Tether Submits Bid To Acquire Juventus Football Club — Details

bitcoinist2025-12-14 tarihinde yayınlandı2025-12-14 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

Stablecoin issuer Tether has submitted a bid to acquire a controlling 65.4% stake in Italian football club Juventus FC from the Agnelli family's holding company, Exor. This follows Tether's earlier investments, which it acquired a 10% stake in the club. Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino stated the move aims to provide stable, long-term capital to support the club's growth and performance. As part of the proposal, Tether has pledged to invest 1 billion euros into the club for sports development. However, reports indicate that Exor has stated Juventus is not for sale. Tether, the operator of USDT, has a market capitalization of $186.24 billion.

Stablecoin operator Tether has submitted a market bid to acquire a controlling stake in Italian football club Juventus FC. This development follows initial minor investments, as the USDT issuing company looks to deepen its involvement with the footballing institution.

Tether Promises 1 Billion Euros For Sport Development If Bid Succeeds

In Feb 2025, Tether announced a minority stake purchase of 8.2% in Juventus FC. The stablecoin issuer described this acquisition as a strategic move to integrate stablecoins and digital assets into everyday life. Two months later, Tether would boost its holdings to 10%, as the company’s CEO and lifetime Juventus supporter, Paolo Ardoino, explained the move as a commitment to long-term innovation.

Taking this step further, the USDT operator has submitted an audacious bid to acquire the entire 65.4% controlling stake of the football club from Exor, the listed holding company of the billionaire Italian Agnelli Family. For context, Juventus FC ranks as the third-largest Italian club with a market valuation of $1.87 billion. However, the Old Lady, as it is popularly called, is the most decorated in the land, boasting 71 major honors, which include 36 Serie A championships.

While Juventus’ momentum has slowed down in recent years, with its last league-winning campaign coming in 2020, the Italian giant has remained relevant by securing three domestic cup trophies since then. Paolo Ardoino explains that Tether’s objective is to contribute to Juventus’ growth and drive exceptional performance.

The Tether CEO said:

Tether is in a position of strong financial health and intends to support Juventus with stable capital and a long horizon. Our goal is to make a positive contribution to the club’s future, support its sporting performance at the highest level, and help Juventus continue to grow sustainably in a rapidly evolving global sports and media landscape.

To this end, Tether has promised to invest 1 billion Euros in the club if the transaction receives approval from relevant regulatory bodies. However, footballing media The Athletic has reported that sources close to Exor state the Agnelli Family has no intent to divest their stake in Juventus, with the message being “the club is not for sale.”

Notably, Juventus represents one of Tether’s investments, which also includes the Italian media company Be Water and the Canadian video platform Rumble.

USDT Market Overview

At the time of writing, USDT’s total market cap is valued at $186.24 billion, ranking as the largest stablecoin and third-largest cryptocurrency in the world.

USDT market cap valued at $186.23 billion on the daily chart | Source: USDT chart on Tradingview.com

İlgili Okumalar

From Survival to Accelerated Growth: The Journey of Zcash's Three-Year Rise as Told by the Founder of ZODL

**From Survival to Accelerated Growth: Zcash Founder Details the 3-Year Rise** Three years ago, Zcash (ZEC) was a struggling pioneer in privacy technology, with a price near $30, low shielded supply (11%), and a community mired in governance disputes. Today, ZEC trades around $600, with over 31% of its supply (~$3B) in user-controlled shielded pools. This transformation resulted from breaking key constraints. First, **governance shackles were removed**. The old model guaranteed funding to two entities (ECC and ZF) regardless of performance, creating a monopoly. In 2024, ECC rejected further direct funding, forcing a change. The NU6 upgrade ended direct funding, allocating 8% to community grants and 12% to a protocol-controlled treasury for retroactive rewards, expiring in 2028 unless renewed by overwhelming consensus. The entities also relinquished their trademark-based veto power, freeing community governance. Second, the **product focus shifted** from pure cryptography to user growth. Previously, engineering excelled at privacy tech but failed to attract users. In early 2024, the team (later ZODL) pivoted to building products users wanted, like the Zodl wallet (default privacy, hardware support, cross-asset swaps). This drove shielded supply to grow over 400% in ZEC terms, with 86.5% of recent transactions being shielded, representing real user adoption. Third, the **narrative evolved** from the limiting "privacy coin" label to "unstoppable private money." This clarified Zcash's value proposition: a Bitcoin-like monetary policy with verifiable private payments via advanced cryptography. This structural narrative—protocol (Zcash), asset (ZEC), gateway (Zodl)—enabled broader exchange listings, institutional interest, and ETF filings. Finally, **organizational constraints were broken**. In early 2026, the ECC team left its non-profit structure after disputes over control, forming Zcash Open Development Lab (ZODL). ZODL raised $25M from top VCs (Paradigm, a16z, etc.), gaining the capital and agility of a startup to scale consumer products. Current metrics show strong momentum: social discussion volume for ZEC surged 15,245% in a year, with 81% positive sentiment. The focus is now on enhancing user experience (Zodl wallet), scalability (Tachyon project targeting Visa-level throughput with 25-second blocks), and post-quantum security (quantum-recoverable wallets coming soon). Zcash is positioned to become faster, more usable, scalable, and quantum-resistant.

marsbit5 dk önce

From Survival to Accelerated Growth: The Journey of Zcash's Three-Year Rise as Told by the Founder of ZODL

marsbit5 dk önce

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

**Summary:** This companion piece reframes the five TradFi-on-crypto exchange architectures, previously classified by "architectural fingerprint," through the lens of counterparty risk. The core question is: whose balance sheet bears the loss first in a stress scenario, and has it historically done so? Each of the five models corresponds to a distinct risk holder with its own documented failure modes. * **Model 1 (Stablecoin-Settled CEX Perpetuals):** Risk is held by the stablecoin issuer (e.g., reserve composition, bank connectivity) and the CEX's own book. History includes Tether's banking disconnections (2017) and reserve misrepresentations (CFTC 2021 Order). * **Model 2 (CFD Brokers):** Risk resides on the broker's balance sheet (B-book model). Regulatory differences (e.g., ESMA's mandatory negative balance protection vs. Mauritius FSC's lack thereof) define loss allocation rules, as seen in the 2015 SNB event (Alpari UK insolvency). * **Model 3 (Off-Chain Custody & Transfer Agent Chain):** Risk lies with the off-chain custodian/platform. User asset recovery depends on Terms of Use and corporate structure, exemplified by the Celsius bankruptcy ruling (2023) where Earn Account assets were deemed property of the estate. * **Model 4 (DEX Perpetual Protocols):** No single balance sheet bears risk. Loss absorption relies on a protocol's insurance fund and Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) mechanism, as demonstrated in the GMX V1 (2022) and dYdX v3 YFI (2023) incidents. * **Model 5 (Regulated CCP - DCM-DCO-FCM):** The most institutionalized model concentrates risk in the Central Counterparty (CCP). However, history shows CCPs can employ non-standard tools under extreme stress, such as mass trade cancellation (LME Nickel, 2022) or enabling negative price settlements (CME WTI, 2020). The report argues that regulatory choices and counterparty risk structures are co-extensive, not in an upstream-downstream relationship. It concludes with five separate observation checklists (not predictions) for monitoring the structural vulnerabilities of each risk model.

marsbit22 dk önce

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

marsbit22 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片