pull down to refresh

Here's a cover story you didn't see coming. Our fav magazine, The Economist:
At least they got the subheader somewhat right.
Gandhi apparently said: "First, they will ignore you, then they will laugh at you, then they will fight you, then you will win."
In Bitcoinland, we're somewhere between them(?) laughing at us and fighting us. Between the FT film (#980092) — my teeth are scarce! — and indignant NYT-Bitcoin/Trump derangement syndrome, we're definitely being either fought or aggressively laughed at.
It's a little bit flattering to be singled out like this
No presidency has generated so many conflicts of interest at such speed in modern history. Yet the worst self-dealing in American politics is found not on a runway but on blockchains, home to trillions of dollars in cryptocurrencies.
When bitcoin was started in 2009, a utopian, anti-authoritarian movement welcomed it. Crypto’s earliest adopters had lofty goals about revolutionising finance and defending individuals against expropriation and inflation. ... They wanted to hand power to small investors, who would otherwise be at the mercy of giant financial institutions. This was more than an asset: it was technology as liberation.
Not crypto, Bitcoin* — but OK, fine.
...and this is a little rich. What, crypto bros have more influence that Wall Street or Big Pharma...?
Crypto has not just facilitated fraud, money-laundering and other flavours of financial crime on a gargantuan scale. The industry has also developed a grubby relationship with the executive branch of America’s government that outstrips that of Wall Street or any other industry. Crypto has become the ultimate swamp asset.
Get out of here.
Also, can you believe that the publication centered around free trade, always pushing the virtues of free markets, is actively effing calling for "regulations", whatever the eff that means in a digital world of cryptography. Pass laws all you want; they don't do anything.
The result is that crypto needs saving from itself in America. New rules are still needed to ensure that risks are not injected into the financial system. If politicians, scared of the industry’s electoral power, fail to regulate crypto properly, the long-term consequences will be harmful.

And... this will come as a shock to y'alls: Not a word about bitcoin, the ONE THING that matters.

Fuck right off.

Here's what it says:
reply
wonderful!
reply
28 sats \ 1 reply \ @jgbtc 17 May
I'll never understand why a rag like The Economist can be consistently wrong about something for so long, costing its readers significant loss in purchasing power, and yet people keep coming back for more. There seems to be no limit to how much bad advice people will take.
reply
True. Dat.
Some people just like suffering, I guess ..?
reply
24 sats \ 4 replies \ @000w2 16 May
The conflation between Bitcoin and Crypto in MSM is not by accident or out of ignorance. It's part of the social attack.
Just like all the word games during covid to take away our rights.
reply
Unfortunately i suspect you're right. I just don't see who's running the show, or giving them all memos
reply
I imagine it's the banks, as they have the most at stake. Just like during covid it was the drug companies. Media are just the useful shills, & politicians the useful idiots.
reply
Maybe, but you do realize how many hundreds of thousands of people work/own banks and big pharma companies... it's like, all of these people somehow coordinated and it never leaked...?
reply
The nature of corporations is top down decision making, they are not democracies. The people running them will follow their own incentives. I'm not suggesting bank tellers are conspiring to stop bitcoin.
reply
I'm going to go way out on a limb and speculate that the dollar is more heavily involved in fraud, money laundering, other flavours (nice spelling) of financial crime, and has a grubbier relationship with the executive branch than bitcoin does.
Also, if the mere existence of a global hard money is a threat to your financial system, then the risk didn't come from the hard money.
reply
...other flavours (nice spelling)
it is a British magazine. I will keep the Queen's English when we take it over, OK.
also, LOVE that:
if the mere existence of a global hard money is a threat to your financial system, then the risk didn't come from the hard money.
reply
I will keep the Queen's English when we take it over, OK.
It just depends how silly you want to sound.
reply
Zero silly.
Humour me.
reply
Your lack of self-awareness is your own business.
reply
your behaviour is unacceptable, Sir.
that's a marxists magazine, just ignore it.
reply
no, we're taking it over. I still have faith.
Bagehot's work and name will not go down in history like this.
reply
The article is gaslighting and spreading propaganda.
reply
Yes, indeed
reply
Isn't it ironic that a publication advocating free trade is calling for regulations? Shouldn't we be celebrating financial freedom?
reply
This magazine is the official dark side magazine of choice, journalist there are the official propaganda machine of the Sith Lords, do your math ;-)
reply
If they are truly talking about crypto, aren't they right? The griftiest of politicians all seem to have jumped on it, no?
(I haven't read much more than the title)
reply
True true true. So maybe dudez were doing us a favour by leaving bitcoin out of it??
reply
reply
In sum, cryptocurrencies can definitely compete for business with the dollar in the global underground economy, and this is a source of fundamental value. However, naive crypto evangelists who believe that their superior technology will allow non-state or private currencies to outcompete government currencies in the legal economy should look at the long history of money. The private sector may drive innovation, but over the long run, the government holds the cards. The crypto industry can pour money into Washington, as it did during the 2024 U.S. Presidential campaign, following the path Samuel Bankman-Fried had pioneered. This may work for a while, but eventually, perhaps soon, a crisis of one sort or another will make it clear that the government needs to establish a much more comprehensive regulatory regime in which innovation can thrive but where crypto is no longer the Wild West.
K.Rogoff Our Dollar, Your Problem pg198
reply
But there might not be just a shadow of truth though in what the article suggests?
Or can you convincingly argue that Trump is NOT managing the decline of US empire and that 'crypto' has been recognised to have significant potential to serve in that process, similar to how Britains wealthy elites used offshore tax havens to preserve their wealth as the British Empire declined?
BTW, dear chap, 'we' have a King now, King Charles, so it's Kings English thank you, very much!
reply