to financial services means. Or what "levelling the playing field" is.
> Is there some reason the system is the way it is? Yes, I'm sure there is.
You're sure, but at the same time you are completely uninterested to learn why it is that way, and you dismiss anyone telling you why it is the way it is because, let me quote, "it's an awful exploitative global financial system".
> There are a million and one ways to lose all your money, plus a million new ones that weren't possible before.
Indeed. And that makes this "accessible and a level playing field" unlike traditional finance which offers fraud protection, deposit insurance, etc. etc.
> And soon a new technology will come, and everyone who understands the current landscape will know immediately what to do with it
So, the "accessible system" will be accessible to those who understand current landscape, who have already lost money a million ways and cut themselves on sharp corners.
That is neither accessible nor a level playing field.
If you claim that it is "global financial system which can be participated in by anyone", where are the protections for those who "did not have access to existing systems" (I keep quoting you).
I'm a programmer, I earn quite a lot. And I still cannot afford to just go ahead and "lose my money in a million ways" and "cut myself when working with a sharp object". Where's your accessibility, huh?
> and everyone who has had their head in the sand will wait for the SEC for guidance
Ah yes. Instead we can just not wait and lose the money a million and one ways for the sake of.... something.
There's a reason for SEC guidances, but, again, you're entirely unwilling to learn why they exist. Perhaps, you will learn it the hard way.
>NOT on market manipulation or trading habits of institutions which is the key driver of malicious activity and harm in the cryptocurrency space.
How much evidence is there of major institutions acting maliciously in the cryptocurrency space, and the scale of the impact?
I'm sure there's likely quite a bit of market manipulation from some people or entities who hold a lot of cryptocurrency assets, but as much as I despise finance and financial institutions (of pretty much any kind), I also want to know who to hate even more, if applicable.
(Not asking in a rhetorical or contrarian or skeptical way; genuinely trying to understand who's accused of what and why. And excluding Tether, since we all know the accusations, there, and the comment seems to be directed at major US financial institutions that were huge long before Bitcoin was created, if I understand correctly.)
> The only reason I know anything about crypto is I assumed I was wrong about it and read a bunch.
You know what is so grating about this conversation?
Every comment you wrote shows your knowledge is incomplete and based on only what you heard/read, and yet you talk like you know all the theory and therefore you can prove how it doesn't work in practice. When presented with new information that shows how you are wrong, you double down on your theoretical framework instead of looking at what people are have ACTUALLY ACHIEVED, empirically.
You end up sounding like someone who studied a bit of aerodynamics and then goes to believe they can teach birds how to fly. Or worse, you see a beetle flying in your face and start claiming "this is physically impossible, it's not real!"
Please, don't be those people who can not do anything useful with their life and end up just shitting or doubting on the works of others.
>But he was right. Do you really think tether/iFinex/Bitfinex/Deltec are nice persons playing it fair?
Whether he's "right" or "tether/iFinex/Bitfinex/Deltec are nice persons playing it fair" is besides the point. I even plainly admit that he was right in my original comment. My point is that the tweets coming out of the account has zero signal because he calls everything a scam, in the same way a permabear analyst is always predicting a recession in 6 months.
> Same goes for tether, majority of those involved in crypto know what they are doing, and the pump-up effect it's had to crypto.
Not at all.
While those at the executive level have some awareness, the rank and file that I interact with at crypto companies barely understand the tech, and have no knowledge at all of the environment. It's flabbergasting.
> It's clear that the HN crowd does not like Bitcoin. So why keep reiterating similar arguments all over?
When we take a closer look at crypto it appears to be as corrupt or even more as the institutions it was trying to replace. Tether, of course, is the poster child of crypto corruption.
Hilarious. People with backgrounds in finance are for the most part the group of people that have made an issue about this, myself included.
But more curiously, I'm not even sure what you're attempting to to convey with this comment? Do you think that a background in finance, or econ, is necessary to understand the incredibly simple business that Tether operates, and the even simpler reasons of why it is likely problematic (if not an outright fraud)?
reply