Quote from: TheQuin on January 23, 2018, 03:38:28 PM

...

We already had this discussion and I fully explained why that couldn't have happened. Do you want to revisit those posts?

...
Not sure, maybe it's trendy and they like playing with virtual kittens?

I remember very well that your main argument when we had this discussion before
was that they received bank statements to the bank accounts as well and not only took a look at
Tether´s accounts at the snapshot
date, which would make my theories impossible (Tether wouldn´t have been
able to get the liquidity for the snapshot date from somewhere else).
However, the memorandum also explicitly states the following:

Quote

We have not performed any procedures or make any conclusion for activity prior
to or subsequent to September 15 2017...

Therefore it is still possible that the funds were wired into the Tether bank accounts prior
to the date.

Let´s assume that you are right and Friedman LLP did verify the existence of all the money
that Tether is supposed to be holding. Even if this were true the outstanding USDT at the time
of their memorandum was roughly ~442M $. Are you sure the roughly 1.8 billion $ of USDT
that have been issued since then are backed as well? When will the full audit be released?
Were are the Bitfinex audits for 2015, 2016 and 2017 that were repeatedly promised
by various Bitfinex employees?

I´ll reiterate that I personally hope that I´m wrong on all of this, but there are too many
red flags in my opinion.

Maybe issuing USDT on Ethereum is a method of coming up with new desperate attempts
to increase the lifespan of their scheme? I recently posted the observation that fraudulent
endeavours often increase their activity at the end of their lifespan.

Take a look at Bitconnect... before their recent downfall they were actually planning
to do an ICO on top of their existing ponzi scheme.