Tether Fined $41M for Lying About Reserves

Yeah, the Bank of England even used to offer account services to employees after it was nationalized. Which would be scandalous if we found it in some dubious ex-Soviet republic today, albeit there maybe they're lending the Bank's President $10M with no real security and the Bank of England was offering employees mortgages and similar modest run-of-the-mill secured loans.

The UK owns a whole bunch of banks and entities that would need a banking license if they weren't owned by the government, of which only the Bank of England acts as a central bank, but there are also a bunch of commercial banks in (or at least operating in) the UK that are named after parts of the UK even though they're not owned by the government, including the Bank of Scotland.

Banks don't get that special treatment for free. They pay for insurance and comply with regulations. Some of those regulations exist to reduce the risks associated with FDIC insurance, and a lot of those regulations exist to force banks to serve important social functions.

You can fault banking regulation for not being stringent enough, and I won't argue with you. But I'll never understand how "fuck banks getting special treatment" should ever translate into "therefore wildcat banks are a GREAT idea, right?"

Or, to put it another way: I don't want to bail out the big banks; why in fuck's sake would I want to bail out Tether speculators?

That's nice, but regardless, the law stood for forty years, even surviving the Supreme Court^.

Society abrogates individual rights by its very existence, and anarchic utopias that exclude all abrogation tend to fail comically^^ and/or catastrophically^^^. It turns out that compromise is a necessary factor of coexistence with other human beings, especially those we disagree with. If you don't feel that your rights are being abrogated by society in some regard, then you either are unfamiliar with the unconscious rights we all take for granted, and/or your circumstances align with the corruption that rich and well-connected people benefit from.

In the US, the Constitution guarantees you specific and inalienable rights, and lays out clear terms that the government is not permitted to violate without consequence. While corruption exists, and no constitution is ever written or enforced perfectly, your declaration that no rights are guaranteed is incorrect for US citizens in the US. Other countries have similar guarantees of rights, such as the EU and GDPR, not to mention many older ones as well, so that statement is incorrect in various ways for those as well. Societies vary wildly in who is granted rights and what rights those are and when they may be abrogated without consequence. Corruption is endemic to virtually all modern societies, small and large. Regardless, rights are granted in most of them.

I respect those that feel that their rights are violated by the laws of the society they are members of, but that is no excuse to declare provably false statements ("no rights at all") as if they're facts. You'll need to invest more effort in your arguments to make headway with that declaration, or define what "rights" means to you that lets you declare that you have none, or declare that the society you are a member of does not guarantee you personally any rights whatsoever.

^ For example: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/294/330

^^ For example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28441794

^^^ A popular counterexample is an Icelandic system of government from a thousand years ago, frequently held up as an example of libertarian utopia that lasted for centuries. However, the governmental laws that implemented the godord specifically abrogated the rights of the citizens of Iceland, binding them without individual consent to the societal system of godords, laws, courts, judgments, and enforcements. If you ignored the judgment of the courts, you were stripped of your societal right to live; anyone could kill you without being punished for doing so. Ironically, this meant that in this ancient system, societal outlaws were truly freed from all abrogations of their rights, as they were cast out from society as a whole. However, being marked for murder by those who do accept societal abrogations tends to diminish the enjoyment somewhat.

> perhaps requiring the dismissal of) Tether's corporate officers

That's okay, they'll just go to work for Bitfinex. Remember when the two claimed they were independent? And then Bitfinex loaned Tether $800M, and we'll call the two people who signed the loan contract for Bitfinex "Corporate Officer A" and "Corporate Officer B". Meanwhile, on the other side of the contract, we'll call the people who signed on behalf of Tether uhh... "Corporate Officer A" and "Corporate Officer B".

Or they'll go work for Deltec. Whose Deputy CEO will give interviews saying that "they can see the flow of all the Tether, because we are in the system and can see every transaction". Another legit, arms-length financial relationship, evidently...

It's up to you how to interpret the law, and it's up to the justice system and/or law enforcement and/or military to decide to punish you if it disagrees with your interpretation of the rules of society. I am not you, I am not your lawyer (this is not legal advice), and I am not a member of a societal authority such as those above; therefore, I have no viewpoint on whether you specifically owe some debt to society or not. You'll need to resolve that yourself or with the cooperation of your lawyer.