Fortune Publishes their Most Disgusting Bitcoin Article Yet. Here’s Why.

Just when you thought Fortune couldn’t sink any lower with their Bitcoin slander, the publication tries to relate a neutral technology to “the alt-right” and “white supremacists.” Is this what journalism has devolved into? Unfortunately, in the case of Fortune, the answer is yes. This is not the first time they have used their publication as a weapon. They’ve tried to slander Bitcoin numerous times before, and there’s a concrete reason for that.

Related Reading | Bitcoin And Crypto Adoption Soars 880% In 2021, This Is What’s Driving It

Before we get into that, let’s make one thing clear: Bitcoin is for everyone. That includes your enemies and the people you consider more dangerous and disgusting. In turn, that guarantees that the people who in your opinion are doing the most courageous and dangerous work can use it too. 

One of the many Bitcoin value propositions is that it’s anti-censorship money. To be able to achieve that, it’s totally transparent, all the transactions are out in the open in a public and immutable ledger. That is a first in human history. And most of the information in Fortune’s disgusting and propagandistic article, Chainalysis took it from that very same ledger. Even with that obvious fact written all over the piece, the authors try to frame it like Bitcoin is the problem here.

It’s the other way around, the authors and their lack of journalistic ethics are the problem. When someone writes a hit piece to benefit the other businesses of the owner of the publication, the whole world loses. And it makes all journalists look bad.

What Does The Fortune Article Actually Say?

In general, they try to associate the Bitcoin name with the worst actors in society. To do that, the authors mention that those members of “the far right” and “white supremacists” use Bitcoin and have benefited from the increases in price. And then proceed to write about their actions and print the most disgusting quotes you’ll find in a Bitcoin article. You’ll have to go there to get a full picture, Bitcoinist wouldn’t publish anything like that. We will, however, quote and refute the few instances they actually talk about Bitcoin.

The article’s central character is Andrew Anglin, founder of some extremely racist publication.

“Anglin is just one very public example of how radical right provocateurs are raising significant amounts of money from around the world through cryptocurrencies. Banned by traditional financial institutions, they have taken refuge in digital currencies, which they are using in ever more secretive ways to avoid the oversight of banks, regulators and courts.”

Unless Anglin lives in El Salvador, he still needs to exchange those donations into fiat currency. Is he still using banks and legacy services to do that? Could this be an admittance that KYC and AML policies are not a problem for bad actors and only affect law-abiding citizens? It sounds like those “banks, regulators and courts” are not doing their job right.   

Fortune basically admits this, they say that Anglin “owes more than $18 million in legal judgments in the United States to people whom he and his followers harassed and threatened.” However, “He has no obvious bank accounts or real estate holdings in the U.S.,” so they haven’t been able to seize his fortune. Is this Bitcoin’s fault? No. Bitcoin doesn’t care. Anglin’s Bitcoin address is public and obvious, and the source for this article.

How Do The Authors Relate Bitcoin To Bad Actors?

“In his “Retard’s Guide to Using Bitcoin,” published in April 2020, he claimed to have funded the Daily Stormer exclusively through Bitcoin for four years.
“I’ve got money now. I’ve got money to pay for the site for the foreseeable future.”

Again, Bitcoin doesn’t care about this. And these kinds of publications existed way before Bitcoin, how did they fund them then? The fact that Anglin is using a new technology that’s available for every single person on the planet doesn’t mean much. Does he also use e-mail? The Internet, maybe? He’s probably also using shoes. Are shoes a problem?

“Richard Spencer, an American white supremacist, has dubbed Bitcoin the “currency of the alt-right.”

So what? Are we taking what American white supremacists say seriously now? Bitcoin is for everyone. Especially for all the people Richard Spencer probably hates.

“What is clear is that early adopters of Bitcoin, like Anglin, have profited handsomely from its increase in value over the years. Bitcoin prices are notoriously volatile. Since April, the currency has shed a third of its value against the U.S. dollar, then took a further drubbing last week when China declared cryptocurrency transactions illegal.”

Wait, what? Why would they bring up the recent downturn of the market if they’re trying to make the point that Anglin “profited handsomely?” Isn’t Fortune contradicting itself here? Yes, the authors are contradicting themselves. It doesn’t matter, though, because this is a hit piece and this paragraph alone proves it.

BTCUSD price chart for 09/30/2021 - TradingView

BTC price chart for 09/30/2021 on Timex | Source: BTC/USD on

Chainalysis Enters The Picture

“Chainalysis collected data for a sample of 12 far-right entities in the U.S. and Europe that publicly called for Bitcoin donations and showed significant activity. Together, they took in 213 Bitcoin — worth more than $9 million at today’s value — between January 2017 and April 2021.”

First of all, Fortune knows this because of Bitcoin’s transparency. The law knows this and they can do something about it. Second, all those organizations still need to exchange that Bitcoin into fiat currencies. How are they doing it? Why aren’t the authorities stopping them?

Then, Fortune changes its tune and says that those organizations are now using Monero. However, since it’s Bitcoin they’re trying to smear, the authors quickly bring it back and relate a story of a wealthy donor that, upon his death, left all his Bitcoin to some of those extreme organizations.

“Bachelier’s money slipped quietly into the U.S., not triggering alerts it might have had it landed via traditional banking channels. That’s because much of it — notably the Bitcoin donation to Fuentes, then worth $250,000 — passed through accounts that were not hosted by regulated cryptocurrency exchanges, according to Chainalysis.”

Maybe so, but they still need to exchange it into fiat. Then Fortune tries to change the subject, saying “cryptocurrency wallets can also be “unhosted,” which means that users themselves control access.” Maybe so, but all those transactions are still visible in the blockchain. Forever. In fact, that’s the only reason Fortune knows about “Bachelier’s money.” And, they still need to exchange it into fiat. 

Look, you get the point. We’re running in circles here. Let’s cut to the chase and reveal the reason for this article and all of the many other Bitcoin hit pieces Fortune has published.

Why Is Fortune Trying To Slander Bitcoin In Such An Obvious Way?

To avoid Bitcoinist’s biases, let’s quote Yahoo! Finance:

“A financial technology startup co-founded by the owner of Fortune magazine plans to widen the reach of its Southeast Asian remittance platform through acquisitions.
Lightnet, which describes its blockchain-based service as quicker and cheaper compared with traditional banks”

Yeah, it might be “quicker and cheaper compared with traditional banks,” but not compared to the Lightning Network’s almost free, instant transactions. Bitcoin is a direct competitor of Lightnet. A superior competitor. What does this “owner of Fortune magazine” have left but leave all ethics behind and use his publication as a weapon?

Related Reading | Man Who Dumped Hard Drive Containing $381M BTC Gets Hedge Fund Backing To Recover Hard Drive

“Bangkok-based Lightnet is initially targeting millions of underbanked migrant workers in Southeast Asia, a remittance market it estimates at $150 billion.”

We already know what El Salvador’s Bitcoin law will do to Western Union and the likes, can Lightnet compete with the Lightning Network and now even Twitter? Probably not. And that’s the reason Fortune is sinking this low.

Featured Image by Elena Koycheva on Unsplash - Charts by TradingView