The statement is sufficiently underspecified that it’s not falsifiable for any large company, which is my point. If you dislike Goldman Sachs, you’re inclined

The statement is sufficiently underspecified that it’s not falsifiable for any large company, which is my point. If you dislike Goldman Sachs, you’re inclined to believe it. If you don’t dislike Goldman Sachs, you’re inclined to be more skeptical about it. The description is fully open to interpretation, which means believing it is a function of ideology and identity more than facts and reality. Descriptions are only meaningful insofar as they help differentiate things. There is no precision in calling a giant financial company a vampiric squid. So what do we actually learn? It’s a total sideshow to a meaningful discussion about cryptocurrencies, cryptocurrency exchanges, the evolving role of traditional financial institutions in cryptocurrency trading, or the future legitimacy of digital currencies as an asset class.