I like Brendan Greeley.
He's a good financial journalist. I like his voice, I like the topics he writes about, and I'm looking forward to the "500-page book about the dollar" he's been writing for ages (join the club... there's like three of those books coming out in 2025). Of course, he's a legacy finance media type, and he's writing for the FT, so an unruly number of his takes are pretty bad.
This piece, from November, somehow just popped up for me, and he's ridiculing the Bitcoin Strategic Reserve. I don't think I have a particularly strong view on this (good for U.S. gov to be so involved; bad for gov to touch bitcoin; good for bitcoin holders insofar as there's a ginormous buyer... bad for bitcoin holders insofar as a ginormous buyer makes acquiring more for ourselves that much harder, that much sooner).
This is a good observation:
A reserve would present both a consummation and an irony for bitcoin’s hardcore supporters — the hodlers. The state would recognise what hodlers call freedom money, but also prop that up with a state programme.
This, probably not so much:
The challenge there is to lay out the case for why bitcoin’s rise must inevitably continue.
...and this, outright disastrous (either incorrect or just ignorant):
The dollar is not suspended in the air by nothing. It has always been held up by Federal Deposit Insurance, imperfect but adequate bank regulation and handshake agreements among central banks to support offshore dollars in a panic.
and the final kicker, he I think he sort of nails but perhaps not for the reasons he thinks:
We rely on dollars not because we’re stupid, but because a bank is literally a licence to print money, and a state has not yet been founded that can prevent powerful people from getting that licence. A long-term bet on bitcoin is bullish on the permanent collapse of all institutions, everywhere. ("all" doesn't belong in that sentence, but whatever... I'll take it.
nonpaywall here: https://archive.md/tbpMA