Apologize for the $100,000 BTC

Author: Liu Jiaolian

Overnight, BTC fell from $100,000 to $99.5k. When BTC first surpassed $100,000 at the beginning of the month, the Financial Times’ FT Alphaville column specifically published a so-called apology letter. Some friends may not have read the original text in detail and concluded that this was a sincere apology, and even intended to use it to pressure other media outlets that have criticized and denigrated BTC for many years, claiming that the latter owes everyone an apology.

This is purely overthinking. Below is the full text of the so-called apology letter from the Financial Times. After reading the full text, maybe you won’t think they really apologized.

Regular readers of FT Alphaville may have formed the impression that current and former authors are generally skeptical of cryptocurrencies, especially Bitcoin. And that is indeed the case.

*“Since June 2011, FTAV’s articles may have conveyed the view that Bitcoin is a zero-sum game, with a very clever protocol that theoretically can serve as a unit of account, but is inefficient as a traditional medium of exchange and flawed as a store of value. Our articles may also mention that the price of Bitcoin is an arbitrary speculative indicator detached from any real utility, as its utility can be easily replicated. Therefore, any intrinsic value comes from sunk costs of infrastructure and intangible factors such as regulatory default permission, interconnectedness with the mainstream financial system (which was once its opposed goal), and the significance of being ‘the first.’”

• “We support every viewpoint in these articles.”

However, with the recent breakthrough of Bitcoin price surpassing $100,000, many commentators seem to think that, given our long-standing skepticism, we owe them an apology. So here is our apology:

“If at any point in the past 14 years, you have decided not to buy something that ‘rises digitally’ because of our reports, we apologize for that. It is indeed a joy when your digits rise. If you misunderstood our skeptical attitude towards cryptocurrency as a statement supporting traditional finance, we are also sorry because we dislike traditional finance as well.”

This is a bit like a senior executive from a certain big company, who went to a subsidiary company to hold a meeting for all employees and made a speech full of ‘father’s flavor’. It was leaked online by the 90s and 00s employees who didn’t buy into it, causing negative public opinion. As a result, the executive punished himself by drinking three cups and issued an apology statement, stating that he has always been straightforward and says whatever he wants, without hiding anything. He didn’t consider the feelings of the employees present, hurting everyone’s feelings. He apologizes to everyone, etc. (This case is for illustration purposes only. If there are any similarities, it is purely coincidental.)

The logic of this apology is similar to that of the Financial Times’ apology. The logic is that I still believe what I said before is correct, but since you are unhappy, I apologize. What is the implicit meaning? The implicit meaning is that although I apologize, I don’t think what I said, did, or believed was wrong!

There is a saying, “It is harder to touch interests than to touch the soul.”

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

Why? It’s simple, because most of the people who criticize BTC don’t have BTC. They either don’t have BTC (or lost it) and missed out on the benefits of BTC’s rise, that’s why they criticize BTC. That’s the real reason.

From this perspective, the criticism of BTC by those who do not hold BTC is unreasonable, just like the criticism of the taste of durian by those who have not eaten it. Without a deep experience, engaging in extensive discussions leads to a departure from the spirit of seeking truth from facts and falls into the error of subjectivism.

What’s worse, in order to conceal their own interests, they also need to find some “fig leaves”, that is, some grand narratives, to hijack the audience’s position and emotions, pretending to stand on the moral high ground for righteous criticism.

The tutor said that without investigation, there is no right to speak. Without long-term heavy BTC holdings, there is also no understanding of BTC evaluation, and speaking is just a continuous and far-fetched nonsense. It’s better not to look at it because it’s a waste of time.

Only those who hold BTC for a long time and continue to gain compound interest have enough understanding to evaluate BTC. Such evaluation is also worth our precious time and effort to read and understand.