Written by Babywhale, Techub News
The Financial Times published an "apology letter" with a meme as the cover yesterday. When I saw the title, I thought it was a reflection of the negative report on Crpyto by the Financial Times when Bitcoin officially broke through $100,000. But if you read this sarcastic short article carefully, you will find that it is more like a counterattack against injustice by kind journalists than an apology letter.
The Financial Times wrote in the first paragraph of the apology letter:
Regular readers of FT Alphaville might form the impression that its authors, both current and past, are skeptical of cryptocurrencies, and Bitcoin in particular. And they are correct.
This has made their attitude very clear: they are skeptical about cryptocurrencies, especially Bitcoin. From $10 to $100,000, their attitude has never changed, and they still think "this is correct."
FTAV’s content from June 2011 to the present may have conveyed the view that Bitcoin is a negative-sum game, with a protocol designed to be very “smart” and theoretically useful as a bookkeeper, but inefficient as a traditional means of transaction and problematic as a store of value. Our posts may have also promoted the view that Bitcoin’s price is a metric that can be hyped up at will, unrelated to any utility the token may have, because it is too easy to replicate the utility provided by the token, so any intrinsic value comes from the sunk costs of infrastructure and intangible assets such as regulatory acquiescence, interconnectivity with the mainstream financial system (once thought to be the “antidote”), and the appeal of “being the first” in terms of “souvenirs”.
We stand behind every piece of content.
Let’s not discuss whether the FT’s view is right or wrong here, and first look at the most interesting last paragraph:
If you chose not to buy something that had gone up on “paper” based on our coverage at any time over the past 14 years, we are deeply sorry. Going up on “paper” is a good thing. If you misinterpreted our cynicism about crypto as support for traditional finance, we are deeply sorry because we hate that, too.
If you have even a little understanding of "irony", then you will know that this "apology letter" from FT is not a real apology, and it is not even directed at cryptocurrency itself. Its real target is the "finance" that is cannibalizing people without leaving any bones.
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 in economic development. In a system centered on currency, lending, insurance, and everything else provide impetus and protection for economic development.
But on the other hand, all of this has become a tool for a small number of people to control the majority. Bankers have created countless high-value "commodities" to make money flow, such as houses. They have created exchanges for stocks, futures, commodities, and precious metals, which have attracted countless people, and have invested countless values generated by hard work into bottomless zero-sum games, attracting "leeks" through stories of getting rich overnight: retail investors who have no idea what they are facing.
Is FT's description of cryptocurrency wrong? The fact is that it is true to the letter: negative-sum game, inefficient trading system, no value storage logic, manipulated prices, and no practicality.
But is this only true for Crypto? Obviously not, as the classic line in The Wolf of Wall Street tells us, stocks are actually pretty much the same thing.
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, it's an almost direct attack on the dark side of finance by the (Financial Times) - ironically, they're called the "Financial" Times.
Perhaps it is the job requirement or the objective environment that makes the reporters and editors of the Financial Times need to write and publish some news or comments that they may not want to publish, but they can't do anything about it. But at least, through this article, we can see that some of them still have basic conscience.
They know that blockchain and Web3 are the future, and the stories of people losing their fortunes and families being torn apart by the hype of cryptocurrency 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 is such that they can only try their best to make some noise, regardless of whether it is seen or not, regardless of whether those who see it understand it or not, and even more regardless of whether those who understand it actually follow through.
Gary Gensler, the current chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, warned investors on X that cryptocurrencies are risky and should be invested with caution just before the Bitcoin spot ETF was approved. He was made a laughing stock by many people in the Web3 industry. But I think it was a elegy of despair. He may have the power to help the market eliminate some fraud risks, but he cannot stop the "controllers in the shadows" like BlackRock from crushing everything.
As an industry practitioner for many years, I firmly believe that blockchain will change the world. Just as the stock market has brought endless wealth to brave entrepreneurs who want to change the world, the emergence of blockchain and tokens will eventually reward those who are the first to try it. I believe that existence is reasonable, but I also believe that reasonableness does not necessarily mean correctness.
Amazon founder Bezos once said that humans are not animals that like the truth. The author found that this phenomenon of self-deception is particularly obvious in the field of Crypto. No one knows what the token is and what it is used for, but since it can be hyped, it doesn’t seem to matter whether it is a cat or a dog.
Microstrategy's stock price peaked at the height of the Internet bubble in 2000. After 24 years, it broke through the high point of nearly a quarter of a century ago with its tens of billions of dollars in Bitcoin holdings. Now, we have proved that the actual utility of the Internet is indeed better than what was boasted back then, but what about blockchain?
What we need now are people who explore how Web3 can change the world, not people who boast that blockchain can change the world. Building 10,000 more infrastructures, 10,000 more DEXs, 10,000 more lending protocols, 10,000 more re-pledge protocols, and 10,000 more Layer2s will only inflate the bubble infinitely.
Everyone knows that the bubble will burst eventually, but everyone feels that they are not the last one to take over, and that they can escape before that happens. This stubborn self-confidence is exactly the purpose of the author of this apology letter to give a warning despite the public outcry.
