After much investigation and conversations with people on here, I’ve formed a relatively robust theory of what may be happening with Tether.

This thread will attempt to lay it out with neutral language for the purpose of discussion.
1/

Before we start, please note that ‘robust’ doesn’t mean ‘accurate’, it just means that:

1. the theory is internally consistent
2. it accounts for participant behavior

…but it’s important to remember that this is still hypothesis-stage thinking.
2/
First, let us note that the BTC ecosystem has clearly stated goals. They believe that:

1. Bitcoin is a new global reserve money.
2. They intend to create an alternative financial system around it.

Let’s just take them at their word and assume that’s directionally accurate.
3/
Next, a postulate: most people do not understand the current monetary system very well. This is exemplified by the “BRRR” meme and other variants of thinking which presume that the Fed prints money.

That’s not how the system actually works, as discussed elsewhere.
4/
In reality, what’s happening with the Fed is a bit more subtle and involves various forms of duration swaps and clerical activities that the populace at large gives more credence than those activities actually deserve.

Money is very complex.
5/
BUT the dominant mental model of money (in particular amongst the Bitcoin and hard money crowds) is one in which the Fed prints money, and as a result inflation is inevitable.

It’s not a stretch to imagine that the alt-money replica set is using this mental model as a guide.
6/
Situational update - we are now here:

1. Bitcoin is a new global reserve money.
2. They intend to create an alternative financial system around it.
3. Their mental model of the financial system is “BRRR-centric”
7/
I’ve seen some curious resurgent apologist-style arguments about Tether printing, which go like this:

“Look the Fed does it I don’t see the problem”
“Tether is an integral part of the crypto plumbing.”
“The dollar is also backed by nothing.”

Which is interesting…
8/
Because it’s the sort of statement that would be consistent with an attempt to create an alt-money system with a BRR-centric mental model of how the Fed and reserves work.

So…. well, I suspect this may be what’s happening here from the perspective of ecosystem participants.
9/
And this is where we run into a set of issues as well: that’s not, in fact, how our monetary system creates money.

The current system has evolved, over time, various checks and balances around money creation — checks and balances that can only be evolved, not designed.
10/
In fact, most “sociocultural primes” (language, money, governance) are like this - they cannot be designed, they must be incrementally and gradually evolved.

They are woven in too deep; we may only edit them slowly.

This is why Esperanto (a designed-language attempt) failed
11/
What’s particularly curious in this case is that using a flawed mental model of the current monetary system to create a new alternate one is likely to have… well, unintended consequences.

Because it’s being designed out of whole cloth, the system constraints are unclear.
12/
In our current debt-based monetary system, there are constraints on money creation. From the supply-side, borrower solvency acts as a constraint. From the demand-side, appetite for debt acts as a constraint.

These constraints, evolved over time, create systemic equilibrium.
13/
In a ‘fresh’ system, the constraints are not clear.

Many of us suspect that Tether issuance experiences no solvency-centric constraint, and this worries us.

There is observably no demand constraint (as yet).
14/
Let's pause here and note that the alt-money participants likely do not believe they are doing anything amiss — from their perspective, they are simply replicating the tropes of the current monetary system as they understand it.

But an unconstrained system burns too hot.
15/
And it’s this heat that worries some of us observers: these systems have a tendency to self-immolate when they run hot for too long.

And that’s why putting governors on them is important.

And that’s why we want an audit to see 1:1 USD-only backing.
16/
Realtime 1:1 USD-only collateral adds a governor to this system to prevent it from running too hot, and that governor is the need to source a specific form of collateral.

Making this a requirement would be good, and prevent the system from going supernova.
17/
Unfortunately, the participants within the system are hostile to this idea, and hostile to external input generally. The “cyber hornet” moniker is apt, but unfortunately it’s ultimately also a disservice to this new ecosystem.

Problems lie ahead.
18/
What problems, specifically? Well it’s hard to say — this sort of super hot system can experience breakdowns in a number of ways.

But the lack of equilibrium will eventually be a problem, and that sort of problem has historically caused pain for market participants.
19/
And when that pain comes, it will put the ecosystem at odds with the State — for representative democracy states are wired to dislike and solve things that cause their citizens pain.

In a conflict with the state, the state will win.
20/
And this is why I’d like to see the Tether situation mopped up — it’s unsustainable.

And when it breaks down, it will lead to conflict with the State.

And conflict with the state will slow our progress toward what could be the beginnings of an exciting new monetary system.
/21

More from Travis Kimmel

More from For later read

The common understanding of propaganda is that it is intended to brainwash the masses. Supposedly, people get exposed to the same message repeatedly and over time come to believe in whatever nonsense authoritarians want them to believe /1

And yet authoritarians often broadcast silly, unpersuasive propaganda.

Political scientist Haifeng Huang writes that the purpose of propaganda is not to brainwash people, but to instill fear in them /2


When people are bombarded with propaganda everywhere they look, they are reminded of the strength of the regime.

The vast amount of resources authoritarians spend to display their message in every corner of the public square is a costly demonstration of their power /3

In fact, the overt silliness of authoritarian propaganda is part of the point. Propaganda is designed to be silly so that people can instantly recognize it when they see it


Propaganda is intended to instill fear in people, not brainwash them.

The message is: You might not believe in pro-regime values or attitudes. But we will make sure you are too frightened to do anything about it.
1. The death of Silicon Valley, a thread

How did Silicon Valley die? It was killed by the internet. I will explain.

Yesterday, my friend IRL asked me "Where are good old days when techies were


2. In the "good old days" Silicon Valley was about understanding technology. Silicon, to be precise. These were people who had to understand quantum mechanics, who had to build the near-miraculous devices that we now take for granted, and they had to work

3. Now, I love libertarians, and I share much of their political philosophy. But you have to be socially naive to believe that it has a chance in a real society. In those days, Silicon Valley was not a real society. It was populated by people who understood quantum mechanics

4. Then came the microcomputer revolution. It was created by people who understood how to build computers. One borderline case was Steve Jobs. People claimed that Jobs was surrounded by a "reality distortion field" - that's how good he was at understanding people, not things

5. Still, the heroes of Silicon Valley were the engineers. The people who knew how to build things. Steve Jobs, for all his understanding of people, also had quite a good understanding of technology. He had a libertarian vibe, and so did Silicon Valley
This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.

@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.

Some counterpoints 👇


1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.

This does not seem self-evident to me


Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇

If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted

2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.

But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.

Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.

3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:

"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."

To

"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."

IMO the latter statement is incorrect.

You May Also Like

@franciscodeasis https://t.co/OuQaBRFPu7
Unfortunately the "This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines." were BEFORE the


chimeric infectious clone grants were there.https://t.co/DAArwFkz6v is in 2017, Rs4231.
https://t.co/UgXygDjYbW is in 2016, RsSHC014 and RsWIV16.
https://t.co/krO69CsJ94 is in 2013, RsWIV1. notice that this is before the beginning of the project

starting in 2016. Also remember that they told about only 3 isolates/live viruses. RsSHC014 is a live infectious clone that is just as alive as those other "Isolates".

P.D. somehow is able to use funds that he have yet recieved yet, and send results and sequences from late 2019 back in time into 2015,2013 and 2016!

https://t.co/4wC7k1Lh54 Ref 3: Why ALL your pangolin samples were PCR negative? to avoid deep sequencing and accidentally reveal Paguma Larvata and Oryctolagus Cuniculus?