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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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)

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.