who are the real villains?

Just read the newspapers: Bitcoin and 'crypto' are just for criminals, right?

Wrong. Those who create this narrative are the real villains.

Let's dig into the first half of this piece in the Financial Times (27th April 2023) by way of example.

(Note: I'm no crypto apologist, but the mask above clearly refers to Bitcoin. Also, in MSM-speak "crypto"  = "Bitcoin + other stuff")

Note the premise created right at the beginning of the article. 

"One of the (many) times I have been heckled during a panel on crypto was when I argued that it shouldn’t be thought of as money. The only reason to use it other than for speculation, I said, was to buy drugs on the internet." 

This, together with the headline and the illustration, sets up the journalist as a brave warrior in a just war against people who are all criminals, speculators or drug users. 

This could not be more false. I for one have paid for lots of things with Bitcoin, none of them criminal or speculative. As we will see below, almost 100% of such transactions are legitimate. 

The article goes on to allege that "Binance’s former chief compliance officer said of certain Binance customers: 'Like come on. They are here for crime'". 

Bang to rights now, surely? Well, no. Note the weasel word: only "certain" customers. Whether this is almost all of them or less than one in a million is not made clear. What is clear is that an uncritical reader by now thinks that 'crypto' is nothing but criminality. 

This false impression needs backing up with numbers, and so the article goes on to provide some. 

"Last year was... a record year for crypto-based crime: illicit crypto transactions topped $20bn in 2022, according to data analytics firm Chainalysis, up from $18bn the previous year". 

This sounds an awful lot doesn't it, "topped $20bn"? That must be most crypto transactions surely? Well, no. The numbers are plucked from a February 2023 report which explains that  $20bn is 0.24% of transactions by volume, and that "crime as a share of all crypto activity is still trending downwards". Strange this didn't find its way into the FT's piece. 

But $20bn though? That's still a lot of crime isn't it? Well, again, no. According to the International Compliance Association, financial crime accounts "for a shocking 3.6% of global GDP", or around $3.6 trillion. In this context, Bitcoin and 'crypto' transactions look a lot cleaner than conventional ones. They also seem to account for only a fraction of one percent of global crime, with almost 100% of criminality using longer established means. Strangely, neither of those means - cash and the  traditional finance system - are criticised in the FT. 

And so the article creeps on, poisoning its public. 

I'm not pretending there are no 'crypto' criminals. Aside from Bitcoin, I think most 'cryptos' are scams. 

But even half way through this article, it's easy to see how mainstream journalists skilfully use false premises, weasel words and uncontextualized numbers to create misleading narratives.