[ad_1]
The current media coverage of cryptocurrency is often dishonest or factually inaccurate – this is certainly not a surprise considering that nascent technology is largely misunderstood.
But had it been thought that recent milestones – the 10th anniversary of Bitcoin, the advent of cryptography projects such as those of JP Morgan and Facebook – would have encouraged the media to become smarter, this week's news shows that attitudes at the major publishers have not changed much.
This is particularly true during periods of strong market activity, such as Bitcoin on April 2, which saw its price rise by 17% over a month. 30 minutes period.
As CoinDesk readers know, the move was foreshadowed by changes in market data and sentiment. With volatility reaching troughs of several years, multiple technical indicators giving signs of fundamentals and fundamental catalysts (the halving to come) combining, many developments have signaled that a change could be imminent.
Nevertheless, far from examining developments (or asking serious questions), most mainstream media have largely covered theory and speculation.
Here is the worst of what was really a bad group.
Gizmodo
Although articles like these from Gizmodo are useful for gauging retailers' opinions – that is, determining where the average Joe is in terms of understanding and valuing cryptocurrency – they are unfortunately not useful for anyone who wants to know .
Writers like Matt Novak are right to say that novice investors in the mbad-market sector got a bitter taste in 2018, when the cryptocurrency market took a bad turn. Nevertheless, it is not an excuse not to educate yourself or your readers who, without this learning, may repeat mistakes.
The article reads as follows:
"To be clear, bitcoin is worth absolutely nothing. This is counterfeit money that is as convenient to use in the real world as monopoly bills. Bitcoin is not supported by anything and requires huge amounts of energy to be exploited by computers. "
Without spending too much time on this statement, there are some incorrect pbadages, which in particular do not sound right. On the one hand, bitcoin can certainly serve as a means of exchange. This can be, and is used today to facilitate trade and exchange of goods between the parties, a fundamental function of modern currency.
Then, it is supported by the IT operators who operate the network itself, all of whom invest real dollars, labor and equipment to run the network.
Finally, although the cost of mining Bitcoin remains high due to its high energy consumption, this does not mean that it can not flow. renewable energy and take advantage of natural events that reduce costs and mitigate the impact on the environment.
It seems that mainstream media tend to forget that the cost of exploiting Bitcoin's physical rival gold, gold, may be even more guilty of damaging the Earth's environment, because its miners regularly cut vast landscapes and leave behind them toxic waste.
Saying that it will forever remain the final form of Bitcoin borders on ignorance, as we have seen on many occasions, that the evolution of technologies usually comes from a solution to solve a problem. specific problem.
Reuters
One of the least offensive of the pack, a Reuter's report she cited a "mystery" purchase order as the main cause of soaring prices, which remained confused by focusing on a single market irregularity.
In particular, it highlights an affirmation by the chairman of the BCB Group cryptocurrency company, Oliver von Landsberg-Sadie, who claimed that the move was the responsibility of only one buyer.
The article reads as follows:
"The increase recorded today (April 2) was probably triggered by an order worth about $ 100 million spread over the US Coinbase and Kraken and Luxembourg Bitstamp stock exchanges. A single command of about 20,000 BTCs has been algorithmically managed at these three sites. "
This is difficult to corroborate with an independent badysis insofar as the article did not provide proof of orders, it was simply statements who deny other factors.
As the price climbed, it resulted in a snowball effect of buying the shorts were closed and limited purchase orders were triggered, resulting in a faster and higher price increase.
Using a Bitcoin price time view, we can see how much volume has been recorded in a single trading period by examining the volume bars and order books and then noting their readings. On April 4 at 4:00 UTC, Coinbase recorded a total of 6,889 units in one hour and Bitstamp processed nearly 3,798 units, while Kraken recorded the least at 4,121 units in bitcoins during the same hour .
This created a total of 14,808 units traded at the time of the wave, but Reuters and CNBC claimed that 7,000 units were purchased on each of the three different stock exchanges in tandem by a single entity at the time of the transaction .
Needless to say, the numbers do not quite fit.
It should also be noted that the data shows that the increasing volume of purchases has started to increase substantially in most major markets, not just the three mentioned in the article.
CNBC
Then there is the "Fast Money", well known in the crypto trading community for having gone so bad that they act as against indicator.
Indeed, barely 38 seconds after the start of this transaction CNBC Fast Money video An badyst commented on the Bitcoin movement above the 200-day moving average, which occurred for the first time since May, when it was March 2018, leaving room for speculation that they could mislead.
Throughout 2018, CNBC and its subsequent television show, Fast Money, made outrageous comments about the Bitcoin price evolution and the advice given to investors.
Comments such as "do not be afraid of the downside, bitcoins will more than double in 2018" and "what will hit the first 25k, bitcoin or the DOW", it's no wonder that # They have claimed such a bad name for calling correct directional bias and sticking to it.
In addition, another CNBC badyst, Andrew Sorkin suggested on SquakBox, the rally was the product of a harmless April Fool's joke released by a media the day before, which facetiously indicated:
"In a shocking first decision on April 1, the US Securities and Exchange Commission decided to approve not one, but two applications for exchange-traded funds based on Bitcoin."
The word "overvalued" comes to mind when you look at the numbers – this would imply that the market capitalization of all crypto-currencies could increase by almost 40 billion dollars on this back of a harmless joke, and that a whole group of global traders would be the price in such an eventuality.
The crypto market may be small … but so small? We doubt it.
Disclosure: The author does not hold any cryptocurrency at the time of writing.
[ad_2]
Source link
