Bennett has done a fantastic job. There WILL be a movie about this company when investors lose faith. Like next decades, "the big short".
If you remember in the movie, Cohodes got his ass handed to him as banks margin called him out of his position and that's in a regulated market. These guys own their market and the exchange on which it originates. There's no way to even verify if they received dollars for every tether issued and by some miracle the yield on USDT is incredible. You'd be losing 4-5% a year guaranteed holding a short position.
1. Borrow 2. Sell 3. Wait 4. Buy back 5. Close
There is USDT lending available. Even more, there is decentralized collateralized lending available.
If someone wanted to short USDT there are plenty of opportunities to do so. (And there might be a lot of people doing so, specially now that the shadyness is being reported on some of the more reputable traditional newspapers)
I believe FTX has some 10+ billion USDT on hand. That'll put a serious hole in their balance sheet. Not to mention whatever would happen to their futures insurance fund when the collateral evaporates. I'm trying to find my source for their balance sheet size, will follow up.
I'm very skeptical that FTX has 10B USDT on the balance sheet. OP here says Sam has billions of tether, which makes sense but is not enough to blow them up, and is likely in Alameda being as he says it's for trading, not in FTX.
(Of course it's possible that FTX has 10B in USDT deposits, but that belongs to their customers who would be very sad if it nuked but doesn't directly hurt FTX.)
Futures insurance fund may be an issue, yes, especially in scenarios where it shifts very rapidly. If you have math on a plausible scenario and total losses across the major markets I'd be interested in seeing it. But you'd have to be looking at several billion in losses or at over 1B directly attributable to FTX for them to go bust - they've raised over a billion and make 350M/year per recent Forbes article, so that's a lot of capital.
https://app.fulcrum.trade/trade
5% is a low cost for a short position that you believe will eventually pay out 100%.
alternatively, could another stablecoin take the place of tether, without any fundamental change in crypto trading volume?
Knowing pretty much zero about DAI (and honestly, not too interested to spend any time to learn), this still sounds incredible. Does that incapability hold even if prices of whatever underlying assets are not continuous? Like, at one point of time the asset is trading at 100 dollars, and at the very next moment it trades at 1, with no possibility for anyone to trade at 50 at any point in between?
I very much assume not. If you think that is laughably stupid to assume that prices would not be continuous, well, you are in good company, even some Economics Nobelists have fallen on that trap. And lost billions. In that case you may want to spend some time researching what comes up when you search for LTCM.
[0] https://www.circle.com/blog/evolving-usdc-reserves-to-100-ca...
[1] https://twitter.com/emiliemc/status/1429664322725158914?s=20
> Digital asset markets and exchanges are not regulated with the same controls or customer protections available with other forms of financial products and are subject to an evolving regulatory environment. Digital assets do not typically have legal tender status and are not covered by deposit protection insurance.
They're regulated as money transmitters like Venmo, and depending on the state, that can mean as little as "pay us a few thousand dollars and we'll ignore you." This regulatory framework was created as a way of side-stepping the more onerous regulations that apply to real depository institutions. Thats why they were able to invest the backing in ... whatever before the SEC came knocking.
This is simply not the case. Most, if not all, state money transfer regulations mandate financial reporting to the state, and place limitations on the permissible investments that a licensed entity may hold as backing for customer obligations held in trust. Any failure to comply will result in fines and/or loss of the license (which effectively results in the closure of the money transmission business).
A number of states (California and New York among them) also conduct on-site examinations of licensees' businesses (paid for by the licensed entity). As someone who was has served as a senior executive at a company that undergoes these examinations regularly, I can assure you that they tend to be rigorous and all-encompassing.
> This regulatory framework was created as a way of side-stepping the more onerous regulations that apply to real depository institutions.
This regulatory framework was not created as a way of sidestepping anything. It was created as a way to proactively regulate money transmission.
Money transmitters are not depository institutions; they serve a different, more narrow economic function, and existing regulations are properly tailored to that economic function. In practice that means that money transmitters are required to maintain 100% reserves backing any and all customer obligations, they must hold their reserves only in certain permissible investments (i.e. government debt and bank deposits), and they are required to obtain surety bonds to further insure those obligations.
Venmo, PayPal, Western Union, Money Gram and dozens of other companies are all subject to these requirements, and there has never been any instance that I am aware of where this regulatory arrangement has resulted in consumer funds being lost, in the twenty years since this regulatory regime began to be fully implemented after passage of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Furthermore, I am not seeing what the material difference is between the outstanding obligation represented by USDC and the outstanding obligation represented by a PayPal or a Venmo account. The fact that the law treats them the same is entirely appropriate.
Tether is a problem precisely because it is unlicensed and has thus far illegally evaded these regulations. The fact that Tether is operating illegally in the US should not impugn its competitors that are in fact operating legally.