JPMorgan CFO Sounds Alarm on Risky Stablecoin Yields
JPMorgan CFO warns high-return stablecoins could endanger financial stability as global regulators move toward tighter digital asset rules.
简体中文
繁體中文
English
Pусский
日本語
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
Bahasa Indonesia
Español
हिन्दी
Filippiiniläinen
Français
Deutsch
Português
Türkçe
한국어
العربية
Abstract:In a tangled legal showdown involving Tether and Bitfinex, the recent resolution in the court case raises intriguing questions about stablecoin security and alleged market manipulation within the cryptocurrency sphere.

The legal battle confronting Tether and Bitfinex has drawn to a close as the plaintiff chose not to contest the final court verdict, a resolution confirmed by Tether, the stablecoin issuer, in a recent statement.
The legal battle between Tether and Bitfinex has been a long and winding saga that has spanned multiple jurisdictions and involved a variety of allegations. Back in 2017, Shawn Dolifka and Matthew Anderson, the plaintiffs, accused Tether of misleading assertions regarding the USDT stablecoin's one-to-one backing by the U.S. dollar. Yet, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed their claims in August, citing insufficient evidence of harm in the lawsuit.
Dolifka and Anderson contended that Tether lacked ample reserves matching the circulating USDT volume. They argued that the reserves extended beyond solely U.S. dollars, comprising over-collateralized loans and various assets, ultimately depreciating the stablecoins value.
Tether countered these claims by asserting a lack of solid evidence supporting any decrease in USDT's value. Consequently, the court favoured Tether, highlighting the lawsuits absence of factual substantiation for the alleged devaluation.

The lawsuit, cantering on Tethers misrepresentation of stablecoin backing, concluded as the plaintiff chose not to pursue further legal recourse, acknowledging the court's decision.
In response to the resolution, Tether criticized Dolifkas initial action as baseless and commended his withdrawal of the appeal. The stablecoin issuer reiterated its resilience against baseless litigation aimed at monetary gains.
Despite this legal victory, a New York judge previously mandated Tether and Bitfinex to disclose financial records concerning the stablecoin's backing. Additionally, Bitfinex sought dismissal of a lawsuit accusing them of market manipulation, labeling it as frivolous, but the court accepted the plaintiffs' requests for key financial documents.
A separate class-action lawsuit targets Bitfinex and Tether, alleging fraudulent inflation of the cryptocurrency market by issuing uncovered USDT tokens. The plaintiffs characterize this alleged sophisticated scheme as the “biggest bubble in human history.”

Disclaimer:
The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.

JPMorgan CFO warns high-return stablecoins could endanger financial stability as global regulators move toward tighter digital asset rules.

UbitMarkets review reveals no valid license and direct links to a fraudulent project, raising serious concerns over investor fund safety.

Is withdrawing capital from PaxForex too difficult for traders? Has the China-based forex broker made you trade gold, silver and cryptocurrencies despite not having an office in the United States? Do you find its operational style suspicious? You are not alone! Several traders have expressed these concerns when trading with the broker. In this PaxForex review article, we have exposed the broker through user comments made on several review platforms. Take a look!

When traders ask, "Is OneRoyal legit or a scam?" The answer isn't simply yes or no. OneRoyal is a trading company that has been running for almost twenty years and has important licenses from top financial authorities. This background puts it far away from typical quick scam operations. However, questions about whether it's trustworthy are reasonable and often come from its complicated business structure, the use of overseas companies, and a pattern of specific, serious complaints from users. This article aims to go beyond marketing claims and provide a fact-based analysis of OneRoyal's trustworthiness.