To put it simply, it's because a greater number of HN users upvote those articles than upvote pro-crypto articles. One can speculate about more precise reasons,

To put it simply, it's because a greater number of HN users upvote those articles than upvote pro-crypto articles. One can speculate about more precise reasons, or about the actual positive/negative value of crypto, but those are all kind of beside the point. > The sum of these articles appears to me as "propaganda". Do you realize how much you sound like a conspiracy-theory propagandist yourself? Allow me to illustrate with a couple of examples. > why the status quo financial system is held in such a high regard I don't think I've seen anyone espouse such an opinion, and it's not necessary to be "down" on crypto. Two things can both be bad. It's kind of like the old saying: democracy is the worst system of government, except for the others. > take this perceived negative bias as a confirmation "Rejection as confirmation" is absolutely classic conspiracy thinking. It's non-falsifiable; the harder one tries, the firmer the conviction becomes. You might want to ask yourself which evidence would actually cause you to change your mind. Be honest with yourself. If the answer is "none" then congratulations, you've been drawn into a conspiracy theory. > When Bill Gates (and other powerful people) bad mouth Bitcoin I smell a rat. Odd, in a community where most people lionize financial success without regard for any ethical dimension. How does his wealth or power make his opinion less valid, other than by implying that he's part of a conspiracy?