Re:The Supply of Tethers at 27 November 2017 is $675M
by wslh on Tuesday November 28, 2017 @08:21AM
(#15796949)
You answered the question yourself below but you cannot peg a currency to another if you don't have the reserves, less with cryptocurrencies where you don't have a central bank who can rescue you. This is economy 101 not an opinion. Fractional reserves can work in fiat currencies but not in the cryptocurrency world. For more information you can check research about this topic: https://scholar.google.com.ar/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=c...
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Supply of Tethers at 27 November 2017 is $675M
by jstanley on Tuesday November 28, 2017 @08:40AM
(#15797104)
It's a different set of tradeoffs compared to Tether.
You gain the risk of insolvency, but you lose the risk of corruption.
Re:The Supply of Tethers at 27 November 2017 is $675M
by wslh on Tuesday November 28, 2017 @08:49AM
(#15797196)
Are you saying this to the average "non-professional" investor? When people read about a cryptocurrency that represents fiat money they think about something simple and they assume you have the money to convert back and forth.
The first page clearly says "A decentralized cryptocurrency pegged the U.S. dollar". This message is a scam, plain scam, you don't need to bring the SEC to realized that. After reviewing all this thread I flagged the top comment.
Re:The Supply of Tethers at 27 November 2017 is $675M
by jstanley on Tuesday November 28, 2017 @09:12AM
(#15797426)
I'm not saying it to any investor, I'm arguing it from a purely disinterested perspective.
I think it's a fascinating project.
That the SEC thinks risk of insolvency is more of a problem than risk of corruption is irrelevant.
Re:The Supply of Tethers at 27 November 2017 is $675M
by lurker456 on Tuesday November 28, 2017 @11:13AM
(#15798506)
words have meaning. "pegged" is a wrong and highly misleading term because it implies a level of safety that is not there. Whether it's fraudulently so is indeed a question for the courts and the SEC.