81–90 of 326 posts
But... does it ultimately matter? All the other sh*tcoins are backed against nothing and have huge market caps as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shorting Tether is a great play. Either everyone loses faith and nobody trusts them anymore or.... it stays at $1. You are not going to lose. You just have to pay funding fees for your short which on FTX is around 4% a year. Do you think there is a great chance that Tether is a massive scam and will find its doom within the next 25 years? My answer to that is yes.
> Shorting Tether is a great play Why do you think there will be a functioning market to pay you out if and when it collapses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder why this Reaserch firm is offering such a substantial bounty for information on Tether. What's in it for them? Where will this money come from? From their site they provide an answer (and even a "track record") [1]: > We look for (...) man-made disasters floating around in the market and aim to shed light on them before they lure in more unsuspecting victims. Hence it seems they're doing it for the bennefit…
There are firms that look for good opportunities to short stocks. Find some credible bad news, short the stock, then publicize the bad news. If the news is actually true, this might even be considered a public service (as well as obviously a way to make money). They probably wouldn’t do until they actually got a tip. Also, they might short crypto-related stocks if that’s easier.
Federal Reserve was crafted in a secret meeting on Jekyll Island ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve ) between industry and government. Still exists and functions today. Lot of people don’t like it, but it’s there regardless. Even if the origin, operation of Tether is highly suspicious: if it functions, is widely adopted and does what is expected … may last longer than people think. Best response is mor…
When people say "hey, Tether is no worse than the existing financial system" I wonder if they don't understand the difference between holding a fraction of deposited money as reserves, and only having a fraction of deposited money as assets, period. As far as I know, when the latter happens in a real bank, they get shut down, shareholders lose their money, and only the FDIC saves the depositors. Just because that's t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder why this Reaserch firm is offering such a substantial bounty for information on Tether. What's in it for them? Where will this money come from? From their site they provide an answer (and even a "track record") [1]: > We look for (...) man-made disasters floating around in the market and aim to shed light on them before they lure in more unsuspecting victims. Hence it seems they're doing it for the bennefit…
There are firms that look for good opportunities to short stocks. Find some credible bad news, short the stock, then publicize the bad news. If the news is actually true, this might even be considered a public service (as well as obviously a way to make money). They probably wouldn’t do until they actually got a tip. Also, they might short crypto-related stocks if that’s easier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tranching is a thing. It's fine. It works, if you don't pretend AAA-rated securities, which have--and historically had--a very low risk of losses, are both safe and liquid. If tranching were all Tether were doing, it would just be fraud. You can't sell a senior tranche on a pool of assets as a fully-backed security and call it a day. But whatever, Tether did that and more, nobody cared, we're on the next tier of the…
Likely in the case of a bank run, Tether cannot redeem even a cent because their organisation is unable to serve any customer outside few selected one (no staff, no processed). However the damage to retail US investors should be quite well contained, as I do not feel they have significant Tether holdings. It is mostly (shady?) professional traders (Alameda, Celsius) and offshore (China) that use Tether. Tether is 50%…
Disclosure: Hindenburg Research does not hold positions, either long or short, in Tether, bitcoin or any cryptocurrency at the time of this press release.
I wonder why this Reaserch firm is offering such a substantial bounty for information on Tether. What's in it for them? Where will this money come from? From their site they provide an answer (and even a "track record") [1]: > We look for (...) man-made disasters floating around in the market and aim to shed light on them before they lure in more unsuspecting victims. Hence it seems they're doing it for the bennefit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are firms that look for good opportunities to short stocks. Find some credible bad news, short the stock, then publicize the bad news. If the news is actually true, this might even be considered a public service (as well as obviously a way to make money). They probably wouldn’t do until they actually got a tip. Also, they might short crypto-related stocks if that’s easier.
I am curious about how that type of activity doesn't constitute insider trading? Presumably having "bad news" would constitute material nonpublic information?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder why this Reaserch firm is offering such a substantial bounty for information on Tether. What's in it for them? Where will this money come from? From their site they provide an answer (and even a "track record") [1]: > We look for (...) man-made disasters floating around in the market and aim to shed light on them before they lure in more unsuspecting victims. Hence it seems they're doing it for the bennefit…
so they can trade on it before announcing it and then with the profit pay for the bounty, assuming they pay up or assuming tether falls. Tether has survived thus far everything thrown at it. The market is evidently very confident about tether.
I don't see how that's a valid conclusion to draw. I would say in this case the "market" is completely codependent on Tether, and therefore are willing to overlook red flags until forced to via damage to pricing or legalities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just realized that the Bloomberg reporter who wrote the recent story is named "Zeke Faux." ( Faux meaning "fake" in French, in a story about fraud.) Is his name a pseudonym? If not, it's another surreal point in a surreal story.
Nope - that's his real last name. We have some mutual friends and via FB I can see at least a dozen family members with the same surname.