pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @td OP 14 Nov 2023 \ parent \ on: My two cents on today's FT article bitcoin
I think these journalists are not allowed to own any crypto as it would be deemed a conflict of interest.
Probably a good idea on paper but could also joke that they should not be allowed to own cash by the same logic.
Did you mean to reply to #315637 ?
To be clear, I was asking about the person that sent you the article, not the journalist. Sorry for the confusion.
reply
Didn’t read your reply properly. My non-Bitcoiner is someone who knows I’m interested in “crypto” so will have pinged it over for that reason. Complete good faith. Can’t imagine that they are at all interested in purchasing any themselves.
reply
Got it. In that case, why bother to take the time to write such a long reply to them? It sounds like you're trying to convince them of something, but I'm not sure what or why. Depending on what the purpose was, it would affect how I critique your post. But obviously I agree with your overarching point, which is that this article is filled with misleading half-truths.
Another side note – I'm genuinely curious if the author is purposely trying to mislead, or if this is really the way he sees things. Quotes like this:
"Following Hamas’s attack on Israel, more than 100 lawmakers from both major political parties in the US signed a letter urging the Biden administration to outline the steps it is taking to mitigate cryptocurrencies being used as a means of financing terrorism."
show that we're living in two different realities. He cites "more than 100 lawmakers" as if that should be an impressive statistic, an appeal to authority. But we know these are just a bunch of grifting ignoramuses pursuing the Current Thing.
reply
Why do anything? I wanted to.
reply