So the following is okay:

1. bitfinex asks some influencer to do some influencer things for them

2. bitfinex hands them a $100 bill

but the following isn't fine:

2. bitfinex hands them 100 USDT tokens

But hold on, corporations don't often pay people using paper bills, they pay them using ACH, so is the following fine?

2. bitfinex transfers $100 to their bank using ACH

Probably fine right, given that there isn't really a difference between getting paid in ACH vs paper bills. But some companies are old fashioned and don't do ACH transfers, they issue checks instead. So is the following fine?

2. bitfinex writes them a check for $100

Well, a check is just an IOU right? It's only a promise to pay them something. If you try to deposit the check and the check bounces it's not like the FDIC will save you. You'll have to chase after them for it. Given that fact, and recognizing that USDT is just an IOU, is there any difference between the above and

2. bitfinex gives them 100 USDT tokens

?

It's a crime to write bad checks. That's what the article is all about.

Hmm, was writing a longer answer to you, but ended up agreeing without expecting to.

Bitfinex could either issue some USDT, convert it to USD and hand that to the influencer, or issue some USDT and hand that to the influencer. Can't really see the difference here, except if they hand over USDT that will hype the market a bit as well? As long as the conversion works they two are functionally the same.

They control the issuance of USDT, something they can't do with USD. They sure hope influencers don't immediately convert it to USD and buy other bitcoin or other cryptos with it instead. That way, they keep the USD and the influencer helps pumping the price.

If I were that influencer I would cash the check and then provide services.

Same with USDT. Cash it for Bitcoin and then provide services.