>which means Binance is getting ready to dump their Solana USDT bags.
Is there a reason why they'd want to dump Solana USDT specifically? The problems with USDT itself is well known, but they apply to USDT on every chain.
If they wanted to stop you selling, they'd accept (and encourage) deposits. Then just not credit your account for 6 hours. Or pause USDT sales on their exchange. Either way, you would be prevented from selling AND from selling elsewhere.
Since USDC is centralized, in theory it's possible if something happens to Sol for all USDC tokens issued on that network to be transferred to another carrier chain. Like how you can exchange old banknotes for new ones. So the owner of USDC/Sol presents proof of ownership to Circle, and they issue new USDC/X coins while voiding the old ones.
Does anyone know if this was discussed or anything similar happened in the past?
Yes. I personally know of a case where Tether agreed to burn and re-issue USDT at a different address because the USDT had gotten stuck in a buggy smart contract.
I don't believe Circle/Centre has the ability to burn tokens on your behalf.
Realistically if a chain (eg. SOL) was going down the tube, you'd probably want to hit fiat off-ramps (eg. deposit to Binance) or bridge out of SOL and pay the appropriate gas fees.
That is to say, if Binance halted deposits from SOL for a long amount of time, you'd have the option of bridging from SOL to ETH and then cashing out your USDC from ETH. It would just cost you more in fees to do so.
Unregulated financial exchanges are fine, don't worry, be happy. Remember that corruption is defined as government interference in the free market in the form of regulation. The billionaire financiers are not to blame, nor are their bought-and-paid for politicians, nor their pet media talking heads - buy the dip!
This is a great place for retailer traders to get in on the action, don’t worry you won’t be a bag holder after the billionaires made their money. Be happy!
> Remember that corruption is defined as government interference in the free market in the form of regulation.
You mean as in passing regulation drafted by SBF, the dude running the biggest crypto ponzi exposed so far, which would have allowed him to capture a hefty chunk of crypto exchanges market through regulatory capture?
The chief lobbyist of FTX was an ex-CFTC commissioner regularly meeting with the SEC and the CFTC.
"Interesting. @GaryGensler runs to the media while reports to my office allege he was helping SBF and FTX work on legal loopholes to obtain a regulatory monopoly. We're looking into this."
I also read this: "Four U.S. lawmakers have accused the SEC under Chairman Gary Gensler of "regulatory hypocrisy and inconsistency."
So it looks like the "billionaire financiers" may not be the only ones to blame.
We're not just talking about "regulation interfering with the free market". We're talking about regulatory capture by the biggest fraudster since Madoff.
>"Four U.S. lawmakers have accused the SEC under Chairman Gary Gensler of "regulatory hypocrisy and inconsistency."
Every single US politician can be rightly accused of this. It doesn't mean much in a country where you are expected to solicit literal bribes every couple of years and a job at a place you were regulating is an expectation.
I sort of like these kind of markets though, they definitely reward traders who take the time to understand what they're trading.
Crypto is a swamp of projects that will take your money and spin you a story about getting rich and inevitably rugpull you. It's full of centralized exchanges that are shady and exploitative in the best case and downright scams in the worst case.
It's also full of people who fundamentally believe that permissionless programmable money is something that could fundamentally change the world and passionately chase the goal of making it better every day.
Those projects are still risky because technology is never perfect and that's a big deal when it's moving large amounts of value from place to place but if you can tolerate the risk the potential for long-term benefit is there.
there is a small subset of people that indeed believe in the programmable money future in that world, the vast majority of people were just sold a get rich quick scheme and are now losing their money.
> It's also full of people who fundamentally believe that permissionless programmable money is something that could fundamentally change the world and passionately chase the goal of making it better every day.
It's also full of people who have no idea what "permissionless programmable money" is or what the consequences of it are, but line goes up so they convince themselves they understand and "fundamentally believe" in it because they have a direct financial incentive for line to keep going up.
I would wager the ratio of these people to those who actually understand the fundamental economics of cryptocurrencies is significantly greater than 1,000:1.
Why? It has nothign to do with why people put their coins on exchanges. They wanted more money. This trope is so stupid and even runs against the reality of the law. If they aren't your coins, then SBF didn't steal them.
a major tenet of cryptocurrencies is decentralization and controlling your own ability to transact. using centralized exchanges is antithetical to this maxim because it gives these organizations power over you.
Right, but these users didn't care about that. They invested in crypto because they thought there was a profit in it, which is why they used the centralized exchanges and sought the returns those exchanges provided. Your point about decentralization, while true, is completely besides the issue. And like I pointed out, the maxim doesn't even make sense with regards to how law treats the property so I continue to wonder what people think they contribute by referring to it.
The law did not stop these people from losing their investments, they will likely never receive compensation. maybe now those same people will appreciate the concept of controlling your own keys.
You are basing that off of what, exactly? Nothing... They do have recourse under the law, unlike in crypto. And if you hadn't noticed, they kept it on an exchange so they could get interest off of the coins, so what difference would it make to them to store them locally? They aren't trying to hold crypto, they are trying to seek an immediate return.
My favorite things about crypto is how it is always your fault.
Use an exchange and get ripped off? Your fault, dummy.
Go it on your own and fail to maintain perfect security or backups, and you lose your wallet? Not our problem, moron.
Be one of the 0.0000000000000001% of crypto users who actually want to exchange it for goods and services and you get ripped off and want a refund? LOL pound sand, loser.
Some flaw in the implementation of the protocol is discovered and shit hits the fan? Haha you should have been on XYZcoin, idiot!
It's the pure libertarian, laissez-faire market. If you got ripped off, it's an act of darwininan natural selection. Of course, those who say this consider themselves top of the food chain, and that they themselves will not fall (after all, they consider themselves somehow superior, capable of surviving in such conditions - and any gov't or societal regulation is only hindering them).
That's not how I see it. SBF was going after Binance (and other competitors), through regulatory capture. It's not known if the officials implicated knew that SBF was running a ponzi but it's accepted that the oncoming crypto regulations was basically drafted by and for SBF to capture the market (with the chief lobbyist of FTX being an ex-CFTC commissioner regularly meeting with the SEC and the CFTC). This is now everywhere in the news.
CZ from Binance saw this. CZ of course knew SBF was running a ponzi from day (complete with the creation of countless unregulated "securities" SBF would pump then dump on its FTX customers).
It takes a thief to see one.
So CZ, not wanting to go down alone, decided to expose SBF for the total fraud he was. Maybe hoping that the legislation drafted by FTX and coming to regulate Binance out of existence then wouldn't pass?
The angle in the mainstream media is a different story of course: "Evil chinese Binance CEO make SBF's FTX fail by creating a bank run on FTX", without mentioning the pump and dump tokens. Without questioning where the tens of billions went. They're playing the "leverage gone wrong" and not mentioning the political briberies nor the illegal pump of dump of tokens.
As someone wrote in another thread: the coverup exposes the crime (regulatory capture of the entire crypto market by a ponzi scheme).
SBF thought he was a genius and thought he could really pull his gigantic scam and get away with it, but it failed.
Now that it failed, I fully expect SBF to do everything he can to take CZ down.
But I've heard from the VC circle that SBF is raising up to USD 10B by threatening to bring down the crypto industry if he fails. Basically he knows its a house of cards and it can come down if he publishes the information he has.
This is also why, he keeps saying, he will talk about this but "later". It will be an interesting time to watch this evolve.
USDT (Tether) going down is probably the best news ever. Everyone knows they don't have the deposits to back the circulating tether but yet they survive.
There's a twitter thread by Adam Cochran if you want to read more or less the above, in much longer more detailed format.
But, yeah, in general my opinion based on what I've seen is the business model of FTX was to profit off the destruction of DeFi competitors via purchasing government regulations designed to do so, so one of the guys about to be shut down, took him out first knowing that he was financially extremely vulnerable.
He was already doing everything he could to take CZ down and now he just has less resources to do so, nothing is going to change there.
Another opinion is the meta point of the entire event is middling regulation doesn't work. Locked down central control is boring and unprofitable (well, for everyone not on the "inside") or "wild west nobody trust nobody" works, but FTX was marketing how heavily regulated and thus incredibly trustworthy they were, just don't look too closely at the balance sheet which was pretty much entirely fictional toward the end.
48 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 107 ms ] threadIs there a reason why they'd want to dump Solana USDT specifically? The problems with USDT itself is well known, but they apply to USDT on every chain.
If they wanted to stop you selling, they'd accept (and encourage) deposits. Then just not credit your account for 6 hours. Or pause USDT sales on their exchange. Either way, you would be prevented from selling AND from selling elsewhere.
I'm not saying that Binance is not fractional reserve, but this is not much news.
Does anyone know if this was discussed or anything similar happened in the past?
Realistically if a chain (eg. SOL) was going down the tube, you'd probably want to hit fiat off-ramps (eg. deposit to Binance) or bridge out of SOL and pay the appropriate gas fees.
That is to say, if Binance halted deposits from SOL for a long amount of time, you'd have the option of bridging from SOL to ETH and then cashing out your USDC from ETH. It would just cost you more in fees to do so.
You mean as in passing regulation drafted by SBF, the dude running the biggest crypto ponzi exposed so far, which would have allowed him to capture a hefty chunk of crypto exchanges market through regulatory capture?
The chief lobbyist of FTX was an ex-CFTC commissioner regularly meeting with the SEC and the CFTC.
Here are the very words of US Congressman:
https://twitter.com/RepTomEmmer
"Interesting. @GaryGensler runs to the media while reports to my office allege he was helping SBF and FTX work on legal loopholes to obtain a regulatory monopoly. We're looking into this."
I also read this: "Four U.S. lawmakers have accused the SEC under Chairman Gary Gensler of "regulatory hypocrisy and inconsistency."
So it looks like the "billionaire financiers" may not be the only ones to blame.
We're not just talking about "regulation interfering with the free market". We're talking about regulatory capture by the biggest fraudster since Madoff.
Every single US politician can be rightly accused of this. It doesn't mean much in a country where you are expected to solicit literal bribes every couple of years and a job at a place you were regulating is an expectation.
Crypto is a swamp of projects that will take your money and spin you a story about getting rich and inevitably rugpull you. It's full of centralized exchanges that are shady and exploitative in the best case and downright scams in the worst case.
It's also full of people who fundamentally believe that permissionless programmable money is something that could fundamentally change the world and passionately chase the goal of making it better every day.
Those projects are still risky because technology is never perfect and that's a big deal when it's moving large amounts of value from place to place but if you can tolerate the risk the potential for long-term benefit is there.
It's also full of people who have no idea what "permissionless programmable money" is or what the consequences of it are, but line goes up so they convince themselves they understand and "fundamentally believe" in it because they have a direct financial incentive for line to keep going up.
I would wager the ratio of these people to those who actually understand the fundamental economics of cryptocurrencies is significantly greater than 1,000:1.
Use an exchange and get ripped off? Your fault, dummy.
Go it on your own and fail to maintain perfect security or backups, and you lose your wallet? Not our problem, moron.
Be one of the 0.0000000000000001% of crypto users who actually want to exchange it for goods and services and you get ripped off and want a refund? LOL pound sand, loser.
Some flaw in the implementation of the protocol is discovered and shit hits the fan? Haha you should have been on XYZcoin, idiot!
CZ from Binance saw this. CZ of course knew SBF was running a ponzi from day (complete with the creation of countless unregulated "securities" SBF would pump then dump on its FTX customers).
It takes a thief to see one.
So CZ, not wanting to go down alone, decided to expose SBF for the total fraud he was. Maybe hoping that the legislation drafted by FTX and coming to regulate Binance out of existence then wouldn't pass?
The angle in the mainstream media is a different story of course: "Evil chinese Binance CEO make SBF's FTX fail by creating a bank run on FTX", without mentioning the pump and dump tokens. Without questioning where the tens of billions went. They're playing the "leverage gone wrong" and not mentioning the political briberies nor the illegal pump of dump of tokens.
As someone wrote in another thread: the coverup exposes the crime (regulatory capture of the entire crypto market by a ponzi scheme).
SBF thought he was a genius and thought he could really pull his gigantic scam and get away with it, but it failed.
Now that it failed, I fully expect SBF to do everything he can to take CZ down.
If only tether/USDT could go down too.
But I've heard from the VC circle that SBF is raising up to USD 10B by threatening to bring down the crypto industry if he fails. Basically he knows its a house of cards and it can come down if he publishes the information he has.
This is also why, he keeps saying, he will talk about this but "later". It will be an interesting time to watch this evolve.
USDT (Tether) going down is probably the best news ever. Everyone knows they don't have the deposits to back the circulating tether but yet they survive.
But, yeah, in general my opinion based on what I've seen is the business model of FTX was to profit off the destruction of DeFi competitors via purchasing government regulations designed to do so, so one of the guys about to be shut down, took him out first knowing that he was financially extremely vulnerable.
He was already doing everything he could to take CZ down and now he just has less resources to do so, nothing is going to change there.
Another opinion is the meta point of the entire event is middling regulation doesn't work. Locked down central control is boring and unprofitable (well, for everyone not on the "inside") or "wild west nobody trust nobody" works, but FTX was marketing how heavily regulated and thus incredibly trustworthy they were, just don't look too closely at the balance sheet which was pretty much entirely fictional toward the end.