The statistics you're bringing up are as of March 31. Do note that 6% of reserves are in "Other Investments (including digital tokens)", and Bitcoin (as a proxy for all cryptocurrencies) is down ~30% since then, so that's at least 2% of their assets that have been wiped out by market conditions. Keep in mind that said report also said that, as of March 31, liabilities are 99.8% of assets, so Tether's accounts says it should already be underwater.

(Although, if I'm reading the attestation correctly, all of the assets--including cryptocurrencies--are actually valued at purchase cost and not fair market value, so what the actual present value of those cryptocurrences is now or was 2 months ago is extremely unclear. Transparent is the opposite of how one could describe Tether's financials.)

Also, if 2% of outstanding tether has been lost (forgotten wallet keys etc) then those can never be redeemed and again, tether wins.

Inflation is another factor worth considering here: tethers deposits are deminishing but it's investments are (or should be) shielded.

I think people fail to notice how similar a (non-fraud) tether model is to a traditional bank: you take short term deposits, you make long term loans, and you hope to have enough capital on hand to deal with any runs. Given the liquidity of modern capital markets, it's very rare for the fed to have to bail out small deposit banks. So it's reasonable to assume the same will apply to tether.

A quarter of their investments are commercial paper, which hasn't averaged as high as 2% yield since a brief period in March 2020. Actual cash of course has 0% yield. US Treasuries (sub 1-year), which make up nearly half their assets, also hasn't hit 2% yield any time recently. So no, they aren't recouping their loss on cryptocurrency.

> I think people fail to notice how similar a (non-fraud) tether model is to a traditional bank: you take short term deposits, you make long term loans, and you hope to have enough capital on hand to deal with any runs. Given the liquidity of modern capital markets, it's very rare for the fed to have to bail out small deposit banks. So it's reasonable to assume the same will apply to tether.

One of the reasons why banks rarely have to be bailed out is because there are stringent regulations on bank holdings. For example, a minimum tier 1 capital ratio, the amount of equity that needs to be held to cover unexpected asset shortfalls. This requirement is I believe 10%, and based on the evidence Tether has produced, Tether's tier 1 capital ratio is... 0%. It should also be noted that Tether is perilously close to insolvent, with (claimed) assets about 100-101% of total liabilities; most financial institutions prefer to be at least ~110-115% of total liabilities.

Compare Tether to banks if you want to, just be aware that it just makes Tether's financials look even worse in comparison.

I'm just laying out the maths...

And to be clear, they only need to make 2% total to cover their crypto loses. If the average tether coin exists for 18 months before being redeemed, 1.5% per annum will net them 2.2% over that period and they're golden.

That extra 0.2%, for a $10bn withdrawal is 2million USD in profit right? Not bad split equally between 5 employees, for a month with massive crypto loses and 10bn in net withdrawals...

That’s exactly what’s unethical about it. They’re operating a bank, but have skipped all the regulations and oversight that banks operate with.

I have no issue with Tether operating a fractional reserve deposit system, if they are subject to the same oversight (and insurance) that banks are subject to.

But tether has no risk of contagion to a bank does it?

And markets have never been more stable or deep or liquid.

So the case for regulation here is weak.

Again. I don't actually know if tether is a giant fraud, or how much actual business case there is here for stable coins. I'm just saying, it's sort of easy to make a case at least that they're fine.

Made, realised and not spent/withdrawn by them. The required assumption here is that the pool of money behind tether grows / is reinvested. But given they only need to keep 1:1 (assuming even that is true) the investment profits may have been exchanged for hookers and blow for all we know.

Tip of the iceberg https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/wallet/Bitfinex-coldwallet

Also, you're going with the assumption they shall be able to redeem 100%. Crash happens, like we have seen, but everyone cashing out their USDT is not a scenario going to happen. Or if you want to account for this scenario, then you can as well assume that crypto is going to disappear, and that would not happen without a cataclysmic event in the stock market either. Probably we will be back to the stone age at this point, and will have other things to worry about

This seems wildly optimistic. All it would take is for users to adopt some new FOTM stablecoin faster than Tether backers can liquidate their reserves. It needn't be rational, either; it could be catalyzed by, let's say, a *ism scandal involving someone connected to Tether.

Didn't bankers say something similar in 1928?

My long-term treasuries are down well over 10% this YTD, in case anyone wants to know. So if Tether had say, $50-billion in 10-to-30Y treasuries at the start of the year, they only have $45-billion of that now.

There are serious market risks when you buy/sell Treasuries. Yes, they're among the safest instruments on the market, but rising interest rates and inflation are huge issues and absolutely wreck the value of long-term treasuries.

They don't. As stated at the link:

> U.S. treasury bills comprises U.S. treasury bills with a maturity of less than 120 days.

My overall point is that USDT could very well be buying up dollar-backed securities, such as 30-year treasuries, and yet still lose a ton of money if the market moves under them. Unless Tether allows 3rd party audits of their reserves, I don't think its necessarily safe to assume that they actually hold those reserves.

Lastly: a temporary liquidity crisis that drives USDT down far below the peg is something that would be incredibly profitable for the operators. With perfect information, it would be a situation of trading 50 cents for dollars, and could be used to erase a partial deficit overnight.

This is nuts - they dont and it wouldnt make any sense. You cant have a short term cash-equivalent backed with long-duration bonds. It would be a total asset-liability mismatch.

For reference:

T-bonds mature in 20 or 30 years and offer the highest interest payments bi-annually.

T-notes mature anywhere between two and 10 years, with bi-annual interest payments, but lower yields.

T-bills have the shortest maturity terms—from four weeks to one year.

Nice.

Edit: Just providing context for those who may be interested.

It also works because the US dollar has been remarkably stable and most of their holdings are USD. No crypto is so stable, with a bunch of them being about the most volatile assets you can lose money with.

How is that relevant to the claim in question? (Which, if you’ll recall, was whether tether can maintain the peg and redemptions while holding the same assets as MMMFs, which generally do that just fine.)

> It also works because the US dollar has been remarkably stable and most of their holdings are USD.

Okay, now you lost me, and I’m not convinced you have the recent discussion in mind. The original comment was claiming that Tether can’t maintain the peg, because it holds non-dollar assets. I pointed out a trillion dollar industry by that maintains a peg, using those same assets, and you’re saying the non-dollar assets only succeed there because the dollar is stable? Which is somehow an argument about how these assets are good enough for MMMFs to work but not Tether?

Please take a minute to review the thread and see if you’re still supporting the claim I disputed.

Among other things the financial system is a web of trust.

IMO one of the fundamental things that crypto gets wrong is replacing trust with algorithms. I do not think that can be done. Trust is about people.

Time will tell if an algorithm that can automate trust can be found. I do not expect it will

Bitcoin is an example of a system of trust that has worked pretty well so far (although it requires a lot of electricity, but that is the trade off). There are also people on the Bitcoin core team, so there is some trusted element there.

Crypto will likely continue to innovate on algorithms, given the chance.

I think there can be trust in people, plus algorithms, with algorithms taking over more over time. This is already happening even in traditional finance, i.e. giving more control over to algorithms that participate in HFT. People do monitor those, but people monitor crypto, too, and maybe the failures in crypto so far mean too much control has been given.

I would argue that some more things in finance can be automated, without things being so black and white (i.e. no control vs total control given to algorithms). I do think the trust model given to governments and traditional finance gatekeepers can be iterated on, with some regulation involved too. I don't think we've figured everything out yet.

They have 39B in US Treasury Bills, how much do you think these will drop if they sell? The truth is next to nothing. and a 39B moat for sell offs seems very reasonable