This publication investigates the mixed reactions from the Bitcoin community in response to Financial Times’ so-called “half-baked” apology after 14 years of relentless criticism of cryptocurrencies (Financial Times: arguably the world’s most respected financial newspaper).
In a shocking about-face, FT—via its Alphaville column—admitted that it may have influenced the investment decisions of its readers but stopped short of changing its previous stance. The article looks at both positive and negative angles of this issue while providing an overall insight into the complicated relationship between the mainstream media and the cryptocurrency market.
The apology was an instant talking point on social media, particularly on the X site.
A Sincere Apology or Lip Service?
The FT’s apology, to many onlookers, seemed like a rather lame-duck affair and more akin to lip service than a genuine mea culpa. The editor of Alphaville, Bryce Elder, said, “We’re sorry if you misunderstood our crypto cynicism to be a declaration of support for tradfi, because we hate that too.“
Financial Times’ apology. Source: Financial Times
That basically captured FT’s indifference—they were recognizing that Bitcoin had surged a long way but without rescinding prior negative commentary on Bitcoin.
In fact, Elder insisted that FT still “stand by every single one of those posts” criticizing Bitcoin over the past 14 years.
FT’s History of Bitcoin Criticism
Since June 2011, when Bitcoin traded at just $15.90, Alphaville has called Bitcoin a zero-sum game that is chronically inefficient as a medium of exchange and damaged as a store of value. They reasoned that its price was simply an “arbitrary hype gauge” unrelated to any utility.
In 2014, an FT expert went so far as to call Bitcoin originator Satoshi Nakamoto a “reckless doctor,” likening the issuance of Bitcoin to a doctor prescribing penicillin to every patient without checking if they had an infection, depression, or psychosis. Mark Williams, the commentary’s author, thought Satoshi botched designing Bitcoin’s supply schedule, whereby he “did not account for ups and downs” of economic cycles.
More news: Bitcoin Hits $100000 – Sets an All-Time High Record
The Reaction of the Bitcoin Community
The “half-baked” apology did not go well with the Bitcoin community. Many comments on X labeled it a “faux apology” or a “cope-pology.” Critics said the FT was not humble despite its severe misjudgment of Bitcoin’s potential.
This is underlined further, with the price of Bitcoin well over $100,000, highlighting some of the inaccuracies in FT’s analyses over the years. Some even remembered the failed predictions of financial giants like Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan, and Peter Schiff, who had all belittled Bitcoin’s potential.
Name/EntityFlawed PredictionWarren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway)Bitcoin will never reach $100,000Jamie Dimon (JPMorgan)Bitcoin is a fraudPeter SchiffBitcoin will go to zero
Lessons Learned
This incident has brought to light the challenges of predicting trends in the cryptocurrency market and the need to receive information with objectivity and thoroughness. The insincerity of FT’s apology reminded mainstream media to be much more watchful in statements against an emerging volatile market called cryptocurrency. It also has outlined the resilience of the community around Bitcoin, but more so, the capacity of this market to sail through harsh winds—even against critics referred to as financial “giants.”
This, however, reflects a rather complex reality—a gap between mere academic-level knowledge and the lack of practical insight that remains large indeed. As one would expect from a top-tier media outlet, it seems that FT fell foul of its usual analysis frameworks applied to a brand-new technology. In the apology, they sort-of-not-really apologized for their limited imagination regarding understanding and critiquing Bitcoin. It will be interesting to see if the FT will change its perspective in this respect and approach Bitcoin with more open eyes.
