Honestly this is one of the most neutral news I have seen related to the crypto industry more specifically towards Bitcoin. I've read the whole article hoping for some silent jabs against Bitcoin being the main tool for this crime to happen but I was surprised there was none found in the whole article.
this is the sort of subtle editorial-based slant that corporate media like The Guardian use.
they could have covered any number of positive stories about Bitcoin, especially in their technology section. But instead, they
choose articles with a negative connotation, then report on it in a dry and dispassionate way. Readers are left to draw their own conclusion, but when they've heard another 20 crime based Bitcoin stories already in the last 5 years, they will come to the conclusion that The Guardian's financial firm clients (who buy advertising in The Guardian) want: Bitcoin bad
no different when Bitcoin XT was covered in The Guardian, they used editorial bias to slant readers towards the corporate culture's preferences. They interviewed the attackers (who went on to work for Goldman Sachs invested firm Circle) and devoted a whole article to a dev-team takeover that the users (the normal everyday people The Guardian pretend to represent) did not want. And for the accomplished developers with decades of industry experience and contributions to open source software used all across the internet? They got no article, despite the fact that Bitcoin's users followed them. Guardian quietly kept it's mouth shut, that was their repetent response, disgusting behavior.
"The Guardian"? They only do one kind of guarding: their corporate buddies, whether they're attacking open source software projects (Bitcoin is not the only example), or whether they're deciding that Trump and Clinton (and Bill Gates, Katie Couric, Woody Allen etc etc) being connected to billionaire pedophile human-trafickers is too tabloid