A closer look at how a disputed operation channels USDT through Cantor Fitzgerald, raising questions about crypto regulation and financial transparency

In the ever-evolving world of digital currencies, few names spark more debate than Tether, the issuer of the USDT stablecoin — a digital asset pegged to the U.S. dollar and widely used across global crypto markets. Though Tether has repeatedly claimed compliance with international laws, the company continues to face scrutiny, especially in the United States, where regulatory authorities have long questioned the transparency and backing of its reserves.

A recent development has once again drawn Tether into the spotlight. Reports suggest that Tether’s chief financial architect, Giancarlo Devasini, has been involved in orchestrating a controversial financial operation with the help of Brandon Lutnick, son of the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. The operation allegedly aims to route part of the USDT reserves through Cantor Fitzgerald — one of Wall Street’s most prominent financial institutions.

This move raises multiple red flags for analysts and regulators alike. Tether remains under the shadow of a U.S. legal judgment issued three years ago, which found the company had misrepresented its reserves. While not banned, USDT remains under tight scrutiny and is not broadly tradable on regulated U.S. platforms. The involvement of a firm like Cantor Fitzgerald, traditionally conservative in its risk exposure, adds a new layer of intrigue.

Sources close to the matter suggest that the initiative was structured to establish indirect financial legitimacy by embedding USDT reserves into broader institutional financial products. This could potentially grant Tether an indirect foothold in the U.S. financial system, without directly breaching current regulatory limitations. Observers argue that the arrangement, while legally complex, appears designed to test the boundaries of compliance.

For critics, the operation illustrates the broader problem of crypto regulation in the United States. While Tether remains critical for global crypto liquidity — particularly in markets with limited access to U.S. dollars — its opaque structure and legal history make its expansion into regulated markets deeply controversial.

Brandon Lutnick’s involvement, though not formally acknowledged by any government entity, raises questions about potential conflicts of interest. His familial connection to high-level commerce policy has amplified suspicions of regulatory favoritism or at the very least, concerning access.

The broader issue remains transparency. Despite promises of audits and third-party attestation, Tether’s reserve structure has never been fully disclosed in real-time to the public. The U.S. financial system, built on trust and disclosure, may not be well positioned to absorb stablecoins that operate in partially regulated gray zones.

As the story develops, regulators, market watchers, and lawmakers are closely monitoring the implications. Whether or not the operation succeeds legally, it has already reignited debate over how — or whether — crypto institutions can integrate with traditional finance without full compliance.

In the end, this story underscores a deeper tension: as crypto evolves, the infrastructure of global finance must decide whether to adapt, resist, or redefine its rules altogether.