I usually don't call articles in the media FUD that easily. But this time it seems definitively that there is a conflict of interest. Or simply we are in front of a piece of
s... *cough* bad journalism.
Take this sentence:
Bitcoin slipped to its lowest level so far this year Thursday, and has declined 50 percent since the beginning of the year.
This is wrong; Bitcoin's price was even lower in January when it even broke the $6000 level for a short time.
Karpeles' opinion is a bit strange: If he says that the technology is here "to stay", why does he sound then "pessimistic for cryptocurrencies in general"? Or is the second sentence a (speculative) interpretation of his sayings by the Fortune journalists?