[0] https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/95207/bitfinex-tether-ne...
EDIT: For some reason I'm being downvoted, but I'm genuinely curious to understand why this news is being simultaneously interpreted in two opposite ways.
Edit: The difference between the two statements is that Tether can still be "backed" by something other than USD, notably crypto. And the PR is silent on what exactly Tether is backed by. This saga isn't over yet.
Page 4 of the agreement:
> 20. Because of Tether’s inability to conduct significant banking activity during this time, it could not itself hold dollars sufficient to back the hundreds of millions of new tethers that had entered the market. Until September 15, 2017, the only U.S. dollars held by Tether ostensibly backing the approximately 442 million tethers in circulation was the approximately $61 million on deposit at the Bank of Montreal.
That's 14% of the cash required to back the issued Tether.
How it that extremely favorable?
If someone sells something they don’t have under false pretenses, that’s fraud. It’s not a simple liquidity issue.
https://www.coindesk.com/tether-lawyer-confirms-stablecoin-7...
"The USDT stablecoin is only about 74 percent backed by fiat equivalents as of April 30, says its issuer’s general counsel.
Tether, the company behind USDT, holds about $2.1 billion in cash and short-term securities, wrote its general counsel Stuart Hoegner in an affidavit Tuesday. Hoegner is also general counsel to Bitfinex, a crypto exchange which shares executives and has overlapping owners with Tether.
The two companies are at the heart of allegations by the New York Attorney General, who says Bitfinex borrowed more than $600 million from Tether after losing as much as $850 million to a currency converter."
A "finding", in legal terms, is a specific, explicit statement with the supporting rationale behind it.
You can make statements in a legal document, even a settlement, without classifying them as "findings" (that have specific legal ramifications).
Indeed, the AG says in the documents that absolutely Tether did not always have backing. However, it doesn't address -issuance- without backing.
So the attorney for Tether is doing as attorneys do, making a carefully crafted statement that will paint a specific impression to the world, whilst being entirely aware (and maintaining plausible deniability) that he is artfully weaving through several other "inconvenient truths".