Dian, this is because traditional institutions have doubts about the Tether USDT ancestor transfer. I carefully read the report and it's still the same old thing: (1) Insufficient transparency; (2) There are volatile assets in the collateral, such as Bitcoin. The first point is that I support S&P, as Tether has a large scale and significant benefits. It is indeed necessary to conduct more audits to increase transparency. But the second point is that this doubt is a bit too groundless. Tether's current mortgage rate is 103.9%, consisting of the following: Short term US treasury bond bonds (average<90 days): 64% Mixed risk assets: 24% Overnight reverse repurchase agreement (Repos) backed by US treasury bond bonds: 10% Money market funds: 4% Other reverse repurchase and non US treasury bond bonds: 2% Cash and bank deposits:<0.5% The most controversial aspect is the mixed risk assets here, which consist of Bitcoin, gold, and corporate bonds. The rating agency suggests that although Tether has 103.9% of its assets, it has a safety cushion of 3.9%. The proportion of Bitcoin held as collateral for Tether reached 5.6%. If Bitcoin returns to zero or experiences a sharp drop, the 3.9% security cushion is simply not enough to cover it, and USDT will immediately become insolvent. But in my opinion, worrying about Bitcoin falling so much is still a bit groundless. This is a super pessimistic view towards predicting a 2-3 million dollar drop in Bitcoin, and there is a mechanism for adjusting positions. Talking about toxicity without considering dosage is like playing rogue. I even think that some other assets (Bitcoin and gold) are actually some kind of hedge against US Treasury bonds, but now they account for just over a quarter, so it's better not to continue increasing. It's true that Tether was not very reliable when it was first established, especially during the Evergrande crisis. But now, they are a company with a valuation of $500 billion and annual revenue of billions of dollars. They don't have the subjective motivation to do evil themselves, and they still want to go ashore with the Genius Act. So, as long as you don't mess around subjectively and increase some transparency disclosure, you can still sit firmly in this chair and there's no need to compromise.