211–220 of 267 posts
I am blown away. 61.5 million dollars for $68,536,825,819 (68 billion dollars.) Maybe not the same in 2017 but damn, how does this even work without anyone panicking?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is worse than that. They also use their BTC holdings as part of their assets they hold, which allows them to pump the BTC/USDT rate (print USDT, use it to buy BTC, see prices of BTC going up because of artificial demand, say "BTC is up, our holdings have increased in value and we can print more", rinse and repeat.
Isn't that just a pump and dump?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CFTC doesn't have that authority; a company can only get shut down for a criminal offense and Tether is not accused of any crime. Only the Department of Justice can prosecute or investigate crimes, the CFTC is an independent agency and as such has no authority to do so. All the CFTC can do is levy a fine, so both parties are fairly indifferent as to whether that money comes from a judgement or from a settlement.…
> The CFTC doesn't have that authority; a company can only get shut down for a criminal offense and Tether is not accused of any crime. Fraud is a crime.
I don't understand why this is something they can settle rather than something that gets them completely shut down.
I'm more surprised that anyone still holds Tether, unless they're stuck with it. The company has been caught in lies several times before, it's not as if a $41M fine will turn them honest.
I don't understand why this is something they can settle rather than something that gets them completely shut down.
The CFTC doesn't have that authority; a company can only get shut down for a criminal offense and Tether is not accused of any crime. Only the Department of Justice can prosecute or investigate crimes, the CFTC is an independent agency and as such has no authority to do so. All the CFTC can do is levy a fine, so both parties are fairly indifferent as to whether that money comes from a judgement or from a settlement.…
Per the CFTC's Enforcement website, they can bring civil enforcement actions in court--without the other party present aka ex-parte--seeking to freeze and enjoin the operations of a person or entity they can convince a judge is violating the Commodity Exchange Act.
From [0]: "At the conclusion of an investigation, the Division may recommend that the Commission initiate administrative proceedings or seek injunctive and ancillary relief on behalf of the Commission in United States District Courts around the country. Administrative sanctions may include orders imposing civil monetary penalties, suspending, denying, revoking or restricting registration and exchange trading privileges, and orders of restitution. The Commission also may obtain temporary restraining orders and preliminary and permanent injunctions in Federal court to halt ongoing violations. Other relief may include appointment of a receiver, a freeze of assets, restitution, and disgorgement of unlawfully acquired benefits. The CEA also provides that the Commission may obtain certain temporary relief on an ex parte basis (that is, without notice to the other party). When those enjoined violate court orders, the Division may seek to have the offenders held in contempt. When the Division obtains evidence that criminal violations of the CEA have occurred, it may refer the matter to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
[0] https://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/Enforcement/OfficeofDirec...
Here's an example: https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/from-the-regulators...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tether did defraud people. They lied on their website, claiming a) audits (which they never completed a single one of) and b) 1:1 backing of each Tether with a dollar in the bank (which they didn't have).
You are right, they lied, and people could have been harmed if there were a “bank run” on Tether. But in practice there was not and nobody suffered any damage, zero, nada, nicht. While big banks got fined for actually taking money illegally out of people’s pockets and nobody said let’s shut them down
So I guess its ok. Might as well pack it up and let them carry on with manipulation, lying and profiting. I don't get your rationale whatsoever.
Probably paid in USDT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm more surprised that anyone still holds Tether, unless they're stuck with it. The company has been caught in lies several times before, it's not as if a $41M fine will turn them honest.
Does anyone “hold” tether? As a stable coin isn’t it something you just use on the very short term?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm more surprised that anyone still holds Tether, unless they're stuck with it. The company has been caught in lies several times before, it's not as if a $41M fine will turn them honest.
Does anyone “hold” tether? As a stable coin isn’t it something you just use on the very short term?
I don't understand why this is something they can settle rather than something that gets them completely shut down.
Tether is not a US-based company. So does US have the authority to shut them down?
You are talking about a country that managed to force foreign banks to rat on US citizens accounts abroad. You are talking about a country that conducts drone assassinations on their own citizens overseas, without trial.
USA has de-facto authority on a lot of country where they feel entitled to (hard power), save maybe from Russia or China and India mainly. Russia because they actually have little ties with USA economically and politically since the war in Libya, China because of the exact opposite as it poses a systemic risk to USA, India because they don't trust the US who are "allied" with Pakistan.
Often when USA and the EU clash, ultimately the EU tend to bend the knee (soft power). The Trump era was a significant exception.