I agree with you, but not because of the Tether issues, which in my opinion are of trivial significance compared to the existential threat posed by central bank digital currency (CBDC).
As you rightly point out, the government could make possession of bullion illegal; however the same is true of cryptocurrency - a point that is almost always ignored by fans of crypto. The authorities do not permit states or individuals to print their own paper currency, so why would anyone expect them to tolerate competition to the CBDCs they are actively developing.
Crypto never quite broke into the mainstream, and if it were decreed illegal, the existing userbase would drop precipitously. In fact, it would be a classic bubble burst: with everyone trying to get out of the market, there would be no bid, and the value would drop to nothing. Unlike tangible assets, crypto has no inherent value whatsoever (it is the ultimate fiat), so it could - and probably would - go all the way to zero.
CBDCs offer governments and international organizations (the IMF recently announced their own global digital currency) hithertofore unimaginable control over the lives and behavior of the public. There's no way those institutions will tolerate competition from grassroots alternatives.
Excellent piece. This is a bit out there, but do you believe this is why LUNA (Terraform Labs) was attacked? To eradicate algorithmic stablecoin competitors?
I agree that gold is manipulated, however the reason for the manipulation is that the American elite know that gold is a superior form of money. Allowing gold to reach its market level would deter investments in the U.S. dollar, causing DXY to crash.
I believe we will see gold prices skyrocket once the derivatives market faces the hard reality of the bullion market, and COMEX reserves evaporate. That is, provided the government doesn't intervene to rescue speculators.
Tether having a “krisha“ honestly wouldn’t surprise me at all. To be the only stablecoin standing after Op Chokepoint 2.0 just reinforces that theory. Just to be clear tho, this is from your article with the “contention” mention being the “krisha”, correct?
“If this contention is accurate, what the establishment’s control over the cryptocurrency space via Tether means is that they can pump or crash the entire crypto space at will. Although the total cryptocurrency market cap is currently over $1.1 trillion, the trading platforms are so illiquid that small amounts of purchases or sales can move the market and cause dramatic, oversized changes in market cap. They can pump prices 100x from here it crash it to 0; but the decision is entirely theirs, artificially and not subject to market forces.”
With only 55,000 BTC to sell I don’t see how they could provide the downside pressure your mentioning. Micro-strategy has more than 3x that bitcoin. It doesn’t seem to me that Tether is any more of a risk than any other major player in the industry. Am I missing something here?
Great work! I really enjoyed reading it :) History-book worthy conspiracy if true. And I believe it. Coffeezila also did a piece on Tether focused around the people behind it, but I hadn’t considered your theory until I came across it in your work.
I have a few questions, if you have the time:
Do you think CBDCs will succeed in Europe and the US?
Alternatively, what taxation practices would you endorse in a system where people use Bitcoin and are their own bank? I suppose you’ll look to the past, but did those systems work well? Would they hold up to our technologies?
I have ready your article, the comments, and some of the sources linked in the article and I can’t understand how Tether could send Bitcoin to $0? They only own 55,000 BTC. Tera Luna alone dumped almost 28,000 BTC on the market during the last crash and it only went to $15k. Can you explain this to me?
I agree with you, but not because of the Tether issues, which in my opinion are of trivial significance compared to the existential threat posed by central bank digital currency (CBDC).
As you rightly point out, the government could make possession of bullion illegal; however the same is true of cryptocurrency - a point that is almost always ignored by fans of crypto. The authorities do not permit states or individuals to print their own paper currency, so why would anyone expect them to tolerate competition to the CBDCs they are actively developing.
Crypto never quite broke into the mainstream, and if it were decreed illegal, the existing userbase would drop precipitously. In fact, it would be a classic bubble burst: with everyone trying to get out of the market, there would be no bid, and the value would drop to nothing. Unlike tangible assets, crypto has no inherent value whatsoever (it is the ultimate fiat), so it could - and probably would - go all the way to zero.
CBDCs offer governments and international organizations (the IMF recently announced their own global digital currency) hithertofore unimaginable control over the lives and behavior of the public. There's no way those institutions will tolerate competition from grassroots alternatives.
Excellent piece. This is a bit out there, but do you believe this is why LUNA (Terraform Labs) was attacked? To eradicate algorithmic stablecoin competitors?
I agree that gold is manipulated, however the reason for the manipulation is that the American elite know that gold is a superior form of money. Allowing gold to reach its market level would deter investments in the U.S. dollar, causing DXY to crash.
I believe we will see gold prices skyrocket once the derivatives market faces the hard reality of the bullion market, and COMEX reserves evaporate. That is, provided the government doesn't intervene to rescue speculators.
Tether having a “krisha“ honestly wouldn’t surprise me at all. To be the only stablecoin standing after Op Chokepoint 2.0 just reinforces that theory. Just to be clear tho, this is from your article with the “contention” mention being the “krisha”, correct?
“If this contention is accurate, what the establishment’s control over the cryptocurrency space via Tether means is that they can pump or crash the entire crypto space at will. Although the total cryptocurrency market cap is currently over $1.1 trillion, the trading platforms are so illiquid that small amounts of purchases or sales can move the market and cause dramatic, oversized changes in market cap. They can pump prices 100x from here it crash it to 0; but the decision is entirely theirs, artificially and not subject to market forces.”
With only 55,000 BTC to sell I don’t see how they could provide the downside pressure your mentioning. Micro-strategy has more than 3x that bitcoin. It doesn’t seem to me that Tether is any more of a risk than any other major player in the industry. Am I missing something here?
I also don’t see trading volume as a particularly useful metric. Some exchanges pump their trading numbers by 50x using Wash trading, many using Tether to do this. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1544612321000635)
Great work! I really enjoyed reading it :) History-book worthy conspiracy if true. And I believe it. Coffeezila also did a piece on Tether focused around the people behind it, but I hadn’t considered your theory until I came across it in your work.
I have a few questions, if you have the time:
Do you think CBDCs will succeed in Europe and the US?
Alternatively, what taxation practices would you endorse in a system where people use Bitcoin and are their own bank? I suppose you’ll look to the past, but did those systems work well? Would they hold up to our technologies?
I have ready your article, the comments, and some of the sources linked in the article and I can’t understand how Tether could send Bitcoin to $0? They only own 55,000 BTC. Tera Luna alone dumped almost 28,000 BTC on the market during the last crash and it only went to $15k. Can you explain this to me?