11 years ago, Bloomberg calls Bitcoin soon to be extinct

[pooya87]

It would help if we also look at the price charts to a get a better understanding of the market sentiment at the time certain things are said.

For example this opinion (which is more of an FUD) is published right after bitcoin has one of its most iconic bubbles in its short history back in 2013 after reaching $1100+ for the first time. When that bubble pops and the bull run that was also one of the biggest bull runs in bitcoin history comes to an end, and the bear market starts obviously the FUDs accompany that bear market. Therefore this FUD is published on a popular American outlets to create panic sell and help the shorters make a better profit...

The cross on the chart is on the exact date this FUD was published:


BTW this is one of the many reasons why we say real journalism is dead... and mainstream media is a sewage for nonsense like this article...

[AprilioMP]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-12-31/bitcoin-is-a-high-tech-dinosaur-soon-to-be-extinct

Perhaps even back then, and to now, media they have been writing off Bitcoin, not just Bloomberg but like Forbes.
But for sure we wouldn't mind, as some of us is quietly accumulating Bitcoin throughout the years so who gives a f**k about this news media.
Or better yet, we should understand where they are coming from as they are into Gold and other other assets.

Those of us who know Bitcoin with all its potential, news that Bitcoin will be extinct or other news that corners Bitcoin, we must ignore and we must secretly try to get more Bitcoin as we want.

January 1, 2014 to January 3, 2024 has a gap of 10 years. If this news is re-uploaded, it will make people get their own assessment of Bitcoin's performance. This news from Bloomberg is proof.
For me, this is very positive if they are willing to read and assess Bitcoin. Something that is good in our opinion does not need to be responded to excessively.

[betswift]

They didn’t just underestimate Bitcoin but the broader crypto revolution. They were probably hesitant back then because they were biased toward traditional assets or whatever was in their portfolio. But for us who’ve been quietly accumulating all these years, that’s just noise. Every time they write off Bitcoin it’s another buying opportunity for us. They’ll catch up eventually or maybe not. Either way we’re here for the long game.

With every year passing by, more and more people see through this fud from big establishments. And the best thing if they go and learn about Bitcoin.
And try things their way.

[NotATether]

That is ridiculous they would even entertain the prospect of it going extinct, because back then it had just started. For comparison, this is like saying the internet would go extinct back in 1995 (Oh yeah, some person wrote about that too. Look how that went for them).

When we use the word extinct we are supposed to be talking about incumbents or at least tech that's been around for a long time. Not new, emerging tech.

[kotajikikox]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-12-31/bitcoin-is-a-high-tech-dinosaur-soon-to-be-extinct
But for sure we wouldn't mind, as some of us is quietly accumulating Bitcoin throughout the years so who gives a f**k about this news media.

If you truly do not care, you would not post about it anymore lol

This is why a lot of news media use bitcoin on their headlines whether they talk about bitcoin positively or negatively they know that it will generate attention and for every click on their article they get paid. So, if you do not take importance of a news media's opinion on bitcoin just scroll and ignore.

Or better yet, we should understand where they are coming from as they are into Gold and other other assets.

If you are still looking for different kinds of assets to invest in then it would make sense if you were to read this kind of articles and seriously consider their opinion but I am already confident with bitcoin and I have enough knowledge to not refer to their article anymore.

[hero_the_bossman]

-snip-

BTW this is one of the many reasons why we say real journalism is dead... and mainstream media is a sewage for nonsense like this article...

Today it's even more like it, sometimes people look at bullish / bearish threads or posts on X than on articles like that, which is even more ridiculous.
 

[Antotena]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-12-31/bitcoin-is-a-high-tech-dinosaur-soon-to-be-extinct

Perhaps even back then, and to now, media they have been writing off Bitcoin, not just Bloomberg but like Forbes.
But for sure we wouldn't mind, as some of us is quietly accumulating Bitcoin throughout the years so who gives a f**k about this news media.
Or better yet, we should understand where they are coming from as they are into Gold and other other assets.

Bloomberg is just one of the media platforms many people consider it to be one of the best news outlets and it wouldn't be surprising when you investigate the Genesis of that story, it will end up as sponsor post by some hooligans that just don't like Bitcoin and they were trying to do anything that is going to make Bitcoin not gain traction but they can't hate what everyone loves, there is adoption and the institutional investors all want to have a test now.

The editor that work on this news, don't be caught surprised if that man/woman now owns Bitcoin, they be their own medicine or perhaps when that article was written, it was done to encourage people to sell their Bitcoin so the people with money can buy the coins cheap and the after change the topic, you never can trust this news outlet you know especially with the things we have seen main stram media are doing.

[BlackHatCoiner]

It's important to consider the optics and the circumstances surrounding Bitcoin at that juncture.

It is important to acknowledge that only a tiny minority had connected the dots back then, concluded that it's extremely important for society to have, and that it'd be completely strange for anyone involved in finance back then, but how much can we justify those people? In the end, all these "financial experts" were talking with an air of superiority about a thing they didn't understand in the slightest. All this negativity and FUD turned out to be an extremely expensive mistake for them, and anyone who listened them.

[Orpichukwu]

Bloomberg and other media platforms have been this way over the years. It's not their fault if you ask me. From the beginning, a lot of them were all after what the rice is after, and they write what the people want to read. They never knew bitcoin would get to the height it has gotten to now, so they tend to criticise it with the platform they have while they indirectly protect the asset they might hold (which is gold).

[finaleshot2016]

Well. it's a mainstream media, I don't really believe what news they're telling especially if its opinion based, no facts really delivered.

Everyone is like that in the past, saying that BTC isn't the future, they're all against the new innovation but here we are in this era, they ate what they said and riding the current trend. I think we people who believe at the start are the key factor of making other people believe in bitcoin too. Now here we are, targeting for a global adaptation and giving it more potential for growth. Bitcoin is power!

[Z-tight]

It is good to see things like this from the past, you begin to truly appreciate the BTC technology, there's been so much fud like this down the years, but in the long run most of them were provably wrong. You can talk about the market sentiments at that time, but to suggest that it will go extinct shows that the media didn't do their research properly nor did they truly understand BTC, because if they did, it is hard to say that something like BTC will go extinct.

[ranochigo]

It is important to acknowledge that only a tiny minority had connected the dots back then, concluded that it's extremely important for society to have, and that it'd be completely strange for anyone involved in finance back then, but how much can we justify those people? In the end, all these "financial experts" were talking with an air of superiority about a thing they didn't understand in the slightest. All this negativity and FUD turned out to be an extremely expensive mistake for them, and anyone who listened them.

Well, back at the time, China just banned Bitcoin, MtGox's collapse was impending and governments around the world were starting to take a closer look at Bitcoin. With the context that governments are usually hostile towards Bitcoin, wouldn't it be a fair assessment for them? After all, everyone is used to stocks, commodities which has a solid backing and proven track record. These articles are a dime a dozen, and there is a fair share that hails Bitcoin as the currency of the future as well.

It's easy to criticize the past, which was 13 years ago. The world was an entirely different place back then. Had governments taken a less embracing stance towards Bitcoin, or had Tesla not adopted Bitcoin, Bitcoin would've been entirely different. I was a Bitcoin maximalist back then, and still is but I doubt most of the people who are bullish about Bitcoin today, or in this thread would put the money where their mouths is.

[MusaMohamed]

Well, back at the time, China just banned Bitcoin, MtGox's collapse was impending and governments around the world were starting to take a closer look at Bitcoin. With the context that governments are usually hostile towards Bitcoin, wouldn't it be a fair assessment for them? After all, everyone is used to stocks, commodities which has a solid backing and proven track record. These articles are a dime a dozen, and there is a fair share that hails Bitcoin as the currency of the future as well.

The world, technology, society operation, government regulation now are very different than 13 years ago or longer since Bitcoin genesis block in January 2009. People had to take higher risk with Bitcoin in 2009 and some years after that but less pressure on big capital spent in these past years.

In regulations, in the past it was like a free land for everyone to join, with no or lack of attention and regulation from governments. In 2024 and recent years, more regulations and people have less freedom in this industry and market.

It's easy to criticize the past, which was 13 years ago. The world was an entirely different place back then. Had governments taken a less embracing stance towards Bitcoin, or had Tesla not adopted Bitcoin, Bitcoin would've been entirely different. I was a Bitcoin maximalist back then, and still is but I doubt most of the people who are bullish about Bitcoin today, or in this thread would put the money where their mouths is.

They thought Bitcoin will easily die and disappear with time, so they nearly did no regulation on it. Now after more than a decade, they realized that Bitcoin won't die and they have to chance their regulatory stance from no regulation to as many regulations as possible.

The world changed, governments changed and there are more legal and regulatory barriers in 2024 than some years ago.

[BlackHatCoiner]

For comparison, this is like saying the internet would go extinct back in 1995 (Oh yeah, some person wrote about that too. Look how that went for them).

Not just any person. A Keynesian economist! Oh yes, they're hitting one prediction after the other. 

Well, back at the time, China just banned Bitcoin, MtGox's collapse was impending and governments around the world were starting to take a closer look at Bitcoin. With the context that governments are usually hostile towards Bitcoin, wouldn't it be a fair assessment for them?

No, it wouldn't. Governments have been hostile to bitcoin since very recently, and one could argue they still are hostile, strategic reserves asides. Would you consider bitcoin a "risky" asset to put your money in the last few years? Certain factors are beyond control, and it takes only average intelligence to recognize that bitcoin is the most scarce asset on the planet, likely to continue appreciating indefinitely.

What it does require, though, is the humility and dignity to admit that one cannot fully understand everything about a system as complex as the economy. Such matters may demand deeper consideration before arrogantly drawing conclusions.

[ranochigo]

No, it wouldn't. Governments have been hostile to bitcoin since very recently, and one could argue they still are hostile, strategic reserves asides.

I don't agree. Governments are taking a more balanced view towards Bitcoin, and that's precisely cryptos backed securities exist, El Salvador being an active adopter, countries like Singapore giving crypto firms a permit to operate. Back then, it was quite a grey area and SEC was going after Bitcoin linked exchanges. As compared to then, Bitcoin is in a far better state now.

Would you consider bitcoin a "risky" asset to put your money in the last few years? Certain factors are beyond control, and it takes only average intelligence to recognize that bitcoin is the most scarce asset on the planet, likely to continue appreciating indefinitely.

Unfortunately, yes. Bitcoin is still speculative by nature and arguably still unregulated in the trading sphere. Market manipulation, for the lack of a better word are still rampant (ie. Elon Musk's random endorsements, government policies, etc.) and any change in the narratives can shift the prices significantly. It's pretty commonly accepted that Bitcoin, or cryptos in general are considered speculative and thus risky investments.

I find scarcity a weaker argument when considering the true value of Bitcoin. Scarcity implies demand (and limited supply, which is true), and scarcity is often a key theme in economics because of the balance between needs and wants. At a time when Bitcoin was facing harsh scrutiny and scandals in 2013, the future wasn't as certain as it seemed.

What it does require, though, is the humility and dignity to admit that one cannot fully understand everything about a system as complex as the economy. Such matters may demand deeper consideration before arrogantly drawing conclusions.

I agree, but crypto is hardly a well-studied area especially with the way that it was influencing the economy. In 2013, when Bitcoin was only in its existence for roughly 4 years. You can hardly fault economists for taking a more prudent approach when considering it.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I find scarcity a weaker argument when considering the true value of Bitcoin.

The "true" value of bitcoin, at least as I understand it, is that it possesses the properties that make it the best money, in terms of being the most difficult to create more of. This quality has historically defined the universal store of value. Indeed, it remains subject of speculation, but economic reality consistently demonstrates, year after year, that this very characteristic plays a significant role in shaping its long-term market value.

At a time when Bitcoin was facing harsh scrutiny and scandals in 2013, the future wasn't as certain as it seemed.

I just want to point out that, until recently, the same group of people continued to spread noisy FUD, right up until governments began embracing it. This speaks volumes about their mindset when it comes to economic matters.

[ranochigo]

The "true" value of bitcoin, at least as I understand it, is that it possesses the properties that make it the best money, in terms of being the most difficult to create more of. This quality has historically defined the universal store of value. Indeed, it remains subject of speculation, but economic reality consistently demonstrates, year after year, that this very characteristic plays a significant role in shaping its long-term market value.

I think of Bitcoin to be quite similar to gold. Gold has constant demand, either as a symbol of status, or as a key manufacturing material. The demand coupled with the scarcity in the supply is what gives it a value. Else, gold would be absolutely worthless. Same goes for any other precious metal, as well as Bitcoin.

Also, fair to point out that Bitcoin hasn't gained enough traction for it to be the "best" money. There are tons of pros, and also cons but I would probably call it as an alternative currency, though probably not for the masses.

I just want to point out that, until recently, the same group of people continued to spread noisy FUD, right up until governments began embracing it. This speaks volumes about their mindset when it comes to economic matters.

Generally lesser, to my knowledge. I'm more inclined to think that their position are better, and equally prudent for at least the economists that I'm aware of. I don't think economists would ever call Bitcoin an excellent investment, until their volatility drops and we achieve significant adoption among the population together with the utility. Anyways, I don't think these really matters because their whole intention is to be as controversial as possible, to generate clicks. Most economists of today, would give you a more nuanced view, and they probably will not say anything as extreme as the thread.

Until then, you're probably going to see article like these, because they generate clicks and threads like these.

[Felicity_Tide]

~snip

But all the same, it's what it is, like I would always say, it is impossible for each and every one of us to believe in bitcoin at the same time, even if we all hear and or read information about it the same time, it is impossible for us all to believe in it at the same time as result of our differences in psychology and mindset, humans think and treat matters differently, so, I am not surprised and won't be if even today, some people still refer to bitcoin as a scam.

You've just said it all. I've always believed that for every new thing that comes into existence, there will always be some form of opposition, while others will support with fear because they aren't even certain of the future.

Just imagine as at that time in 2014, when the world isn't as sophisticated with technology compared to now, there was no way everyone then would believe everything they see. The Internet for example also had lots of opposition because it was something that had never existed before, then why should Bitcoin be different in anyway. To me, having such technology as at that time is like having a phone in the 70s. Just like the internet, Bitcoin was also a technology that had never been seen before, so there ought to be some scepticism.

Well, that aside, because that's someone's mistake of the past. But I still feel sorry for those who still thinks that Bitcoin will only stay for a while. A while as literally turned to 2 decades, and still counting, but ignorance and self doubt won't let them admit the truth. It's their loss at the end of the day.

[shield132]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-12-31/bitcoin-is-a-high-tech-dinosaur-soon-to-be-extinct

Perhaps even back then, and to now, media they have been writing off Bitcoin, not just Bloomberg but like Forbes.
But for sure we wouldn't mind, as some of us is quietly accumulating Bitcoin throughout the years so who gives a f**k about this news media.
Or better yet, we should understand where they are coming from as they are into Gold and other other assets.

At university, I had one subject that focused on studying the story of informational technologies. Surprisingly, people in the 90s thought that computers, computer games and the internet weren't innovations and that businesses would fail but today, in the 21st century, computers are only taking over the world. Computer video games is one of the biggest industries in the world and the richest companies, besides oil companies, are based on the internet and computers. My conclusion is that people are always sceptical of new thing and always try to find negativity instead of positivity because people don't like changes. I'm a UI/UX designer and people often find it negative when we make visual changes but over time, they like new changes.

I also remember the time when some people in 2016 were writing that Bitcoin would reach 10K or 20K USD but the majority of us were calling them insane and I'm glad we were wrong.
Btw the author of this article is Stephen Mihm, who is also the author of "Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance". So guys don't ever take that crash course because he doesn't seem to be good in the future of finances.

[Richbased]

Why am i having this feeling that most of those bitcoin critics actually knew about the future of bitcoin but they were either afraid of the sad reality that it gonno conquer our monetary system or they were literally trying to deceive others not to invest in it while most of them are secretly holding a sizable amount of bitcoin that the public are not aware of. Sometimes, i used to ask myself why did bitcoin had so much haters and naysayers in the past more than any other cryptocurrency?