Tether and Bitfinex Agree to Drop Opposition to FOIL Request

Transparent Sharing of Information

Tether and Bitfinex have decided to no longer oppose a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request made by several prominent news publications in New York. In a joint statement, the stablecoin issuer and cryptocurrency exchange expressed their commitment to transparency and their willingness to share information in response to a FOIL request from CoinDesk earlier this year. However, they clarified that transparency does not mean releasing all documents.

No Appeal Against FOIL Request

Tether and Bitfinex will not be appealing the FOIL request put forward by journalists, including Zeke Faux, Shane Shifflett, and Ada Hui. The companies accused them of exhibiting certain behaviors but did not provide further details. They also criticized media outlets, such as The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg, for their alleged one-sided and inaccurate reporting.

Commitment to Transparency and Engagement

The statement emphasized that both Tether and Bitfinex are committed to transparency and remain open to engagement with journalists and regulatory authorities. They stated that they adhere to ethical reporting standards and respect data privacy boundaries. The companies called for responsible document review before any public release of information, highlighting that being transparent does not mean unrestricted public disclosure of all documents.

Ongoing FOIL Request

The FOIL request is related to an agreement reached between Tether, Bitfinex, and the New York Attorney General (NYAG) in February 2021. As part of the settlement, Tether and Bitfinex paid an $18.5 million fine to resolve a legal dispute regarding the alleged commingling of client and corporate funds. The agreement also required them to submit quarterly transparency reports to the NYAG for two years. CoinDesk submitted a FOIL request seeking public disclosure of materials related to Tether's first quarter under the settlement agreement.

Tether's opposition to the FOIL request was previously justified by concerns about the dissemination of confidential customer data and sensitive commercial information that could be exploited by malicious actors.