its not different than someone that everyone overwhelmingly trusts was found to have moved the reserves.
here everyone just expected them to be doing that, and eventually they did it, not different than someone nobody expected to be doing that eventually being found to have done it as well. these cases prove that at one point they had not, even when everyone assumed they were. its like taking a time machine back to 2016 and telling people "hey actually they're fully backed", its interesting to find out, from the state's investigations, that they actually were.
thats the only chronology I explained.
lets play a new game: what's inaccurate about what I said? seems like thats a much more productive discussion.
the reason I think the distinction matters is because its resolved now. And that resolution involves Tether still existing. So our passion about a systemic threat to crypto and maybe the broader financial system will not involve the state doing something about that. which is fairly important to understand, both for your decision to use it even if briefly, or for espousing your passion about why others shouldn't use it.
