Dear Editors of The Economist,
For over 180 years, The Economist has prided itself on its ability to provide clarity in complexity, to explain emerging trends, and to offer insight into the forces shaping the world. Your publication has been a trusted guide to global economics, politics, and technology. Yet, when it comes to Bitcoin—a technological and financial innovation that has already transformed the world—you have repeatedly misunderstood, mocked, and dismissed it.
Why?
This letter is not an attempt to defend Bitcoin. It doesn’t need defending. Fifteen years after its creation, Bitcoin has become the best-performing asset of the past decade, a global network worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and a catalyst for innovation in fields as varied as finance, technology, and human rights. Instead, this is a plea for reflection. The Economist is failing to meet its own standards on this subject, and in doing so, it is failing its readers.
Early Skepticism Was Justifiable
In Bitcoin’s early days, skepticism was warranted. A mysterious, internet-based currency with no central authority seemed like an implausible experiment. Questions about its scalability, security, and use cases were fair and necessary. At the time, it would have been difficult for even the most visionary observers to predict its growth and resilience.
But now? After 15 years?
Bitcoin has survived countless tests. It has weathered market crashes, regulatory crackdowns, and relentless criticism. It has been adopted by millions worldwide, from institutional investors to unbanked individuals in developing nations. It has even been embraced by countries like El Salvador, with others exploring similar moves. Yet The Economist continues to treat Bitcoin as a fringe phenomenon or a speculative bubble, focusing disproportionately on its volatility, its critics, and its supposed limitations.
This refusal to engage seriously with Bitcoin is perplexing and disappointing. It is not the behavior of a publication committed to understanding the future.
What Explains This Continued Failure?
Institutional Bias
One explanation might be institutional bias. Bitcoin is inherently disruptive. It challenges the role of central banks, questions the value of fiat currencies, and reduces the reliance on intermediaries like commercial banks. These are institutions that your publication often defends or at least views as essential pillars of the global economy.
But The Economist has never shied away from covering disruptive ideas before. You’ve explored automation’s impact on jobs, the environmental costs of industrial agriculture, and the power of technology to reshape politics. Why, then, has Bitcoin been singled out for such dismissive treatment?
Ideological Resistance
Perhaps the issue is ideological. Bitcoin represents decentralization, individual sovereignty, and the democratization of finance—ideas that clash with the top-down, institution-centric worldview that has historically informed much of your coverage.
But The Economist has also embraced libertarian ideas in the past, championing free markets and individual choice. Bitcoin is, in many ways, the embodiment of these principles. If anything, it should align with your values of challenging monopolistic power and fostering innovation.
Lack of Understanding
Another possibility is that your writers and editors simply do not understand Bitcoin. To be fair, it is a complex topic. It combines cryptography, computer science, game theory, and economics in ways that are difficult to grasp without interdisciplinary expertise.
But this lack of understanding is not an excuse. The Economist has the resources to hire experts, to commission in-depth research, and to educate its audience on complex topics. You’ve done it for artificial intelligence, climate change, and other nuanced subjects. Why not Bitcoin?
Or Is It Pride?
Here’s a harder possibility to consider: perhaps your publication has simply been wrong about Bitcoin for so long that admitting its significance now feels like an embarrassment. Over the years, you’ve called Bitcoin a bubble, a Ponzi scheme, and a failure. You’ve predicted its demise time and time again.
But isn’t the willingness to admit mistakes and learn from them a hallmark of intellectual integrity? By refusing to reassess your position on Bitcoin, you risk losing credibility—not just on this topic, but on the broader issues of innovation and finance that you claim to cover with authority.
The Cost of This Failure
The cost of your failure to engage seriously with Bitcoin is not just to your reputation—it is to your readers. Millions of people turn to The Economist for insight and understanding. By dismissing Bitcoin, you have deprived them of the opportunity to grasp one of the most significant technological and financial innovations of our time.
Bitcoin is not just an asset. It is a new paradigm for money, a tool for financial inclusion, and a hedge against the vulnerabilities of centralized systems. It is being used by people in hyperinflationary economies to preserve wealth, by dissidents to evade authoritarian regimes, and by ordinary people to transact in a more open and transparent way.
Shouldn’t your readers know this?
A Call for Change
It’s not too late for The Economist to change its approach. Bitcoin is still evolving, and its implications are still unfolding. But engaging with it seriously requires a willingness to set aside preconceived notions, to hire writers who understand it, and to cover it with the same rigor and curiosity you bring to other topics.
Bitcoin is not perfect. It has limitations, risks, and unanswered questions. But it is important. By continuing to dismiss it, The Economist risks becoming a relic of the past—an institution unwilling to adapt to a rapidly changing world.
So I ask again: why? Why, after 15 years, do you still misunderstand Bitcoin? Why have you failed to see its significance? And why have you failed your readers on this issue?
Sincerely,
A Reader Who Expects More
Explore More:
Leave a Reply