The apology is only to make them seem as if they are supporting so that the conditions are good enough for the sake of interest because in the end they know that with the existence of bitcoin which is being promoted by Trump in his country with several policies when he is elected, indirectly the credibility of some media, especially for those who are always there and try to scrap bitcoin like a slap with the reversal that is happening now.
I will not consider this apology sincere or insincere because I don't really care what they say, but it is very funny now when there will be a lot of media trying to twist information from those who originally dislike and even seem to be cornered into media that seems to make them a good credibility to support bitcoin because of some significant changes that occur.
Topic: Financial Times apologizes - page 2. (Read 326 times)
They should be doing more than apologizing. They should be compensating their readers for the worst investment advice available. All of these mainstream media outlets have at some stage, publicly criticised BTC. They never like what they don’t understand until they’re made to look like fools & that time has come. They should give readers 6 months free subscription to their newspaper, it’s the least they could do.
They said and published what they know and think is right. I don't think they in any way directly told anyone or stopped anyone from investing; it was a matter of sharing opinion and allowing people to decide which one is best for them.Some investors judgement might have been biased based on the infection they provide, but at the end of the day, investors made their own decision, which means they are liable for their own actions, and they can't hold financial time liable to pay any damage unless there are some ways financial time has stopped them from investing, which they can legally use to go against them; if not, this apology might just be what they will offer, and it doesn't even sound direct as they are still not very polite and straightforward with their statement.
They should be doing more than apologizing. They should be compensating their readers for the worst investment advice available. All of these mainstream media outlets have at some stage, publicly criticised BTC. They never like what they don’t understand until they’re made to look like fools & that time has come. They should give readers 6 months free subscription to their newspaper, it’s the least they could do.
full quote
they are not changing their mindset, they still stand by their cynicism, criticism, scepticism
they are just apologising that any readers who read their articles chose not to invest back then.. (victim blaming)
Quote
Regular readers of FT Alphaville may have formed the impression that its current and former writers are united in scepticism about crypto in general and bitcoin in particular. This is correct.
FTAV posts between June 2011 and today may have communicated the idea that bitcoin is a negative-sum game being played on a protocol that’s very clever and hypothetically useful as a unit of account, but is chronically inefficient as a conventional means of exchange and is compromised as a store of value. Our posts may also have promoted the idea that the price of a bitcoin is an arbitrary hype gauge that’s disconnected from any utility the token may have, because it’s trivial to duplicate the utility provided by said token, so any intrinsic worth comes from the sunk costs of infrastructure alongside intangibles like regulatory acquiescence, interconnectedness with mainstream financial systems it was once sold as being the antidote to, and the souvenir attraction of “being the first”.
We stand by every single one of those posts.
Nevertheless, with bitcoin’s price recently crossing $100,000, a significant number of commenters seem to feel they deserve an apology in light of our longstanding cynicism, so here it is:
We’re sorry if at any moment in the past 14 years you chose based on our coverage not to buy a thing whose number has gone up. It’s nice when your number goes up. And we’re sorry if you misunderstood our crypto cynicism to be a declaration of support for tradfi, because we hate that too.
FTAV posts between June 2011 and today may have communicated the idea that bitcoin is a negative-sum game being played on a protocol that’s very clever and hypothetically useful as a unit of account, but is chronically inefficient as a conventional means of exchange and is compromised as a store of value. Our posts may also have promoted the idea that the price of a bitcoin is an arbitrary hype gauge that’s disconnected from any utility the token may have, because it’s trivial to duplicate the utility provided by said token, so any intrinsic worth comes from the sunk costs of infrastructure alongside intangibles like regulatory acquiescence, interconnectedness with mainstream financial systems it was once sold as being the antidote to, and the souvenir attraction of “being the first”.
We stand by every single one of those posts.
Nevertheless, with bitcoin’s price recently crossing $100,000, a significant number of commenters seem to feel they deserve an apology in light of our longstanding cynicism, so here it is:
We’re sorry if at any moment in the past 14 years you chose based on our coverage not to buy a thing whose number has gone up. It’s nice when your number goes up. And we’re sorry if you misunderstood our crypto cynicism to be a declaration of support for tradfi, because we hate that too.
they are not changing their mindset, they still stand by their cynicism, criticism, scepticism
they are just apologising that any readers who read their articles chose not to invest back then.. (victim blaming)
Quote
We’re sorry if at any moment in the past 14 years you chose based on our coverage not to buy a thing whose number has gone up. It’s nice when your number goes up. And we’re sorry if you misunderstood our crypto cynicism to be a declaration of support for tradfi, because we hate that too.
In an article posted on the 5th of December, FT Alphaville (a news commentary/financial blog created by Financial Times) "apologizes". They acknowledged that they criticized bitcoin back then by saying that the coin did not have any utility and depended a lot on hype. They also said that bitcoin was an inefficient means of exchange and that they still stand by all of these. However, by the quote shared above they are apologizing to those who missed out on bitcoin back then when it was still trading below $100 if their articles or opinions had pushed them away from bitcoin.
They aren't the only one that have said all manner of negative impressions towards bitcoin and they are now regretting from their past actions, others couldn't come out boldly to retrace their steps and apologize because its a shame already on them, this only shows that when a gold is in its raw form, its comprises of dirt and does not look like a valuable thing until it has been refined, same as well on bitcoin, those that have said negative talks on it were not regretting, even though unknowingly to them that they have constituted to the advance and development of the network the more they are proclaiming those statement, bitcoin is becoming more recognized and some are taking the risk on investing in it.
Quote
We’re sorry if at any moment in the past 14 years you chose based on our coverage not to buy a thing whose number has gone up. It’s nice when your number goes up. And we’re sorry if you misunderstood our crypto cynicism to be a declaration of support for tradfi, because we hate that too.
In an article posted on the 5th of December, FT Alphaville (a news commentary/financial blog created by Financial Times) "apologizes". They acknowledged that they criticized bitcoin back then by saying that the coin did not have any utility and depended a lot on hype. They also said that bitcoin was an inefficient means of exchange and that they still stand by all of these. However, by the quote shared above they are apologizing to those who missed out on bitcoin back then when it was still trading below $100 if their articles or opinions had pushed them away from bitcoin.
People are calling this a weak apology as it seems sarcastic but I actually understand their point. I know that official news sites have a lot of bearings on our opinions but if someone decided to not give bitcoin a chance based on their article, who are we really to blame? There were cynics everywhere and people who decided to go against those criticisms are the ones coming out on top now. They knew better than to listen to people who were doubting bitcoin. We all have our own opinions and if they stand by their own that is okay. If their opinion managed to sway ours, that is our fault.
Quote
We’re sorry if at any moment in the past 14 years you chose based on our coverage not to buy a thing whose number has gone up. It’s nice when your number goes up. And we’re sorry if you misunderstood our crypto cynicism to be a declaration of support for tradfi, because we hate that too.
In an article posted on the 5th of December, FT Alphaville (a news commentary/financial blog created by Financial Times) "apologizes". They acknowledged that they criticized bitcoin back then by saying that the coin did not have any utility and depended a lot on hype. They also said that bitcoin was an inefficient means of exchange and that they still stand by all of these. However, by the quote shared above they are apologizing to those who missed out on bitcoin back then when it was still trading below $100 if their articles or opinions had pushed them away from bitcoin.
People are calling this a weak apology as it seems sarcastic but I actually understand their point. I know that official news sites have a lot of bearings on our opinions but if someone decided to not give bitcoin a chance based on their article, who are we really to blame? There were cynics everywhere and people who decided to go against those criticisms are the ones coming out on top now. They knew better than to listen to people who were doubting bitcoin. We all have our own opinions and if they stand by their own that is okay. If their opinion managed to sway ours, that is our fault.
Jump to: