I would guess because UST is listed on various US based exchanges, so if they don’t comply US could tell those exchanges they can’t list UST anymore. Similar to how US has jurisdiction over foreign companies listed on NYSE or NASDAQ.
1 Like
This court document has some info on that:
The jurisdiction analysis starts on page 35. It includes the following:
Here, given the conduct alleged in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs easily establish jurisdiction under Section 1965(a) as to the other RICO defendants. For example, Plaintiffs adequately pleaded RICO jurisdiction in New York as to Potter [chief strategy officer of Bitfinex and Tether], who is a New York resident, and as to the DigFinex Defendants, who, inter alia, are alleged to have harmed Plaintiffs in New York through their manipulation of the cryptocommodity market and to have directed customers to transfer money to New York-based bank accounts in furtherance of their scheme. Therefore, because the scheme as alleged has many ties to New York, the ends of justice are best served by this Court exercising jurisdiction over Fowler under Section 1965(b).
But that doesn’t answer your substantive question of why they can’t just tell the court to piss off.
1 Like
Fractional banking is what the first banks did when fiat was still supposed to be backed by gold. That is have more money in circulation than you have actual gold because you know not everyone is going to ask for their gold back anyway. Tether is probably doing that with USD being their gold. As for the numbers on their website. Tether has never provided an actual independent proper audit of those numbers. Are those bonds really theirs or are they mingling funds with BitFinex.
As for why they are listening to a US court. They would risk that BitFinex looses its banking access if they don’t so they play along for now.
you mean that many?
stuff like this is notorious for having almost nobody actually working there
Interesting summary by Balaji on Lex Fridman’s podcast in response to the question:
“What will Crypto be good for?”
Reminder: this is not the Crapto thread.
1 Like
both of them have brain worms
Crapto thread is that way —>
See there is a separate crypto thread! I knew it.
But for some reason everyone’s migrated to the crapto thread, where we still get chastised for talking about crapto.
2 Likes
Yeah, should be anything goes in the crapto thread. That’s why it was created. Serious discussion here, which is why only crickets can be heard.
The reason this thread is crickets is that serious discussion of crypto takes place on the Discord.
3 Likes
Sir, this is the crypto thread
This month might not seem the perfect moment for an institution such as Goldman Sachs to be championing the benefits of “blockchain” or “tokenisation”. After all, these buzz words first shot to fame in the cryptocurrency sector, which has lost two-thirds of its value during the past year. And the recent implosion of Sam Bankman-Fried’s FTX empire is likely to leave many traditional financiers shying away from digital assets — if not deriding them as a fraud. Yet when green activists, politicians and scientists assembled at COP27 this month, Rosie Hampson, an executive director at Goldman Sachs, was happily talking of both. In recent months the Wall Street bank has joined forces with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, Bank for International Settlements and other financial institutions, to launch a capital markets initiative known as “Genesis” (a name it unfortunately shares with the struggling crypto broker). This Genesis aims to use blockchain and digital tokenisation to help investors who purchase climate-related bonds track the associated carbon credits in real time. “[With] Genesis we are thinking about how you can use blockchain, smart contract technology and IoT devices to support green bond contracts,” Hampson told a COP side event. She noted that this could change the process from “book building all the way through to primary issuance, asset servicing and . . . the secondary market component.”
Or as Bénédicte Nolens, of the BIS, echoed in a recent podcast: “It is actually hard to sell a green bond [today]. But if you can attach the future carbon offset [with tokenisation] then it becomes a lot more attractive to the end investor.”
…
Moreover, these are now reaching into some unexpected places, with growing government support. The World Bank is currently developing a utility for carbon credit registries that uses a blockchain system called Chia. And in mainstream central banking, tests are under way for wholesale (ie bank-to-bank) central bank digital currencies.
The HKMA, for example, is currently working with the People’s Bank of China and other central banks on a so-called mBridge project to enable them to swap assets instantaneously. In Europe, the Banque de France and the Swiss National Bank have unveiled Project Jura, a foreign exchange CBDC pilot.
And while these initiatives are still just pilots, they represent “a completely new architecture”, as Ousmène Mandeng, an Accenture consultant, recently told a meeting of the Euro 50 group in Washington. Or as Adrian Tobias of the IMF echoed: “The key things we have got from crypto are the ideas of tokenisation, cryptography and distributed ledgers. They are very important technologies and there is a lot of experimentation going on.”
…
The Genesis initiative, for example, is trying to solve the problem that the carbon credits market today is so fragmented and opaque it is hard for investors to track potential greenwashing. Thus while Chinese issuers have sold $300bn of green bonds, transparency around this is very low.
However, by using a co-ordinated distributed computerised ledger (ie blockchain), the BIS and Goldman Sachs say it would be possible to eliminate double counting and verify the carbon credits at source. Similarly digital tokenisation should make it possible to simplify bond distribution and pull retail investors into the market for the first time, by breaking bonds into tiny fractions. Or so the argument goes.
2 Likes
How is a blockchain solving greenwashing? The issue is not that different people both claim the same carbon credit. The issue is that the carbon credit is issued for trees that don’t actually get planted or carbon that is not actually captured at the power plant. A blockchain doesn’t solve that. If we trust whoever issues the carbon credits then they can just run a standard database anyone can access. If we can’t trust the issuer than any distributed trust a blockchain adds on top of that is pointless.
1 Like
And this is why crypto is not a thing irl and probably never will be. It’s a too clever by half engineering solution to problems that already have better solutions.
And the winner is… S&P 500
4 Likes