Quote from: vv181 on Today at 01:47:05 AM

Quote from: Croin on March 11, 2023, 07:06:47 PM

Well.... it wasn't Silvergate thought!

Yes, I thought they also has exposure to Silvergate, but besides SVB becoming the cause, Silvergate is winding down. According to their latest update on the whole current issue, they had been taken off any reserves from Silvergate right before its closure.

Quote from: https://www.circle.com/blog/an-update-on-usdc-and-silicon-valley-bank

USDC has zero exposure to Silvergate; we had transferred out what were limited reserves to support transaction settlement with USDC prior to bank closure.

Back to SVB, another point worth taking is their assurance:

Quote

However, it is also possible that SVB may not return 100% and that any return might take some time, as the FDIC issues IOUs (i.e., receivership certificates) and advanced dividends to deposit holders.

In such a case, Circle, as required by law under stored-value money transmission regulation, will stand behind USDC and cover any shortfall using corporate resources, involving external capital if necessary.

In regard to their other reserves, they further down reduce their position on bank risks. Anyway let's see how it will go through on Monday, as of now, it currently has risen to $0.98 per CMC data.

It's on the news just today that FDIC has taken over already and this could end that to a terrible loss because even if a person has over $10M in the bank, they will return only the insurance which is $250,000.

From what I have read was that this depeg issue was because of the unrealized loss. I got confused already with such a term. But that is exactly what I have read on some reliable sites.