That's assuming other stablecoins are:

    a) actually backed up by non-risky assets, Quite a stretch.

    b) can easily be exchanged to USD in large quantities

    c) can be purchased with USDT

If I was holding USDT right now (I am not, thank god), my preferred exit route would most definitely be BTC. And in very short order.

In the depths of a crash, the potential is definitely there. Last time Bitfinex bailed out Teather when its reserves came up short. So to really see Teather fail, we probably need a crypto crash and a weakened Bitfinex.

This is why people still use Teather. Even though it is risky, the current market dynamics make a failure unlikely.

IMHO failure due to embezzlement (Teather reserves stolen by an inside man) is a real possibility. The management team has already proven to be very shady...

This is how it works with other assets. If you transfer stocks between brokerage accounts, they communicate the basis as well.

They absolutely can find counterparties to take that trade, but it would be much more efficient to trade in the spot markets. The real question is if they have custody operations setup to handle the coin.

I expect they outsource these backend operations to the likes of Coinbase, Gemini, or Fidelity. They probably won't allow customers to transfer their Bitcoin out until they move custody in house, which is no easy task.

They didn't have exactly what you wanted so provided a workaround that would solve the problem.

I have never heard anyone say that the AWS toolset was anything but "an amalgam of individual projects developed separately." It is obvious from their UI that the different tools are run by different teams that have very different opinions on how things should be done. Just look at the various iterations of deployment management. ECS vs Lambda vs EKS vs classic EC2. All the UIs have different design standards and assumptions. It has gotten better over the years, but the AWS org chart is still peaking through the UI.

GCP is not much better. At least they had the advantage of starting later in the market cycle. They were able to see what worked and what didn't work at AWS and build a bit cleaner.

In the end we are talking about B2B systems targeting power user engineers. The control surfaces need to be powerful first, and easy to use is a distant second or third consideration.

Yes? If you can't trust your rep to give accurate recommendations, then what's the point of even having one?

The common stock (what you probably get for your options) is usually valued at significantly less than the valuation from the latest raise.

When paying taxes on your equity compensation, the amount you owe is based on the 409A.

Investors set the price for preferred stock in various "rounds," so a company kinda knows what its preferred shares are worth.

But common stock usually isn't traded in any kind of market (until liquidity), so there's no obvious way to know what its FMV is.

A 409a valuation is a "professional" assessment of the value (price) of a share of common stock, which a company's board can safely use to determine the FMV of its common stock.

Anyway GGP is right that the amount subject to tax at exercise will be the difference between your option strike price (which was set based on FMV on the date your grant was issued) and the FMV of common stock on the date of exercise.

The FMV of common stock is almost always less than the price of preferred stock, though the two prices do converge as a company grows and gets closer to liquidity.