You're right! It's quite strange after all these years and they chose now to swap CEO roles. When a CEO departs amidst ongoing concerns or controversies, it can raise suspicions of trying to cover up past wrongdoing. This doesn't do much to enhance trust and transparency in the company's operations, potentially leaving questions about accountability and responsibility unanswered especially when Tether has failed to comply with audit standards.
Jenny is right to say resigning as a CEO does not exempt someone from legal liabilities for any crimes they may have committed while in the role. Legal accountability is based on evidence and applicable laws, and individuals can still face consequences even after leaving their position.
In a scenario where a company has only the CEO and the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) as that of Tether, and an investigation by regulatory agencies like the SEC or DOJ is underway, the preference would typically be to talk to both the CEO and the CTO. Both individuals are likely to possess critical information about the company's operations and activities that are relevant to the investigation.
I would like to hear your take on why you believe they're doing this swap after Paolo has been publicly speaking like he's been the CEO since 2017. I mean, why now?
Best part: Not appealing allows the SEC to retain control over the regulatory process, work directly with Grayscale to address concerns, and potentially deny the application if it falls short of their regulatory standards.
That's an opinion and not a factual assertion. The survival and future of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are influenced by various factors, and it's not accurate to definitively state that the absence of a particular cryptocurrency, like Tether, would result in the death of Bitcoin or all cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrency markets are complex, and their viability depends on many factors beyond the presence or absence of a single cryptocurrency.
Agreed! For Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies to flourish without relying on problematic stablecoins, the path forward involves emphasizing decentralization, broader use cases, innovation, regulatory clarity, security, education, community vigilance, transparent governance, international cooperation, and the natural maturation of the market. This approach would build trust and real-world utility, reducing reliance on unstable or fraudulent stablecoins.
It's never good when the CEO quits
You're right! It's quite strange after all these years and they chose now to swap CEO roles. When a CEO departs amidst ongoing concerns or controversies, it can raise suspicions of trying to cover up past wrongdoing. This doesn't do much to enhance trust and transparency in the company's operations, potentially leaving questions about accountability and responsibility unanswered especially when Tether has failed to comply with audit standards.
Jenny is right to say resigning as a CEO does not exempt someone from legal liabilities for any crimes they may have committed while in the role. Legal accountability is based on evidence and applicable laws, and individuals can still face consequences even after leaving their position.
Great article and well put, Jenny!
In a scenario where a company has only the CEO and the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) as that of Tether, and an investigation by regulatory agencies like the SEC or DOJ is underway, the preference would typically be to talk to both the CEO and the CTO. Both individuals are likely to possess critical information about the company's operations and activities that are relevant to the investigation.
I would like to hear your take on why you believe they're doing this swap after Paolo has been publicly speaking like he's been the CEO since 2017. I mean, why now?
I agree. I would be curious too.
Nice call Jenny! 🤙
Best part: Not appealing allows the SEC to retain control over the regulatory process, work directly with Grayscale to address concerns, and potentially deny the application if it falls short of their regulatory standards.
they didn't appeal
without tether, bitcoin is dead, and so will be cryptocurrencies
That's an opinion and not a factual assertion. The survival and future of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are influenced by various factors, and it's not accurate to definitively state that the absence of a particular cryptocurrency, like Tether, would result in the death of Bitcoin or all cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrency markets are complex, and their viability depends on many factors beyond the presence or absence of a single cryptocurrency.
Agreed! For Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies to flourish without relying on problematic stablecoins, the path forward involves emphasizing decentralization, broader use cases, innovation, regulatory clarity, security, education, community vigilance, transparent governance, international cooperation, and the natural maturation of the market. This approach would build trust and real-world utility, reducing reliance on unstable or fraudulent stablecoins.