2 ms·
Interesting - I hadn't thought about it that way. I'm no journalist, so it just struck as a surprising omission. But, that being said, I have to imagine this wo
by carterklein13 6y ago
Interesting - I hadn't thought about it that way. I'm no journalist, so it just struck as a surprising omission. But, that being said, I have to imagine this would strike many other people (certainly not most, but a large amount) as a noticeable omission as well.
You're saying it's more just in their best interest, as a large and reputable source, to risk potentially bothering that small group in order to keep their hands clean from inadvertently endorsing anything?
- artfulhippo 6y agoYa there is an asymmetry for sure. If you already know about projects deep down the rabbit hole, you can go to their website/github/chain explorer/chat and do your own research. But if you don’t know anything except that bitcoin is darknet money, the first mention of e.g. “smart contracts” may lead you down the rabbit hole... I think that everyone who gets into distributed systems by reading news stories about blockchain goes through a “holy s* this is revolutionary!” phase, and for too many people that means buying tokens without performing due diligence.
- carterklein13 6y agoLol - I remember that phase well. Luckily I was still in college at the time so I had no money to sink on it. I'm a believer in the tech, and have a little money in it now, but in terms of expected earnings... well, I treat it just as I would treat having money on Rushie winning Blue Grass Stakes. Just like I wouldn't bet anything I'm not comfortable losing on a horse, I treat any crypto "investments" the same way. I try to separate the money from the tech as much as I can. All that aside, that's an interesting insight that really hadn't occurred to me before so I'm glad you pointed it out!