NYT's @nathanielpopper does an even handed take on the concerns surrounding Tether.
nytimes.com/2018/01/31/tec…
nytimes.com/2018/01/31/tec…
One underreported issue that I'd like to see discussed: if Bitfinex were to commit fraud, why not just manufacture money on the exchange, pretending to be a user, like Willy on MtGox? Why go to extra lengths to have the transparency of a cryptocoin?
If they were to go the Willy Jr route, no one would know when coins are minted, in what increments, etc.
If this is a fraud platform, they went quite the extra mile to make that fraud transparent and visible to all. To wit, we would have no idea when they mint coins, and none of this discussion would be taking place.
At the same time, making Tether a cryptocoin allows it to be traded between exchanges, which helps prop up its value. So there is a financial benefit to the transparency, but are the costs (of being questioned daily on social media, and now the press) worth it?
Leaving Tether's solvency aside for a second, this whole episode, the fact that we are having this discussion at all, is an excellent illustration of the transparency and auditability benefits of blockchains.
