1 Comment

Step one: Download Firefox

Step two: Install the extension NoScript (and Ublock Origin, because it's awesome--supposedly you can use it to do NoScript things without needing a second extension, haven't tried).

Step three: Go to archive.org and look up coindesk.com

Any time things don't work, toggle temporary allow on or off for Javascript on archive.org using NoScript. For example, you may need to temporarily allow on archive.org so that you can search the WayBackMachine, but then turn off temporarily allow once you click the result.

The idea is to not let the Javascript from CoinDesk, through archive.org, run. (CoinDesk's Javascript should stay off.) As that will likely prevent reading some articles.

I actually have a lot to say about this topic. But it's a bit like a corollary on the (now-ironic) tagline of The Washington Post: Democracy Dies in Darkness. There is a battle for Democracy, between the light bearers and the light extinguishers. And as it is with all battles, the side with the most power has the least casualties–or rather, retains the ability to either shine or squelch light.

Yes, the overall battle will be lost if all people give up. But the way things are, I don't want to be a casualty https://anntelnaes.substack.com/p/why-im-quitting-the-washington-post

A person didn't die, but a /voice/ did. Or at least it has been muffled via the classic oppression techniques of fragmentation and marginalization. DZM being let go from CoinDesk, I think, is a good example of this. I cannot believe that others did not recognize his opinion articles being the absolute best ones at CoinDesk. When they laid off half the staff at CoinDesk, him included, it suggests (if meritocratic) that he was in the lower half of performers. That doesn't make sense on quality of articles. Nor when adjusting for salary (assuming he was paid more) because one would then have to adjust by value, e.g. a readership metric, which I'm sure would compensate. Because if he wasn't getting readers they wouldn't have given him the Crypto Crooks podcast (which was disastrously underpromoted on the website, as my comments on Discord at the time mentioned).

My only explanation is CoinDesk didn't want to report honestly any more. Or at least not fairly. Reporting β€œCrooks” is not Bullish. Only up-only articles is Bullish.

And, in some cold calculating psychopathic way (i.e. corporate way), depending on your time metric, perhaps reporting fairly on crooks is anti-value. If, like any good conman or grifter, you have an exit strategy, and that exit strategy is sooner than later (usually is), then things like reputation and the overall health of your industry does not matter. Getting out at the top does.

Let's be Bayesian. I don't know the results of this experiment. I know Ian Allison was the guy whose article brought down SBF and got a Pulitzer. I don't know much beyond that. But, presumably, after that article he should have more articles on CoinDesk. I'm sure many whistleblowers suddenly considered him, maybe even contacted him, for other potential stories.

So, let's see how many articles.

https://www.coindesk.com/author/ian-allison

Month year - # articles

Dec 24 - 14

Nov 24 - 10

Oct 24 - 8

Sept 24 - 9

Aug 24 - 6

July 24 - 19

Jun 24 - 14

May 24 - 12

April 24 - 15

Mar 24 - 18

Feb 24 - 12

Jan 24 - 13

Dec 23 - 12

Nov 23 - 22

Oct 23 - 11

Sept 23 - 13

Aug 23 - 9

July 23 - 8

Jun 23 - 20

May 23 - 7

April 23 - 14

Mar 23 - 17

Feb 23 - 11

Jan 23 - 8

Dec 22 - 4

Nov 22 - 8

Oct 22- 10

Sept 22 - 13

Aug 22 - 8

July 22 - 18

Jun 22 - 19

May 22 - 25

Apr 22 - 12

Mar 22 - 15

Feb 22 - 19

Jan 22 - 19

Dec 21 - 24

Nov 21 - 27

Oct 21 - 18

Sept 21 - 24

Aug 21 - 13

July 21 - 24

Jun 21 - 34

May 21 - 21

Apr 21 - 32

Mar 21 - 33

Feb 21 - 29

Jan 21 - 21

Dec 20 - 19

Nev 20 - 14

(stopping here)

So, what do these numbers tell us? For the 2 years until his article in Nov 22, he had double digit reporting months all but one month (where he may have been preparing for the biggest article he'd publish). For the two years after, he had ten times more months that were single digit. 1 vs 10. I'm pretty sure if you actually tally it up, the results would be similar. I did not state it explicitly, but this follows my non-stated hypothesis: That he would actually get less writing published for breaking a landmark, celebrated story that caused the market to become bearish, rather than more.

But two caveats, one it doesn't necessarily back up (though not part of the experiment) that Bullish getting involved caused even less articles by him. Until Bullish got into the picture (conveniently around Nov 2023), he had 7 single digit months. After Bullish, 3 single digit months.

Also, I suspect one needs to also see how many articles CoinDesk reported each of those months. And I can't get that info easily. Because to be fair, there could simply be less reporting in general, because there's less readers, during bearish cycles. And if both crook-highlighting articles and speculating-is-smart-do-it articles are being reduced… Does that really tell us anything? (I'm willing to bet, though, there ratio of crook-highlighting has gone down, I just don't have the time to prove it.)

Either way, regardless of how it might have affected individual reporters over others, the crook-exposers vs the up-onlys: Bringing down SBF made CoinDesk famous--but I think it could also have killed it. First Do Kwon goes down (partly due to DZM reporting), which really hurts 3AC. Then SBF goes down (due to Ian Allison's reporting), causing both 3AC (already hurting) and Gemini Earn to collapse, which ultimately affects DCG (https://medium.com/chainargos/3ac-dcg-amazing-coincidences-c14eec941c06)--which of course owned CoinDesk, leading to Bullish buyout.

All this is separate from what is done later by Bullish and Thiel, who I definitely do not like. I think Thiel has created a cabal that includes [redacted, I am not rich nor powerful enough] (and, I'm willing to bet, through [redacted], Justin Sun, the subject of this article). A cabal I think should be called the Den of Thielves.

I don't think, though, CoinDesk would have died had it not been kicked when it was down. A systematic change that Bullish and ilk are simply a part of. A greater move to kill criticism of a growing oligarchy, to kill journalism in general. To kill democracy through darkness.

Ultimately, if all there is is up-only, pandering, legitimizing articles, interest will wane for crypto. I used to start each day looking at CoinDesk. Now, it's only once in a while, and just so I can load the home page, confirm β€œyup, still sh**,” and find something else to read. And likely not crypto.

But if you don't actually care about crypto. If it's just another con. Go ahead and kick CoinDesk when it's down. Do your exit strategy. Which suggests the name of that exchange should really be Bullsh**.

Expand full comment