The Bitcoin Halving was used by almost all media outlets to report on the cryptocurrency. It must be acknowledged that the knowledge about Bitcoin has not developed in tandem with the price. While some media accidentally mix up the content – for example, the NZZ wrote that the amount of BTC doubles with the halving – things are much more problematic for other media companies. This is what happened with an article for time online.
“Even crap that’s halved remains crap”
This is how it appeared in Zeit Online Article “Even crap that is halved remains crap” by the author Nathanael Häfner. The stated goal of this article quickly becomes clear: to discredit those who advocate Bitcoin. In the first sentence, the author speaks of “Bitcoin disciples” in order to prepare the reader for the fact that these are not sensible people who think BTC is good.
Instead, cult terminology is used to deny Bitcoin investors any rationality. To support this, Häfner alludes to “right-wing cyberlibertarianism,” which is strongly linked to BTC. There is therefore an indirect warning to the reader that he or she supports brown ideas when investing in Bitcoin.
The author cleverly disguises the ideologically motivated campaign against Bitcoin by repeatedly explaining technically what happens during the halving. The article fluctuates between a Wikipedia entry and Bitcoin agitation.
“Bitcoin is dangerous”
For the author it is clear: “Bitcoin is dangerous”. He wants to support his statement with two arguments. First, BTC fluctuates a lot, which makes it unsuitable as a currency, especially since investors would only buy BTC to make profits, says Nathanael.
However, this trivial statement can also be applied to other asset classes such as stocks, bonds and especially gold. One wonders why private households, central banks and companies invest in gold if not to maintain purchasing power and speculate on rising prices. The same applies to digital gold, which is in fact the most successful asset of all time. Regardless of whether it is the US dollar, gold or S&P500: every asset or asset class has depreciated by 99.9 percent compared to Bitcoin to date.
The Häfner does not seem to be aware of this fact or is deliberately keeping it secret. Instead he quotes one outdated study the BIS: “According to a study (PDF) by the Bank for International Payments, three quarters of all Bitcoin buyers bought too expensively and sold their Bitcoin at a loss.” Anyone who knows a little and does not refer to the figures from February 2023, as the author did, knows that currently over 93 percent of all investors are in the black with their BTC investment.
Swap apples for pears
But it’s not just the volatility of Bitcoin that is dangerous for Häfner, but also the fact that you can lose your Bitcoin on trading platforms like FTX. Here, too, the author appears to be deliberately confusing the connections. His statement suggests that Bitcoin is practically synonymous with crypto exchanges like FTX.
How big this nonsense is becomes clear when you apply the causality listed to other asset classes. Are stocks dangerous because there are stock exchanges that are guilty of something wrong? Is the euro or US dollar dangerous because a Silicon Valley bank went bankrupt? Why BTC is supposed to be dangerous, as Häfner claims, is never really explained in the article, but that doesn’t seem to be his point.
With the digital euro against enemies of the state
Towards the end of the article, the author tries to warn: “Bitcoin promises exactly that and thereby unites those who reject the state.” By “exactly that” Häfner means the cocktail of super-rich, right-wing cyber-libertarians and supporters of private cities, all of whom should find themselves in Bitcoin.
A solution to the “Bitcoin casino”, as the author believes, already exists: “Instead, banks should be made more secure, increase their equity and regulate cryptocurrencies more closely. A digital euro or dollar could also help so that people can become less dependent on banks.” This final sentence shows the author’s actual intention: criticism of capitalism.
Criticism of capitalism instead of Bitcoin
As reported in the past, articles critical of BTC are often written by people who reject free markets and are more likely to find themselves in a state-centered or planned economic primacy. This would also explain why Häfner prefers central bank money to decentralized bank money creation. For Häfner and his intellectual brothers, Bitcoin is just the waddle man.
One can therefore only hope that the editorial teams of the numerous media companies become aware of this fact. Authors who offer articles critical of Bitcoin to editors often pursue their own economic policy agenda, which can be classified somewhere between anti-technology and anti-capitalism. Given the new BTC acceptance on Wall Street by BlackRock, Fidelity and Co., it can be assumed that such anti-Bitcoin articles will increase rather than decrease.
This might also interest you