The plaintiffs declined to make amendments to their criticism as a study conducted by John Griffin and Amin Shams “still concludes that Tether was being used to manipulate Bitcoin prices”,according to a court filing dated December 2.
Moreover, they state the findings to a one entity.
Shams and Griffin of the University of Texas published a paper last year, alleging that USDT partially caused Bitcoin’s historic high of $20,000 in 2017. The paper stated:
“Less than 1% of hours with such heavy Tether transactions are associated with 50% of the meteoric rise in Bitcoin and 64% of other top cryptocurrencies.”
The study claimed that “one large player on Bitfinex uses Tether to purchase large amounts of Bitcoin when prices are failing and following the printing of Tether.”
The plaintiffs further added that “Bitfinex executives either knew of the scheme or were aiding it.”
Bitfinex’s response to the single entity allegations
Bitfinex issued a reply to the paper, denying its findings and even accusing the authors of unethical motivations in November. The exchange said, “To obtain publication, Griffin and Shams have released a weakened yet equally flawed version of their prior article. The revised paper is a watered-down and embarrassing walk-back of its predecessor.”
Longhash, Blockchain education platform, released research that it claims debunks the single-whale theory of the 2017 price surge.
The metric measures what proportion of Bitcoin could be bought with the whole Tether supply at any given time, mentioning that the higher the ratio, the more likely it is for Tether to potentially manipulate the markets according to Longhash.
The researchers said:
“This suggests that even if Tether were indeed manipulating the market, its ability to do so actually is strongest when the Bitcoin price falls. This contradict the claim that Tether actually failed to keep up during the height of the bull market.”