I have never held and will never hold USDT, but this entire article is ridiculous in its extreme slant (and, not at all unusual for that!).
I don't know why people need this explanation but ... That an organization like Tether has dubious banking relationships is not a choice they make; for nearly a decade, they've been running around between one weird bank and another because they are forced to by the extreme aggression of the US financial system trying to kick them out of any banking relationship (and of course, trying to just shut them down full stop). Similarly, that they aren't audited by the big 4 (or whatever is currently 'blessed') is not an "indication that they are shady" - and not only because the people perceived as "reputable accounting firms" have shown time and time again their deep corruption, for example in signing off on the books of comically obviously fraudulent Chinese companies so they can fleece Western investors - it is because those accounting firms refuse to do business with them (and even minor accounting firms get threatened by US regulators for even thinking about it!).
"Tether are shady because they're not open about their books and liabilities" is a fairly ignorant analysis (as per above), but it persists year after year. Whatever, don't trust custodians, and as we see in this case, not so much because they might be scammers or thieves - that applies in many cases, but I doubt it here, with such a track record - but because central points of failure are vectors of attack. It's that latter reason that applies to Tether.
I have never held and will never hold USDT, but this entire article is ridiculous in its extreme slant (and, not at all unusual for that!).
I don't know why people need this explanation but ...
That an organization like Tether has dubious banking relationships is not a choice they make; for nearly a decade, they've been running around between one weird bank and another because they are forced to by the extreme aggression of the US financial system trying to kick them out of any banking relationship (and of course, trying to just shut them down full stop). Similarly, that they aren't audited by the big 4 (or whatever is currently 'blessed') is not an "indication that they are shady" - and not only because the people perceived as "reputable accounting firms" have shown time and time again their deep corruption, for example in signing off on the books of comically obviously fraudulent Chinese companies so they can fleece Western investors - it is because those accounting firms refuse to do business with them (and even minor accounting firms get threatened by US regulators for even thinking about it!).
"Tether are shady because they're not open about their books and liabilities" is a fairly ignorant analysis (as per above), but it persists year after year. Whatever, don't trust custodians, and as we see in this case, not so much because they might be scammers or thieves - that applies in many cases, but I doubt it here, with such a track record - but because central points of failure are vectors of attack. It's that latter reason that applies to Tether.