Many financial infractions operate in a different reality that has no analogy to non-financial criminal law.
You are focusing far too much on the marketing that uses the terms currency. Any individual or corporation is capable of creating a product said to be redeemable for something in their treasury. This has nothing to do with the parallels to the federal reserve when corporation calls its product a stablecoin or dollar-like. All settlements with Tether's companies have been exclusively related to the reality that the corporation's product was not in fact redeemable for the thing they said it was. That is the only issue, every authority that matters has said that was the only issue. Both crypto twitter as well as blockchain skeptic's opinion doesn't matter here. Their armchair legal analysis don't matter. Their comparisons to the state-monopoly on currency issuance doesn't matter. The corporation having marketing and legal agreements that accurately describe what their product can be redeemed for, if anything at all, simply has to be congruent with reality. That's the totality of the sanction from the CFTC, and the same with the NYAG at one state level. But I will give you one bone, and that's the reality that the DOJ can of course come with a parallel criminal prosecution for the same activity. So if that will validate your thoughts on anything, just wait for that if it ever comes. I'm not worried about "being right", only saying what this settlement is saying.
You are focusing far too much on the marketing that uses the terms currency. Any individual or corporation is capable of creating a product said to be redeemable for something in their treasury. This has nothing to do with the parallels to the federal reserve when corporation calls its product a stablecoin or dollar-like. All settlements with Tether's companies have been exclusively related to the reality that the corporation's product was not in fact redeemable for the thing they said it was. That is the only issue, every authority that matters has said that was the only issue. Both crypto twitter as well as blockchain skeptic's opinion doesn't matter here. Their armchair legal analysis don't matter. Their comparisons to the state-monopoly on currency issuance doesn't matter. The corporation having marketing and legal agreements that accurately describe what their product can be redeemed for, if anything at all, simply has to be congruent with reality. That's the totality of the sanction from the CFTC, and the same with the NYAG at one state level. But I will give you one bone, and that's the reality that the DOJ can of course come with a parallel criminal prosecution for the same activity. So if that will validate your thoughts on anything, just wait for that if it ever comes. I'm not worried about "being right", only saying what this settlement is saying.