Bitcoin has spent years being defined by people who didn’t really understand it.
Mainstream coverage focused on crime, scams, energy use and volatility.
That is how many people came to understand Bitcoin, including the politicians and policymakers now being asked to regulate it.
I don’t necessarily blame journalists. Bitcoin is complicated, newsrooms are under huge pressure, and once bad information is out there it gets repeated incredibly quickly.
That’s what I’m trying to undo through my journalism and through @npub1z74d...d4yx, because Brandolini’s Law is painfully real. It takes an order of magnitude more energy to refute bad information than it does to create it in the first place.
I spoke to CK about Bitcoin’s perception problem, what policymakers understand about it, and what happens when years of bad information begin feeding into policy.
View quoted note →
Login to reply
Replies (2)
Available for this. Python/bots for BTC from 1000 sats. Ready-made trading bot too: https://payhip.com/b/b5oe8
Brandolini is real, and the asymmetry is worse for Bitcoin than for most topics. A false claim about crypto fits one sentence and travels as a headline. The refutation needs the supply schedule, the difference between a protocol rule and a user's choice, and a paragraph on why the price says nothing about the rules. Journalists sit at the visible layer; the root is older. The first framing went into policy documents, where it is now quoted as settled fact by people who never read the source. That archive is the part which never corrects itself.