Tether has enough funds on its accounts to back every USDT token in circulation, controversy talks on BitTorrent's acquisition and SEC froze the banks accounts of a fraudulent PlexCoin ICO.
Tether finally opens the curtain to allow some kind of probe
The report states that it has enough funds on its accounts to back every usdt token in circulation, and it's published by Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan LLP, the legal firm. Still, it's not a full audit.
A month ago we predicted that the issuance of a new stable coin, TrueUSD by Circle, probably will force Tether to become more transparent about its own funds. TUSD is a serious competitor, and with the lack of trust from the community, Tether may lose its position of the most popular stable coin very easily, if there would be a good and highly liquid alternative. TUSD, backed by Circle and Bitmain, two well-respected companies, can be easily regarded as that alternative.
Thus, we suddenly see Tether bank accounts checked by a law firm. It’s strange that a full audit wasn’t performed, but under pressure from the community, maybe one day a full audit would be possible. This report that we have now is quite good and looks like a significant progress, as this could help stabilize the markets further, return the confidence in Tether and dissolve all that year-long uncertainty. That’s the best news for the crypto market in a very long time.
Tron bought BitTorrent for $140 Million, which sparks controversy talks
The opinions vary, but the overall sentiment is more confused, as the purpose of the acquisition is unknown.
What's the reason behind this acquisition? Certainly, that's an odd move from Tron. Of course, BitTorent is a very popular Peer-to-Peer service with millions of active users, but it's an old technology. The only reasonable explanation comes to mind: Tron tries to shift its focus from blockchain toward some other activities. Many people, including Vitalik Buterin, call it a vapourware project. There might be a certain reason behind this characteristic, as its roadmap includes very complex plans, but their execution is gonna be phased in over the period of many years, and now the company doesn't have any products, except for a blockchain which is being used only to transact TRX coins.
To be honest, we are very dubious about the real possibility to implement all these announced features in one project. The sad example of EOS shows that it's better to lower the expectation about the hype projects. They try to promise as much as possible to get the funding, but they don't have the obligations to fulfill their promises, as everyone is pretty grateful if these projects at least don't disappear with the collected money.
Now as Justin Sun has enough funds to do anything he wants, why not buy as many companies as he can, to legitimize his business? If he fails achieving all set goals with Tron, he could always say: 'Ok, we failed in delivering everything we promised, sorry, in reality it was impossible for us, we didn't expect it when we started the project, but we have BitTorrent, and this company, and that company, and that one company, so we'll continue to run them and operate as a company, but now we shift our focus a bit'. That can be a very good plan. Or they can deliver. But now it looks like they are desperately searching for something that could help them look less vapory.
The SEC has got a court order to freeze the banks accounts of a fraudulent ICO
PlexCoin ICO, organized by Dominic Lacroix, promised its investors more than 1,300 percent return in a month and raised $15 million, but never fulfilled its promises.
Now we see a banking power in its full shine. Is it good that any account can be frozen by someone's decision? In some cases — yes. But generally, it's not. The interest that blockchain technology is sparkling now among people is derived from the fact that no one can take your money from you, and it's your own responsibility to maintain your financial security. Of course, there can be tools for those who aren't willing to do it by themselves, like trusting your keys to the third party to manage your assets with ease or even having someone to do it instead of you, but generally people, especially young people don't trust banks, they want to control their funds by themselves.
In the case of fraudulent ICOs blocking their funds could be a short-term solution, it deals with the symptoms but doesn't cure the cause. In a long-term, it would be better to let them be, as it would serve a vaccine to the crypto community, to retail investors, as everyone is slowly coming to realisation of that not every crypto project is a buy-our-tokens-get-rich scheme, and every investment opportunity must be evaluated. But anyway, punishing fraudsters is also good, bravo, the SEC!