Banks pass audits, have specific capital requirements, and you've even helpfully highlighted the FDIC insurance that protects individuals from their fuckups.
This doesn't follow since the argument would apply to Tether even if they weren't doing shady things. If you don't think unregulated stablecoins should exist in general that's valid but it doesn't answer the question of what specifically Tether is doing.
Like rake them over the coals for lying about having assets they didn't but if Tether had been from the start open about holding only a small fraction in cash would it be a problem?
> Like rake them over the coals for lying about having assets they didn't but if Tether had been from the start open about holding only a small fraction in cash would it be a problem?
Sure. If the Nigerian prince was actually a Nigerian prince and actually gave me $100M, that changes the scenario substantially.
They acquired their dominant position via fraud. Their website claimed audits they never completed. They issued bank attestations showing funds they didn't have legal rights to; transferred from Bitfinex in the day before, and then back out the day after. To this day, there's no way of knowing if that fraud continues; they've yet to complete an audit or provide the transparency promised for years.
