Foul language is not required to make a point. The majority of the finance industry may disagree with you about audits not being required. You need to ask yourself why they don't audit I guess that is there idea of transparency you have no issue with

.
As that expression matches my name so you for sure give me a free pass to use it.
But that aside, I did however not say it is not required but it is an ineffective way of proving anything especially solvency. An important difference. Also just saying bc the majority do XYZ thing and hence that XYZ thing is effective is not proving of being efficient.
enron, wirecard, greensill, archegos, 1mdb, eupac whatnot whatnots had all appropriate audits and attestations of sorts.
Credit suisse for sure will also have all kind of audits until it is not required any more. All this again proves that audits are not effective enough and I prefer market tests than being falsely put at ease by some manufactured transparency by audits.
Even if you claim just these 5 instances where the only time it fails, who would assure me
Tether would not be the 6?.
The recent liquidation cascade was partly caused as liquidation levels where open for everyone to see and so it is easier to liquidate someone whereas otherwise you would risk much more since you do not know certain liquidation prices and hence risks of launching speculative attacks against competitiors are much higher.
Furthermore, I did and do not endorse tether as
Bitcoin seems the only cryptocurrency having enough security and being free of 3d party risk but give credit to where credit is due and Tether like it or not, did pass the recent (and all before) market test more than successfully and as we speak as of now still stands at 1 USD minus redemption fees (just sold some today).
Also Tether is enjoying a big use case in otc for the time being (to my own surprise).