On December 5, 2024, Bitcoin crossed the remarkable threshold of $100,000, prompting the Financial Times (FT) to publish a piece that many considered more contentious than conciliatory. This piece, crafted by City Editor Bryce Elder on FT Alphaville, attempted to apologize for the publication’s long history of critical coverage of Bitcoin. However, rather than genuinely acknowledging its previous misjudgments, the article was infused with sarcasm and defensiveness, leaving many in the cryptocurrency community feeling insulted rather than heard.
This apology arrives after more than a decade of skepticism surrounding Bitcoin. Since its inaugural mention by the FT on June 6, 2011, when Bitcoin was valued at a mere $15.90, the publication has consistently positioned itself as a critic, labeling the cryptocurrency as a “negative-sum game” and framing its volatility as irrational and disconnected from any intrinsic utility. Thus, as Bitcoin skyrocketed past the $100,000 mark, the appropriateness and sincerity of FT’s remorse came under scrutiny.
While Elder’s words ostensibly conveyed regret, his tone wove a narrative of condescension rather than contrition. He expressed a measured disappointment for those who may have misinterpreted the publication’s critical stance, stating, “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.” This sentiment bordered on patronizing, insinuating that investors were somehow at fault for placing too much faith in the FT’s evaluations.
Furthermore, Elder’s dig at traditional finance, linking the publication’s criticisms to a shared disdain for established financial systems, appeared more like a defense mechanism than a genuine olive branch to the very audience that may have felt abandoned by the FT’s views. It promoted an almost defensive narrative that sought to protect the publication’s long-held beliefs rather than critically reassess their understanding of cryptocurrency and its rapid evolution.
The reaction from the cryptocurrency enthusiasts was swift and overwhelmingly critical. Many took to social media platforms like X, coining the term “Cope-Pology” to deride the Financial Times for what they viewed as a thinly veiled insult masquerading as an acknowledgment of oversight. Observations of the article’s tone led to comments labeling it as one of the “saltiest, most petty apologies” ever witnessed, with several users recounting their disbelief at the lack of genuine humility from such a prestigious publication.
Skepticism endured even in the face of the FT’s purported admission. After years of denouncing Bitcoin’s potential, the arrival of a half-hearted apology on the day of a significant price surge perpetuated the sense that the publication felt pressured to rectify its previous pessimism without fundamentally altering its stance. Such behavior reflects a broader challenge faced by established media outlets attempting to navigate the rapidly changing landscape of the cryptocurrency market.
The Financial Times’ journey of skepticism towards Bitcoin wasn’t limited to isolated articles. A notable critique published in 2014 exemplified this skepticism, as it controversially compared Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto to a “reckless” medical professional. In doing so, the FT perpetuated its image of a cautious, perhaps even fearful, institution attempting to safeguard its readers from perceived financial follies. The notion that Bitcoin’s fixed supply would lead to substantial economic disruption underpinned the publication’s broader argument against cryptocurrency.
As Bitcoin solidifies its position within broader financial discourse, the question remains whether established publications like the Financial Times will adapt to the evolving realities of digital currencies or continue to cling to outdated criticisms. The FT’s latest apology raises vital discussions about accountability in journalism, especially in spaces as dynamic as cryptocurrency—where predictions often falter and biases can blur the lines of constructive criticism and detrimental skepticism.
The Financial Times’ controversial apology, rather than marking the beginning of a reckoning with its past misjudgments, appears to stand as a testament to the challenges legacy media faces in reconciling their historical narratives with the unpredictable and often revolutionary nature of new financial technologies. The skepticism expressed in that piece resonates deeply with the ongoing debate about the media’s role in financial markets and the implications of their influence on public perceptions and investment behavior.