upvote
Can they forcibly reverse the transaction so that Binance gets their money back?
reply
No. The last time this happened, it led to the Ethereum/Ethereum classic split, and that was 10 years ago.

However, the stablecoins are not “real” cryptocurrencies like e.g. BTC or ETH, but are built as smartcontracts on top of ETH, basically using it as a big replicated database. So they might(?) just manually “give back” the money to Binance, as in freezing money in the stolen account forever and “printing” an equal amount to Binance's credit.

Or, to put it in another way, no need to reverse an erroneous SQL transaction if you can just create a new one that fixes the data you altered.

reply
And it's impossible to mix them because Ethereum is even anonymous than Bitcoin.
reply
How so? If anything, Ethereum can host trustless mixers more easily than Bitcoin due to its smart contract execution being Turing complete.
reply
Isn't it already too late at that point? The tokens would have moved already.
reply
I think the idea is that they freeze them indefinitely, and then they no longer count against the centralised reserves, since they can never cash out. Now they can mint the equivalent amount back to Binance and remain solvent.
reply
And how do they ‘mint’ 2 billion without affecting the price of tether and without finding 2 billion to back it?

If they can mint with no impact doesn’t that mean they can just print money?

reply
It’s been years since anything Tether minted was plausibly 100% backed by real assets. Both times they’ve been forced to show the books, they only had fractional backing. And they’ve minted tens of billions of tokens since.
reply
And yet people like the parent and those with billions invested in Tether seem to believe that it's all backed and fully solvent and minting new money from thin air is completely reasonable.

It's remarkable to me how long this scam has lasted and how much confidence people have in it, in spite of the very shady characters involved and the likelihood of fraud.

reply
Personally I'm skeptical of Tether. But you don't need to trust them to believe that if they permanently freeze Z USDT and then mint Z USDT then their ratio of reserves to USDT is unchanged.
reply
Because if they permanently freeze 2 billion in a wallet, that Tether can never move or cash out, so their liabilities go down 2 billion. They can mint an equivalent amount to a non-frozen wallet without affecting their reserve ratio.

And yes they can print money, you have to trust their reserves that are off chain.

reply
To be clear: There is no permanently frozen guarantee. Tether can and has unfrozen (called removeBlackList)addresses before. All of this is just a public database fully controlled by Tether Limited.
reply
Moved where? Moving to a different wallet wouldn't prevent freezing. It's 5B, impossible to cash out or exchange for different crypto quickly.
reply
Excluding wash and artificial activity, supposedly stablecoins trade 400M/h so if it took 2h to notice and lock they might have been able trade about half a billion without overwhelming existing volumes?

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/crypto/articles/stablecoin... (I didn't verify per-stablecoin volume, or actual volume at those hours, or typical volume for those exact hours, which a better analysis would have done.)

reply
here's an interesting article by DataFinnovation arguing that blacklisting crypto is doomed to fail.

https://medium.com/chainargos/losing-the-blacklisting-race-e...

reply
right but too late to call freeze on the original wallet address as per gp's post. I would imagine it got distributed to many wallets and attempts to tumble by the time Tether could move on it.
reply
they took loan against it.
reply