Written by: Babywhale, Techub News
(Financial Times) published an apology letter yesterday with a meme as the cover. When I saw the title, I thought it was (Financial Times) reflecting on its previous negative reporting on Crypto as Bitcoin officially broke through $100,000. But if you read this sarcastic short article closely, you will find that rather than an apology letter, it is more like a kind journalist's counterattack against injustice.
(Financial Times) wrote in the first paragraph of its apology letter:
Frequent visitors to (FT Alphaville) might get the impression that its authors, both present and past, hold a skeptical attitude towards cryptocurrencies, especially Bitcoin. This is correct.
It has been made very clear that their attitude is one of skepticism towards cryptocurrencies, especially Bitcoin. From $10 to $100,000 for Bitcoin, they have never changed, and they still believe that 'this is correct'.
FTAV's content from June 2011 to the present may convey the idea that Bitcoin is a negative-sum game; its protocol is designed very 'smartly' and can theoretically be used for bookkeeping, but it is inefficient as a traditional means of exchange and also has issues as a value storage tool. Our posts may have also promoted the view that Bitcoin's price is an indicator that can be speculated upon arbitrarily, unrelated to any utility that tokens might 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 acquiescence and interconnectivity with mainstream financial systems (once thought to be the 'cure') and the allure of 'being the first' in terms of 'collectibles'.
We support every piece of content.
Let's set aside the correctness of FT's views for now and look at the most interesting final paragraph:
If at any time in the past 14 years you chose not to buy goods with 'paper price' increases based on our reports, we sincerely apologize. The increase in 'paper price' is a good thing. If you misunderstood our cynical attitude towards cryptocurrencies as support for traditional finance, we sincerely apologize because we also hate such behavior.
If you have even a slight understanding of 'irony', you will know that FT's 'apology letter' is not a real apology, nor is it aimed at cryptocurrencies themselves; its true target is the predatory 'finance'.
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 provide motivation and protection for economic development.
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 'goods' to facilitate the flow of funds, such as housing. They have created exchanges for stocks, futures, commodities, and precious metals, attracting countless people and funneling the value generated through hard work into an endless zero-sum game, enticing 'retail investors' with stories of overnight wealth: those who have no idea what they are facing.
Is FT wrong in its description of cryptocurrencies? The fact is that every word is true: negative-sum games, inefficient trading systems, no value storage logic, manipulated prices, and lack of practicality.
But isn't it the case that only Crypto is like this? Obviously not. A 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 (Financial Times) a nearly open criticism of the dark sides of finance. Ironically, they themselves call themselves the 'Financial' Times.
Perhaps due to work requirements or the objective environment, journalists and editors at the Financial Times need to write and publish news or comments that they may not want to publish, but there is no way around it. However, at least through this article, we see that some of them still hold a basic conscience.
They know that blockchain, even if Web3 is the future, the stories of bankruptcy and broken families brought by cryptocurrency speculation will not stop.
Why does the development of an emerging industry have to 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 those who see it understand, and regardless of whether those who understand truly execute it.
Current SEC Chairman Gary Gensler warned investors about the huge risks of cryptocurrencies on X just before the spot Bitcoin ETF was approved, which many in the Web3 industry took as a joke. But I feel that it was a desperate elegy. He may have the right to help the market eliminate some fraudulent risks, but he cannot stop 'shadow controllers' like BlackRock from crushing 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 also ultimately reward those who are the first to take the plunge. I believe that existence is rational, but I also believe that rationality does not necessarily mean correctness.
Amazon founder Bezos once said that humans are not a species that likes the truth. I have found that in the Crypto field, this self-deception phenomenon is especially evident; no one knows what tokens really are or what they are for, but since they can be speculated on, whether they are cats or dogs seems not so important.
Microstrategy's stock price peaked the last time during the craziest period of the internet bubble in 2000. After 24 years, it has only broken through the stock price high from nearly a quarter of a century ago thanks to its hundreds of billions of dollars in Bitcoin holdings, illustrating the madness of the internet bubble back then. Now, we have proven that the actual utility of the internet indeed exceeds the grand claims made back then; what about blockchain?
What we need now are people who explore how Web3 can truly change the world; we do not need those who boast that 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.
Bubbles will eventually burst; everyone knows this, but everyone thinks they are not the last one to take the baton and believes they can escape before that. This stubborn confidence is precisely the purpose for which the author of this apology letter dares to remind everyone.
