Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

$1M bounty for details on Tether’s backing

hindenburgresearch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 326 posts

Re: $1M bounty for details on Tether’s backing

#311

Post by hackingforfun »

qeternity wrote: post #158
fleddr wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What non-users don't get is the fanatical level of devotion by users. It waxes and wanes with the Bitcoin halving cycle, but always comes back stronger than before." Indeed. 80-90% pullbacks, multi-year bear markets, the seasoned crypto trader has seen multiple apocalyptic financial disasters, where this simply is a potential next one. It fails to impress. The really clever ones thrive from these crashes, that's whe…

I'm not sure you guys get this: Tether is the reason it comes back. Tether drove the 2017 bubble (this is when Bitfinex'd got their start) and has driven the 2021 bubble to the tune of $70b. This resilience wouldn't exist without Tether.

Where are you getting this information from? Is it from this study [1]? Real money is also going into crypto [2, 3, 4, 5]. I think it's quite an accusation to say that Tether is always the reason crypto comes back. People also "buy the dip". In some cases, maybe it is Tether, I don't know, but saying in all cases that it is Tether making crypto bounce back seems like a stretch to me.

You assume you know why it bounces back every time after reaching whatever bottom it does, so, I'm also wondering, what do you think triggers it to start going down after reaching its tops?

[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3195066

[2] https://www.microstrategy.com/en/investor-relations/press/mi...

[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-03/novogratz...

[4] https://news.bitcoin.com/kevin-oleary-crypto-exposure-greate...

[5] https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/28/investing/tesla-bitcoin/index...

Re: $1M bounty for details on Tether’s backing

#312

Post by jcranmer »

perl4ever wrote: post #264
jfrunyon wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read MY point, please prove (or show any evidence) that it did not happen. You are claiming something that there is literally NO EVIDENCE of, while vast piles of available evidence points to the very opposite. Tether is, has been, and will continue to be insolvent. The only question is when people will notice.

I don't believe in Tether, but on the other hand, my logic that insolvency should lead to immediate destruction means...I should believe they are solvent. I mean, that's basically it. Everything points to insolvency, but if it was, it would be history. Therefore, it must not be. Anyone who "notices" should make it all fall apart instantly. And loud mouth short sellers have certainly been wrong before.

> Anyone who "notices" should make it all fall apart instantly.

This is the flaw in your logic. How would you make it all fall apart? You have to force Tether to make good on more of its liabilities than it can make good on, but very probably, most of the people to whom Tether is liable are themselves drinking from Tether's money-printing trough, and it's not in their self-interests to pull the rug out.

To make Tether fall apart, you probably need to force an outflow of most of not only its hard currency reserves, but that of everyone else feeding at its trough. That is not an insignificant amount of money, and exactly how much is literally the $1M question.

Re: $1M bounty for details on Tether’s backing

#313

Post by graeme »

panick21_ wrote: post #308
graeme wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had a pretty serious report against Nikola that forced the CEO to step down and started an SEC investigation. They also forced a CEO stepdown at Lordstown motors, got the SEC to investigate and forced the company to amend their accounting statements. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_Research And their reports have been pretty accurate this year based on long term market reaction: https://breakoutpoint.…

The thing is, anybody that actually followed that industry in any serious way and had any technical understanding knew that that company was full of shit. A number of stories were already floating around from former employees. The company was the most obvious scam I have seen in my life. With minimal intelligence and just 10 min of listening to the CEO made clear that it was a scam company. Sure they went threw the e…

That may be, but the report had a striking effect.

This is a thread about Tether, another company that is an obvious scam, that even once admitted in court a few years back that they were only 74% backed.

If Hindenburg makes a report formalizing everything and getting some new research, that might well have a similar effect.

Re: $1M bounty for details on Tether’s backing

#314

Post by perl4ever »

jfrunyon wrote: post #224
Dma54rhs wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never held any coin but why can't it be true? The money is imaginary anyway and while you can talk about backing dollars with tanks and bomb at the end of the day is there are believers there is a market snd one market can outlive another. Saving depositors in regular banking is pure belief as well.

Why can't what be true? Do you truly think that Monopoly money is as valuable as real money backed by all the money, power, influence, and force of a major world government?

>real money backed by all the money, power, influence, and force of a major world government

This meme bugs me though, even if the USD is in fact more secure.

I don't think the US military or having to pay US taxes is a requirement for the dollar to be sound and useful.

It's a cliche that people use cigarettes or whatever in prison, with no army backing it up.

Noncitizens use US dollars outside the US, where they are neither subject to its jurisdiction nor owe taxes.

And I think people use or have used Swiss Francs all over the world, without any particular empire or force projection of that state.

What is necessary is that the money supply is kept under control.

Re: $1M bounty for details on Tether’s backing

#315

Post by perl4ever »

jcranmer wrote: post #312
perl4ever wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe in Tether, but on the other hand, my logic that insolvency should lead to immediate destruction means...I should believe they are solvent. I mean, that's basically it. Everything points to insolvency, but if it was, it would be history. Therefore, it must not be. Anyone who "notices" should make it all fall apart instantly. And loud mouth short sellers have certainly been wrong before.

> Anyone who "notices" should make it all fall apart instantly. This is the flaw in your logic. How would you make it all fall apart? You have to force Tether to make good on more of its liabilities than it can make good on, but very probably, most of the people to whom Tether is liable are themselves drinking from Tether's money-printing trough, and it's not in their self-interests to pull the rug out. To make Tethe…

>How would you make it all fall apart?

If they are insolvent, then not everybody can get their money back, which means that you should take your money out immediately no matter what you expect other people to do. It follows that you can expect everyone rational to do the same. It's not that anyone chooses to "make" it fall apart, it's that everyone who finds out their secret should independently participate in making it do so and that reinforces itself.

This contrasts with a bank run on a solvent institution, where you only need to rush to get your money if you think other people will too and they will fail due to lack of short term liquidity.

That's how I imagine the difference anyway.

Re: $1M bounty for details on Tether’s backing

#316

Post by perl4ever »

jfrunyon wrote: post #296
perl4ever wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe in Tether, but on the other hand, my logic that insolvency should lead to immediate destruction means...I should believe they are solvent. I mean, that's basically it. Everything points to insolvency, but if it was, it would be history. Therefore, it must not be. Anyone who "notices" should make it all fall apart instantly. And loud mouth short sellers have certainly been wrong before.

> my logic that insolvency should lead to immediate destruction But it doesn't. And it shouldn't. Businesses can and do survive insolvency (sometimes without the public ever knowing!). Insolvency just means that either liabilities are greater than assets, or cash flow does not meet expenditures. Either one can be a temporary situation which can be solved with things like bridge loans. (Or bankruptcy proceedings!) Mor…

You are equating liquidity with solvency, it seems to me.

People don't seem to want to admit insolvency is inherently worse than illiquidity.

It may be empirically true that entities can hide insolvency.

But it doesn't seem logical for anyone who knows they are insolvent to ignore it.

If they are solvent, sure, ignore the possibility of a bank run. Why should it start?

But if they are insolvent, then someone will lose their money, and you and everyone else who finds out should want to not be last in line, which should make it collapse almost instantly, provided that the information leaks to any number of people.

It seems sometimes like a lot of things are sort of like Wile E Coyote not falling until he looks down. Something can be widely known, but not believed until some catalyst makes it impossible to deny or rationalize or BS.

Still, learning that something is insolvent ought not to follow that pattern too much, because again, it doesn't matter if everyone else in the world is ignoring the problem, if you are certain it exists, you need to act.

Re: $1M bounty for details on Tether’s backing

#317

Post by angry_octet »

speedybird wrote: post #255
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Because that's market manipulation. 2. SEC did something to Musk, maybe you forgot, maybe you don't think it was enough, but they did something.

> "The US Securities Exchange Act defines market manipulation as "transactions which create an artificial price or maintain an artificial price for a tradable security"." They are 'manipulating the market' in an informal sense, but not in the sense that actually matters. There is nothing wrong with publicly stating that you think some stock is overvalued. Particularly not if you back up your claim with some evidence,…

Relatedly, how does a 17 day old account, with no submissions, attract 416 karma points? Not commenting on the quality of your writing, but it seems extraordinary. Unfortunately the market history on HN is private.

Re: $1M bounty for details on Tether’s backing

#318

Post by [deleted] »

sumedh wrote: post #300
jfrunyon wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did show the evidence. Again, read MY point. Goodbye, troll. (BTW, actually, you made the claim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28924975 )

I did not make any claim, that is fact. You can check the BTC price yourself. Where is the evidence that Tether is insolvent?

[deleted]

Re: $1M bounty for details on Tether’s backing

#319

Post by jfrunyon »

perl4ever wrote: post #263
jfrunyon wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point being? There are many, many ways for businesses to hide their insolvency, for years[1], or even decades[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirecard#Scandal_and_insolvenc... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoff_investment_scandal

Yes...but. People say this like it's a guarantee that insolvency won't catch up to them before the public panics, i.e. a bank run. I don't believe that's correct. Insolvency seems strictly worse than being solvent. As a depositor, if I don't see anyone else participating in a bank run, assuming the institution is solvent, then I have no reason to. But if I know they are insolvent, even if nobody else in the world doe…

I don't know why you think I've ever said or implied that Tether's insolvency is a good thing?

Re: $1M bounty for details on Tether’s backing

#320

Post by shukantpal »

jfrunyon wrote: post #231
shukantpal wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get paid immediately when opening a short position

Sure, you get "paid", but in reality you're still out money because you had to put down more than you got paid as collateral. That collateral can disappear.

You pay collateral to your broker, not the counterparty.

Also, if you have margin, the broker will lend you collateral and in that case you wouldn't have put up anything from your side (apart from interest payments).

Post reply on HN