Tether has moved quickly to address concerns surrounding its exposure to EQIBank, an offshore banking partner that has become the focus of renewed legal attention in the United States. According to the stablecoin issuer, assets held with EQIBank represent less than 0.034% of its total group assets. That is a small number, and it is likely the reason Tether is emphasizing the figure so prominently.
At the same time, the situation is not just about balance-sheet percentages. U.S. authorities are reportedly seeking the forfeiture of tens of millions of dollars tied to Capstone, a payment processor associated with EQIBank. Tether has said it had no knowledge of the conduct alleged by prosecutors and has not disclosed the exact amount of assets held with the bank. That combination of legal risk, limited disclosure, and offshore banking has made the episode a useful case study in how stablecoin issuers manage banking relationships, compliance exposure, and public perception.
What the 0.034% figure actually says
The most immediate point is that Tether is trying to contain the story by framing EQIBank as a relatively minor part of its overall asset structure. If the exposure is truly below 0.034% of total group assets, then the bank in question is not central to Tether’s broader financial footprint. In plain terms, the company is saying that even if the legal matter were to have a direct financial impact, the size of that exposure is small relative to the whole.
That framing matters because stablecoin issuers are under constant pressure to prove that their reserves, banking arrangements, and operational partners are stable enough to support massive daily transaction volumes. Tether, in particular, has spent years defending itself against criticism over transparency, reserve composition, and its use of offshore institutions. A legal dispute involving a banking partner can easily be interpreted by the market as a sign of deeper structural weakness, even if the actual financial exposure is limited.
So the 0.034% number is not just a technical disclosure. It is a reputational signal. It is Tether’s way of saying: this is not a systemic problem. Whether that message is convincing depends on how much detail the company is willing to provide and how the legal process unfolds.
Why EQIBank and Capstone matter in this context
The reason this story is getting attention is that it touches on a sensitive area of the crypto economy: the reliance on offshore banks and payment processors. Stablecoin issuers need banking rails to move funds, settle transactions, and maintain trust. But when those rails are located in jurisdictions with lighter regulation, or when the counterparties involved are tied to criminal investigations, the risk profile changes.
In this case, the issue is not simply that Tether uses EQIBank. The issue is that U.S. authorities are seeking forfeiture of assets tied to Capstone, a payment processor linked to EQIBank. That raises questions about the nature of the underlying activity, the compliance controls in place at the time, and whether Tether had reason to know about the alleged conduct. Tether’s response has been straightforward: it says it had no knowledge of the alleged behavior.
That is a defensible position if the company can demonstrate adequate monitoring, due diligence, and internal controls. But in a sector where regulatory scrutiny is intensifying, “no knowledge” is often not enough. Regulators and investors increasingly want to see the process behind the conclusion. They want to know what checks were performed, what red flags were reviewed, and what steps were taken when a banking partner became the subject of a legal investigation.
The legal risk is not only about money
Tether’s emphasis on the percentage of assets involved is understandable, but the broader risk is not purely financial. Even if the direct monetary exposure is small, a stablecoin issuer can suffer reputational damage if its banking partners become associated with criminal cases, sanctions issues, or regulatory enforcement actions. Trust is the most important asset in the stablecoin business, and trust can be eroded by unclear disclosures or by the perception that a company is downplaying a serious problem.
There are a few reasons this case could matter beyond the immediate legal dispute:
- Banking partner risk: Stablecoin issuers often depend on a network of banks, processors, and custodians. If one partner becomes problematic, it can raise questions about the others.
- Regulatory expectations: Regulators are increasingly focused on whether crypto firms have sufficient compliance, monitoring, and reporting structures in place.
- Market confidence: Even a small percentage of assets can become a headline if it suggests a compliance failure or a hidden weakness in the system.
- Transparency standards: The more opaque a company is about the exact amounts and relationships involved, the more room there is for speculation.
That is why Tether’s decision to publish the 0.034% figure may be less about the number itself and more about the message it sends. It is an attempt to show that the company is aware of the issue, that the exposure is limited, and that the matter should not be exaggerated.
What this means for stablecoin users and investors
For most users, the practical takeaway is that
Related read: THORChain Rejects Bitget’s Request to Block Hacker as $6 Million in Stolen Assets Moves to Bitcoin
