- The Financial Times newspaper is notoriously down on Bitcoin, but they are being proved wrong over their halving claims
- In May the paper dismissed the possibility of a post-halving pump, since when Bitcoin has risen 39%
- What will it take for the Financial Times to admit defeat?
The Financial Times doesn’t like Bitcoin. Or cryptocurrency. Or anything outside of its traditional banking sphere. This perhaps isn’t surprising considering that the newspaper is 132 years old and caters to a particular crowd, but while some of their arguments are legitimate, every so often they are so dismissive one or other aspects of Bitcoin that they remind you of the ‘old man shouts at Bitcoin’ meme.
Bitcoin Halving Piece Revealed Lack of Understanding
One such example centers around the Financial Times’ ‘coverage’ of the Bitcoin halving in May. On halving day, the paper released a piece that dismissed talk of the reward reduction prompting a price rise down the road, despite history suggesting otherwise.
After admitting that the deflationary model was “quite nifty”, the writer then undermined his knowledge of Bitcoin by linking its inherent scarcity to the hundreds of Bitcoin forks out there:
…there is no scarcity in the number of copycat cryptocurrencies, which undermines the idea of scarcity in bitcoin.
Setting this aside, when discussing the halving, the Financial Times piece was full of mockery of those who predicted that the halving was set to act as a price catalyst once again, joking that, “The bros seem still to be hoping that post-halvening, the price will surge.”
Well, the price has certainly risen – on halving day it was valued at $8,500 and today stands at $11,845. That’s a 39% increase. In traditional markets that would certainly count as a surge, but as we’re talking about Bitcoin we’ll just slide that under the carpet because it doesn’t fit with the narrative, yeah?
Financial Times Will Always Find a Excuse to Bash Bitcoin
The question becomes, at what point will the Financial Times admit that their schadenfreude and skepticism is misplaced? What does Bitcoin have to do to earn a reprieve – break all-time highs, hit $100,000, cure coronavirus?
It has recovered from the March market crash by a value of 238% – if it really were as worthless an asset as the Financial Times make out, surely it would have died then and there? And what will happen if the prophecy is fulfilled, if Bitcoin does “surge”? They’ll find some other excuse to attribute it to, some other way to denigrate it.
Just eight weeks before they were prematurely dismissing Bitcoin, the Financial Times was trying to digest a 39% sales decline while Bitcoin was bouncing back from its March crash.
I know what I’d rather be holding, and it isn’t the ancient pink paper.
