1/ Extremely weak reporting from @WSJ and @paulvigna who even after speaking with them seem to completely misunderstand how stablecoins work and how $'s flow into and across exchanges.wsj.com/articles/large…
2/ Stablecoin issuers respond to inflow and outflow demands from crypto traders and investors. So, for example, last week when there was a BTC rally on China news, we saw large inflows into USDC which led to a "single address" creating a lot of USDC and then flowing to exchanges
3/ Exchanges use omni-bus wallets that pool all customer balances and transactions on and off the exchange. So an analysis that shows that "a single wallet" was involved in flows from Bitfinex to other exchanges is meaningless. All it shows is that traders were trading.
4/ In 2017/2018 there was demand for buying BTC and a massive alt coin rally. The majority of that demand came from Asia and China, and since there were no CNY ramps into BTC, everyone went to offshore USDT processors. These processors would then generate large prints of USDT
5/ The only thing this supposed analysis shows is that Asia traders demanded fiat to buy BTC and other alt coins on exchanges around the world. We all know that the USDT prints had an origin in Bitfinex managed treasury wallets.
6/ Blockchain data actually only shows when new fiat tokens came into existence and how they flow through trading markets. The analysis is useless unless you can also see the payment processing and transaction banking settlement flows of Tether, which is not public.
7/ Again, really shoddy reporting from @WSJ who are falling victim to using click bate on a controversial subject vs. actually trying to understand how crypto markets work.
