Author: Liu Jiaolian

Overnight BTC fell from 100,000 to 99.5k. When BTC reached $100,000 at the beginning of the month, the Financial Times’ FT Alphaville column published a so-called apology letter. Some friends may not have read the original text carefully and concluded that this was a sincere apology. They also intended to use this to put pressure on other media that have criticized and belittled BTC for many years, claiming that the latter owed everyone an apology.

This is simply overthinking. Below is the full text of the Financial Times’ so-called apology letter. Read the full text, and maybe you won’t feel like they are really apologizing.

「FT Regular readers of Alphaville may have formed the impression that current and former authors are skeptical of cryptocurrencies in general and Bitcoin in particular

Since. FTAV articles from June 2011 to the present may convey the view that Bitcoin is a negative-sum game, and its protocol is very clever and can theoretically be used as a unit of account, but it is inefficient as a traditional medium of exchange, and as a value Storage tools also have flaws. It may also be mentioned that the Bitcoin price is an arbitrary hype metric disconnected from any real utility, as its utility can be easily replicated, so any intrinsic value comes from the sunk costs of the infrastructure and things like regulatory default permissions, interconnection with the mainstream financial system sex( This was once the target of its opposition) and the intangible factors of "being the first"

"We support every point made in these articles. >

“Nonetheless, as Bitcoin prices recently topped $100,000, and many commenters seemed to feel that we owed them an apology given our longstanding skepticism. So, here is our apology:

"If at some point in the last 14 years you decided not to buy something that "went up in numbers" as a result of our coverage, we're sorry. It's really nice when your numbers go up. If you misunderstood Substantiating our skepticism of cryptocurrencies in favor of traditional finance statements, we I'm also sorry, because we also hate traditional finance."

This is a bit like the middle-aged and elderly executives of a large company who went to a subordinate company to hold a meeting with all employees and said, "Dad." The lecture was full of taste, and the audience did not accept the 90 or 00 Later, the employee posted the negative publicity on the Internet, so the executive punished himself three times and issued an apology statement, saying that he has always been straightforward and said what he said without hiding it. He did not take into account the feelings of the employees in the audience, which hurt him. I have forgiven everyone's feelings and apologized to everyone, and so on. (The case is for illustration only, any similarity is purely coincidental)

The logic of this apology is similar to that of the Financial Times.The logic is that I still think what I said before is right, but since you are unhappy, I apologize. What's the subtext? The subtext is that although I apologized, I don’t think what I said, what I did, or what I thought was wrong!

There is a saying that "it is more difficult to touch interests than to touch souls."

Many times, the reason why it seems that the soul is difficult to touch is actually a matter of interests when analyzed to its essence.

Why? The simple reason is that most people who criticize BTC do not own BTC. If you don’t have BTC (or have lost BTC), you have missed the benefits of BTC’s rise, so you criticize BTC. This is the real reason.

From this perspective, criticism of BTC by people who do not hold BTC is as unreasonable as criticism of the taste of durian by people who have never eaten durian. Talking without in-depth experience will stray away from the spirit of "seeking truth from facts" and fall into the error of subjectivism.

What’s worse is that in order to cover up their own profit motives, they also find some "fig leaves", that is, some grand and tall narratives, to kidnap the audience's position and emotions, and pretend that they are standing on the moral high ground. Make a just and awe-inspiring criticism.

The teacher said that without investigation, there is no right to speak. Without a long-term heavy position in BTC, there is no awareness of evaluating BTC, and the speeches are endless and wrong. It's best not to watch it, because it's a waste of time.

Only those who have a heavy position in BTC for a long time and continue to obtain compound interest returns will have enough knowledge to evaluate BTC. This kind of evaluation is worthy of our precious energy to read and understand.