5/ Visiting the burn address though, we can see that billions of USDT have left the burn wallet and returned to the Tether Treasury over the past 160 days.
In total this wallet has sent out 21.50B USDT to the Treasury while only receiving 2B USDT (from the Treasury).
6/ Looking at this most recent burn, we can see that the 2 (1B) USDT transfers landed into the 'burn address' from a smart contract that Bitfinex has been indirectly making calls on (TBPxhVAsuzoFnKyXtc1o2UySEydPHgATto).
7/ It appears that the 2B USDT sent out for the burn initially came from address TKHuVq1oKVruCGLvqVexFs6dawKv6fQgFs (Tether Treasury #2 I suppose).
The 2B USDT that the Tether Treasury #2 received came from Binance...@paoloardoino yall do swaps for @binance now?
8/ Either way - even if it is from Binance, seems like no harm no foul right?
Wrong. Let's revisit that new smart contract they burned the USDT through for a sec.
We can see the burn addy drop funds into that smart contract, then smart cntrct dumps back to Tether treasury #2.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
4a/ The burden of running an archival node was made painfully clear in a bombshell post by @BlockCypher back in May 2019 following the Constantinople hard fork
2/ In order to do this, I decided to start with the Treasury - where all funds are minted via an "issue" call made on the relevant smart contract.
The Bitfinex "MultiSigWallet" is responsible for confirming any and all "issue" calls made to the Tether smart contract.
2a/ Visiting the "logs" panel on Etherscan afford us knowledge of the smart contract for the token being minted [USDT] (i.e., this tells us what the 'Tether' smart contract address is)
1/ Assuming you're referring to the CFTC report on Coinbase's market activity, you can trace this via unusual activity occurring in one of the deposit addresses.
2/ That's how I discovered that QuadrigaCX was trading on its own exchange (and more specifically, that it was Gerry Cotten or someone else in an administration role). The analysis was painstaking, but I'll walk down a super brief example in the next tweets.
3/ Attached to this tweet is a screenshot of the 0x0247BC4E03142079CfA2E3Daf500722Ed0F9A6b2 address.
The pattern we see of funds being sent in and then immediately being swept to the exchange means that this is more than likely a deposit address (i.e., should be a custie addy)
1/ This post is going to break down the @monero backdoor that I've been referencing (that got @fluffypony so riled up he had to make false, defamatory claims about me "exit scamming"; imagine he was red in the face banging his keyboard when he wrote this one)
2/ To be clear, this post is referring to this Monero proposal: ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/xiph…; which was successfully funded with 181 XMR, currently worth > $40,000.
Here's the relevant GH repo we're going to dissect = github.com/tevador/monero… (linked from the proposal)
3/ To start, the idea that this wallet repo will save "5 bits reserved" for "future updates", makes zero sense.
The bits he's referring to here are generated from entropy & only exist in an ephemeral, indistinguishable form (how would one select the "5-bits"?)
1/ ICYMI, I schooled the entire @monero community and exposed @fluffypony as a pseudo-intellectual wannabe bully that forgot he ran into the crypto space's biggest bully.
2/ To be clear, the original Reddit post was created to urge the community to pay @veorq more money than what they offered because he's actually worth more - and he has the intelligence, expertise & proven ability to help curate unique solutions that could enhance Monero.
3/ @fluffypony attempted to respond...and, well, let's just say that this is where it got embarrassing (he was mad that I pointed out that Monero is trying to push a wallet solution with a backdoor in it)
1/ There are many that are shocked by the @CFTC's press release condemning @coinbase (and @brian_armstrong) criminal behavior.
But that's likely because you all forgot that this is who @coinbase has always been!
Let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we?
2/ In 2015, it was revealed that Coinbase had lied about its regulatory status - sfgate.com/business/artic…
3/ On July 18th, 2018, Coinbase published an announcement informing the cryptocurrency space that it had lied about receiving regulatory approval from the U.S. government to “list coins considered securities” - cointelegraph.com/news/coinbase-… (Coinbase Retracts Announcement)