For over a decade, the Financial Times (FT) has been one of the most vocal critics of cryptocurrencies, particularly Bitcoin. But in a surprising twist, its commentary arm, FT Alphaville, issued a satirical public apology as Bitcoin surged past $100,000 — marking a symbolic turning point in mainstream financial media’s relationship with digital assets.
👉 Discover how media sentiment shifts could impact your crypto strategy in 2025.
A Long-Standing Skepticism Toward Bitcoin
Since its first article on cryptocurrency on June 6, 2011, when Bitcoin traded at just $15.90, the Financial Times has consistently cast doubt on the viability and utility of decentralized digital money. Over the years, FT Alphaville, known for its sharp financial commentary, labeled Bitcoin a “negative-sum game,” criticized it as an inefficient medium of exchange, and questioned its ability to serve as a reliable store of value.
Bryce Elder, editor at FT Alphaville, recently reflected on this long-standing stance in a provocative piece published during Bitcoin’s historic rally. With prices surpassing six figures, Elder acknowledged that many observers believed the publication owed readers an apology for its persistent cynicism.
“For the past 14 years, if you decided not to buy something based on our coverage — and that thing later went up in price — we are sorry. Price increases are obviously delightful. And if you thought our cynicism about crypto was a sign of support for traditional finance, we’re sorry too — because we hate that as well.”
While framed as an apology, the tone was unmistakably ironic — a hallmark of FT Alphaville’s editorial voice.
Why the "Apology" Sparked Outrage
Despite the self-aware humor, the so-called apology did not sit well with the crypto community. On social platforms like X (formerly Twitter), users labeled it a “fake apology” — criticizing the lack of genuine accountability for years of dismissive and often misleading narratives.
Critics pointed out that FT Alphaville didn’t retract any claims or admit factual errors. Instead, they doubled down on their original stance by stating they still stand by every post they’ve published. This refusal to engage with the technological and economic merits of blockchain innovation further alienated supporters of decentralized finance.
Even more contentious were past attacks on Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator. In 2014, former Federal Reserve risk analyst Mark Williams likened Satoshi’s design choices to those of a reckless physician — prescribing medication without diagnosing the patient.
“It ignores the ups and downs of the economic cycle — such recklessness is like injecting penicillin into every patient without first checking for infections, depression, or mania.”
Such analogies, while colorful, overlooked Bitcoin’s fixed supply mechanism as a deliberate hedge against inflation and central bank overreach — a feature now widely recognized during periods of monetary expansion.
From Mockery to Market Reality
The irony isn’t lost on long-term crypto holders: institutions and media outlets that once mocked Bitcoin are now grappling with its undeniable market impact. As institutional adoption grows — from spot Bitcoin ETFs to corporate treasuries holding BTC — early skepticism looks increasingly outdated.
Notably, some high-profile figures still resist the trend. Warren Buffett, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan, and financial commentator Peter Schiff have all previously claimed Bitcoin would never reach $100,000 — predictions proven wrong as markets evolved.
Yet their continued bearishness contrasts sharply with reality. Bitcoin’s ascent reflects broader shifts:
- Growing demand for decentralized financial systems
- Increasing recognition of digital scarcity
- Rising concerns about monetary debasement and inflation
These factors have fueled what many describe as an unprecedented wave of investment interest in Web3 technologies.
👉 See how early movers are capitalizing on the next phase of digital asset growth.
Core Keywords Driving the Narrative
This evolving landscape centers around several key themes:
- Bitcoin price surge
- Cryptocurrency adoption
- Media sentiment shift
- Decentralized finance (DeFi)
- Digital asset investment
- Blockchain innovation
- Financial sovereignty
- Institutional crypto uptake
These keywords reflect both public curiosity and search intent, capturing the intersection of technology, finance, and media influence.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Was the Financial Times' apology genuine?
A: No, the apology was largely satirical. While acknowledging their bearish stance may have discouraged investment, FT Alphaville maintained their original critiques and expressed no real remorse. The tone was ironic rather than contrite.
Q: Why do traditional financial outlets criticize Bitcoin?
A: Many traditional financiers view Bitcoin as a threat to established monetary systems. Its decentralized nature challenges central banks' control over money supply and interest rates. Additionally, volatility and regulatory uncertainty make it uncomfortable for risk-averse institutions.
Q: Has media coverage influenced Bitcoin’s price?
A: Indirectly, yes. Negative headlines can create fear and suppress short-term demand, while positive or neutral coverage often correlates with increased retail interest. However, long-term price trends are driven more by macroeconomic factors, adoption rates, and supply constraints.
Q: Is Bitcoin still a good investment after reaching $100,000?
A: Investment suitability depends on individual goals and risk tolerance. With increasing institutional backing and limited supply (only 21 million BTC ever), many analysts believe Bitcoin remains a strong hedge against inflation and currency devaluation — though volatility should be expected.
Q: What role does satire play in financial journalism?
A: Satire can highlight contradictions and challenge groupthink. In this case, FT Alphaville used irony to comment on both crypto enthusiasm and traditional finance flaws. However, when used without clarity, it risks being perceived as dismissive or out of touch.
Q: How has public perception of crypto changed since 2011?
A: Dramatically. Once seen as a niche experiment or tool for illicit activity, cryptocurrencies are now viewed by many as legitimate financial assets. Governments regulate them, universities teach blockchain courses, and major companies integrate crypto payments or hold digital assets on balance sheets.
The Bigger Picture: Media Accountability in the Digital Age
The Financial Times episode underscores a broader issue: media influence on financial decision-making. For years, skeptical reporting may have dissuaded millions from exploring cryptocurrency — only for those same outlets to later report on “missed opportunities.”
As digital assets become more embedded in global finance, there’s growing demand for balanced, informed coverage — not mockery disguised as analysis.
👉 Stay ahead with real-time insights from a leading digital asset platform.
Final Thoughts
Whether sincere or sarcastic, the Financial Times’ reflection on its crypto coverage marks a cultural milestone. It signals that even the most entrenched critics must now reckon with Bitcoin’s staying power.
For investors, the lesson is clear: don’t rely solely on mainstream narratives. Understand the technology, assess risks objectively, and stay informed through diverse sources.
As decentralization reshapes finance, being early isn’t just about timing — it’s about mindset.