3 ms·
The basis itself of the article is invalid and it is in "bad faith". I'm not attacking their credibility, I am attacking the thesis in itself. But since the aut
by thecupisblue 6y ago
The basis itself of the article is invalid and it is in "bad faith". I'm not attacking their credibility, I am attacking the thesis in itself. But since the author attacks the author of the original article and the WSJ in their rebuttal, I apply the same here and note that they have a large piece of cake in the play they are talking about and are thus also not objective.
So to go to the arguments:
1. Total crypto market isn't just US, on which this rebuttal seems to focus.
2. Is bitcoin price determined only by fiat inflow via "whitelisted" exchanges? Are they the only part of the whole crypto community that matters? The answer is no, and thus we gotta count the whole market.
3. And again, the article completely avoids the problem by saying "there are problematic exchanges but we will ignore them". The problematic exchanges are exactly the problem. They are creating fiat-tied coins with no backing and putting that money into market - which is valued by the amount of money in it. So the "whitehat" exchanges, even tho not directly involved in dirty money, are involved and profit off of the same ecosystem the dirty money is in. Thus, they are not an isolated system and cannot be observed as such and the market cannot be judged on the behaviour of these isolated systems alone.
Imagine if this was about gambling and illegal casinos (which in a way, it is). So this article would be written by someone working in Vegas saying "Well, yeah if we're looking at all casinos there is illegal stuff going on and people are printing their own chips and trading them for real Vegas chips, but as a company that counts chips, we only count chips sold in Vegas casinos and we haven't found such problems in Vegas casinos". Would you say "hey but there is a bunch of illegal casinos you are not looking at that print chips which are exchanged at your place for money" or "oh okay this makes sense"?