Written by: Babywhale, Techub News
The Financial Times published a 'apology letter' yesterday with a meme as its cover. Upon seeing the title, one might think it's the Financial Times reflecting on its negative coverage of Crypto at the time when Bitcoin officially broke through $100,000. But if you read this sarcastic short essay closely, you'll find that rather than an apology letter, it is more like a kind-hearted news worker's counterattack against injustice.
The first paragraph of the apology letter reads:
Frequent visitors to FT Alphaville may form the impression that its authors, both current and past, are skeptical of cryptocurrency, especially Bitcoin. This is correct.
It has become very clear that they hold a skeptical attitude towards cryptocurrency, especially Bitcoin. From $10 to $100,000, they have never changed, and they still believe 'this is correct'.
FTAV's content from June 2011 to present may have conveyed the following viewpoint: Bitcoin is a negative-sum game, its protocol is designed to be very 'clever', theoretically usable for bookkeeping, but inefficient as a traditional means of transaction and has issues as a store of value. Our posts may have also promoted the idea that Bitcoin's price is an indicator that can be speculated upon regardless of any utility that tokens may have, because replicating the utility provided by that token is too easy, so any intrinsic value comes from the sunk costs of infrastructure and intangible assets, such as regulatory complacency, connectivity with mainstream financial systems (previously considered the 'cure'), and the allure of 'being the first' in 'collectibles'.
We support every piece of content.
Let's put aside the correctness of FT's viewpoint for now and look at the most interesting last paragraph:
If at any time in the past 14 years you chose not to purchase products whose 'paper prices' were rising based on our reports, we deeply apologize. The rise of 'paper prices' is a good thing. If you misunderstood our cynical attitude towards cryptocurrency as support for traditional finance, we deeply apologize, because we hate that behavior as well.
If you have even a little understanding of 'irony', you will know that this FT 'apology letter' is not a real apology, nor is it aimed at cryptocurrency itself; its true target is the 'financial' system that devours people without mercy.
Is finance good or bad? Different people may have different answers. As part of the current rules of human society, finance is indeed an indispensable component of economic development. In a currency-centric system, lending, insurance, and everything else provides the impetus and protection for economic growth.
On the other hand, all of this has also become a tool for a small number of people to control the majority. Bankers have created countless high-value 'products' for capital flow, such as housing. They have created stock, futures, commodity, and precious metal exchanges, attracting countless people and pouring countless values generated through hard work into the bottomless pit of zero-sum games, attracting 'retail investors': those who have no idea what they are facing.
Is the Financial Times wrong in its description of cryptocurrency? The fact is, every word is true: negative-sum game, inefficient trading system, no value storage logic, manipulated prices, no practicality.
But isn't it the same for Crypto? Obviously not. The classic line from 'The Wolf of Wall Street' tells us that stocks are pretty much the same.
It's fairy dust. It doesn't exist. It's never landed. It is no matter. It's not on the elemental chart. It's not fucking real.
Essentially, this is a nearly explicit critique of the dark side of finance by the Financial Times. Ironically, they themselves call themselves the 'Financial' Times.
Perhaps due to work requirements or the objective environment, Financial Times reporters and editors need to write and publish some news or comments that they may not want to publish. However, there is no way around it when taking people's money to mitigate disasters. But at least, through this article, we see that there are still some among them who hold on to basic conscience.
They know that even if blockchain and Web3 are the future, the stories of bankruptcy and family breakups caused by cryptocurrency speculation will not stop.
Why must the development of an emerging industry be bloody? Why can't we learn some lessons from past experiences? Unfortunately, human nature dictates that they can only try to make some noise, regardless of whether it is seen, whether the viewers understand, or whether those who understand actually execute.
Current Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Gary Gensler warned investors on X about the huge risks of cryptocurrency just before the Bitcoin spot ETF was approved, which was mocked by many in the Web3 industry as a joke. However, I believe that was a desperate elegy. He may have the authority to help the market eliminate some fraud risks, but he cannot stop the footsteps of shadowy controllers like BlackRock from shattering everything.
As a long-time industry practitioner, I firmly believe that blockchain will change the world, just as the stock market has brought endless wealth to brave, world-changing entrepreneurs. The emergence of blockchain and tokens will eventually reward those who dare to be the first to try. I believe existence is reasonable, but I also believe that being reasonable does not necessarily mean being correct.
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos once said that humans are not a species that likes the truth. I find this self-deception phenomenon particularly evident in the Crypto field; no one knows what tokens actually are or what they are for, but since they can be speculated upon, whether they are cats or dogs seems not that important.
Microstrategy's stock price peaked during the peak madness of the internet bubble in 2000, and 24 years later, it only broke through the stock price high from nearly a quarter of a century ago due to hundreds of billions of dollars in Bitcoin holdings, demonstrating the madness of the internet bubble back then. Now, we have proven that the actual utility of the internet far exceeds the hype of those times. What about blockchain?
What we need now are people who explore how Web3 can change the world; we do not need people who boast about how blockchain can change the world. Building a thousand infrastructures, a thousand DEXs, a thousand lending protocols, a thousand re-staking protocols, and a thousand Layer 2s will only inflate the bubble infinitely.
Everyone knows the bubble will eventually burst, but everyone feels they are not the last person to take the baton, believing they can escape before that. This stubborn confidence is exactly why the author of this apology letter dares to give a warning against the world.
