On November 22nd, a class action against Tether and Bitfinex was filed with the United States District Court in Washington’s western district.
This is reported by Tether itself, who also claims that this complaint suffers from the same failings as another complaint, the one filed on October 6th at the District Court of the southern district of New York.
The allegations of the complainants are defined as “without merit”, and supported by research defined as “bogus”.
It is the research carried out by John Griffin, of the University of Texas, and Amin Shams, of Ohio State University, whose results, however, have already been widely called into question both by many analysts and by further research.
Tether responds by explicitly accusing the authors of that research of having published it only to gain visibility, or rather for personal interest, stating that all the objections raised in both complaints will be vigorously contested and denied, threatening legal action against those who promote these accusations defined as “baseless”.
On the other hand, the same market seems to agree with Tether, considering that already last time there was practically no reaction to the first complaint.
Furthermore, the company states that it has never used tokens, or USDT, to manipulate the cryptocurrency market or token prices and that all USDT tokens are fully backed by reserves, and are placed on the market only according to demand.
In the view of Tether, these accusations would be an attack on the growth and success of the entire digital token ecosystem, a real affront to the efforts and dedication of all those who take part in this ecosystem.
After all, Tether is not the only player tokenising traditional currencies to have been accused of something. Even the same Libra project, launched by Facebook and based essentially on the same concept, has suffered attacks of all kinds all over the world.
It is possible that a deep reluctance to accept changes, with all the inevitable risks that these involve, is the basis of the strong contrary reaction of those who want to oppose these innovations, leading some of them to actually fabricate accusations based on simple assumptions with the sole purpose of trying to stop this innovation.
