Interview: Eric, Techub News
Compiled by: J1N, Techub News
The bubble in the financial market is not accidental, but the intersection of technological innovation, capital promotion, human greed and lagging regulation. Cryptocurrency, AI, and the Internet, the development paths of these industries are surprisingly similar: new technologies bring imagination, capital fuels the flames, information asymmetry creates arbitrage opportunities, and lagging regulation allows the market frenzy to continue.
Technology itself is not a bubble, but the market's overpricing of technology often creates irrational prosperity. Bubbles may last for five years, ten years or even longer, and geopolitics and capital games make the market even more unpredictable. But history tells us that everything will eventually return to rationality.
In such a cycle, individual sobriety and choice are particularly important. "Everyone is drunk but I am sober" does not always bring the best results. The irrationality of the market can often last beyond the patience of most people. Understanding the laws of the market and recognizing the bubble cycle are the keys to staying rational and avoiding being swept away in the era of frenzy.
Last December, the Financial Times published an ironic article in Alphaville, a column that criticizes current affairs. Against the backdrop of Bitcoin breaking through $100,000, the article "apologized" for its long-standing comments that the Crypto market was full of fraud and manipulation. This also aroused the author's curiosity. How do traditional financial markets and leading financial media view Crypto? Over the years, have their impressions of Crypto changed?
In this regard, we interviewed Mr. Wang Feng, the editor-in-chief of the Financial Times Chinese website, to see what "shape" Crypto is in his eyes:
Techub News: What kind of channel is Alphaville of Financial Times ? I took a look at it before and found that the content is very direct and critical. Why was this channel established? Why is the writing style so bold?
Wang Feng : This is one of the many columns of the FT. As far as I remember, its author is not a full-time reporter or editor of the FT. There are two types of columns in the FT: one is written by full-time employees of the FT, and the other is contributed by external professionals. Alphaville belongs to the latter, and its authors are usually professionals in the financial field who have a regular contribution relationship with the FT. This is a column operated by a team, not by a single author.
The writing style of Alphaville is different from other columns of the FT. Other columns of the FT are more formal, following the format of news analysis or commentary, and they maintain a certain objectivity whether in the first person or the third person. Alphaville is more like a blog, citing a lot of analysis reports and company annual reports of the financial industry, and making direct comments. The language style is more casual and free, close to colloquialism, and sometimes the opinions expressed are direct, abrupt, and even have a certain humor or irony.
When we translate this type of article, we also find that the style is rather special and sometimes we will not use its content. Nevertheless, its topics closely follow market trends and are written by industry professionals, which can quickly provide industry insider analysis, so it is more popular among investors. The focus of the column is on the market and investment. "Alpha" stands for Absolute Return. As can be seen from the name of the column, its core purpose is to provide guidance for investment.
Techub News: You mentioned earlier that Alphaville 's views do not represent the official position of the Financial Times. Take the article about Bitcoin breaking through $100,000 as an example. They published a sarcastic "apology" article. Since the article can be published on the FT website, does it mean that it has been reviewed? Or can Alphaville's content be published freely?
Wang Feng : The final decision on whether to publish an article is made by the FT editor. Although the author may not be an FT employee, there is a certain amount of communication between the writer and the editor. The topic may be discussed with the editor first, or the writer may submit it directly after completing it. The editor will ultimately decide whether to publish it.
As for whether it represents the overall position of the FT, this is a complex question. In Western media, columns, comments, and analytical articles are usually not considered to represent the views of the entire newspaper. Newspapers, websites, blogs, and other multimedia content are generally intended to provide readers with diverse information rather than convey a single position.
Only in rare cases, such as during the presidential election in the United States, when a newspaper publicly endorses a candidate, will the newspaper speak out in an official capacity. But in most cases, especially in the United Kingdom, editors do not think too much about whether a particular column represents the position of the entire newspaper.
The FT does not express its position with a single voice, but provides a large amount of information, comments, speech analysis and data to serve readers as a whole. In the media, editorials are the official position of a newspaper. Different newspapers may have different naming methods, such as "Leader" or other special names.
Editorials are usually written by the "Editorial Board". Such articles must be approved by the editor-in-chief, especially when they involve important topics, and are often discussed and reviewed by the team. Therefore, editorials can be considered as content that officially represents the media's position.
However, the FT and many other media have columns and commentaries, which may be written by internal journalists or contributed by external sources. It cannot be expected that the analysis and opinions in each column represent the overall position of the newspaper. In most cases, the media do not want to maintain a single voice on all issues. The main responsibility of the media is to provide objective reports, facts and data, and the expression of opinions is only a secondary function.
Especially in the Western media environment, unless encountering major political issues, such as the US presidential election, newspapers may publicly support a candidate, otherwise they usually do not express their views from a unified position. Most of the time, it is not meaningful to discuss whether an article represents the position of the newspaper, because the task of the media is to provide information, not to lead public opinion.
In addition, most reporters and editors are not industry experts. Their job is to find real insider experts and organize and share the information with readers.
Techub News: The ironic article published by Alphaville mentioned at the end that their criticism is not only directed at Bitcoin, but also applies to traditional finance. This shows that they are not simply against cryptocurrency, but are critical of the financial industry as a whole . Why would a financial media outlet make such a statement?
Wang Feng : Alphaville’s style has always been like this. If they see unfairness, information asymmetry or other unfair behaviors in the market, they will criticize it directly. Whether it is cryptocurrency or traditional finance, if they find monopoly, information opacity or the use of information asymmetry to seek improper benefits, they will expose it.
Many senior FT journalists and editors are skeptical and critical of market phenomena. After observing the traditional financial market for a long time, they believe that there are many cases of profiting from information opacity, which is the core profit model of the financial industry. Therefore, they are vigilant about industry chaos and tend to expose potential unreasonable phenomena.
From the perspective of the value system, they will evaluate whether the profits of financial institutions match the efforts and judge their rationality. Therefore, the traditional financial industry has made them "uncomfortable" with many things, and cryptocurrencies have more problems in their eyes, such as information opacity, unfairness, and even suspicion of fraud. Therefore, Alphaville's criticism of the crypto market is even more intense.
However, readers familiar with this column can generally understand its style. They criticize any unfair market behavior, not simply targeting a specific industry or product, but hoping to improve the information transparency in the market to some extent.
Techub News: From your and FT Chinese perspective, what do you think of cryptocurrency?
Wang Feng : We have produced a lot of relevant content in recent years, and we have also paid attention to the reports of the English version of FT in the field of cryptocurrency. FT currently has a special virtual asset and cryptocurrency channel on its website, which updates multiple articles every day, mainly translated from the English version, and also has some original reports and third-party columns.
The attitude of the English version of FT is: Cryptocurrency is a market that must be paid attention to because it objectively exists and a large number of transactions occur. As long as there are markets and investors, there is a reason to report on it. Although columns such as Alphaville are deeply skeptical and critical of the opacity, information asymmetry, and even suspected fraud of the crypto market, as a media, FT still has to report on this market to meet the needs of readers and provide fair information.
The reporting direction of FT Chinese is basically consistent with that of FT English. The Chinese-speaking community plays an important role in the field of cryptocurrency and Web3, and once occupied half of the industry, so we have more reason to follow up on related reports. In recent years, we have adopted a "cautious but necessary to follow up" attitude towards this field, hoping to provide diverse perspectives, but will not express too much of the editor's personal opinions.
Our reporting style is mainly objective news, rather than driven by personal opinions. For example, when we interview industry analysts, entrepreneurs, and industry leaders, we try to show different perspectives rather than guide readers to form a specific point of view. Because this market is extremely risky, full of interests and temptations, we are very cautious and avoid expressing subjective opinions casually, so as not to be proven to be inaccurate or one-sided in the future.
Although most of our content is still translated from English, due to the active Web3 entrepreneurial ecosystem in the Chinese-speaking world, we also have independent information sources, and sometimes we can grasp industry trends faster than the English FT. For example, our interviews and reports can present the encryption trends in Asian markets such as Hong Kong and Singapore, while also focusing on emerging markets such as Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
My personal opinion does not represent that of any person or organization. From my exposure and coverage over the years, I believe that cryptocurrency does have potential from a technical perspective, especially when it is combined with Web3 and AI, it may become the outbreak point of the next Internet revolution. This technology itself has its value, especially in the fields of blockchain decentralization, smart contracts, data security, etc.
But at the same time, the cryptocurrency market is opaque, with imperfect supervision, and there is a lot of speculation, manipulation, and even fraud, which is why the media, regulators, and the traditional financial industry are cautious about it. The traditional financial industry has long relied on information asymmetry to make profits, and the problems in the crypto market are even more serious, with lower transparency and easy to form bubbles. Therefore, many senior journalists and market observers are skeptical about cryptocurrencies and are willing to expose the chaos in them.
In the past few years, the Hong Kong government has vigorously supported the Web3 and cryptocurrency industries, while emphasizing regulated and orderly development. Hong Kong and Singapore have become the two core markets for virtual assets in Asia, and their respective policies and market trends are also competing. Our reports will focus on the development of these regions, while expanding to emerging markets such as Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
Techub News: What do you think of the current state of the cryptocurrency market?
Wang Feng: From a technical perspective, blockchain and its related technologies have great potential, especially when these technologies are combined together, they can promote the development of new technologies. There are indeed many professionals working on research and development, which is worth paying attention to.
But on the other hand, there are too many temptations in the market, and the profit-making methods are too crude and wild, even beyond the traditional financial industry. From the leaders of the free world to bold and innovative entrepreneurs, many people can create huge wealth in a very short period of time. This phenomenon has led to extreme impetuousness in the market, especially for ordinary investors. Most people do not pay attention to the underlying technological innovation, but think about how to "make quick money" or cut leeks.
Trump's coin issuance has further strengthened the market atmosphere of "issuing coins is reasonable, cutting leeks is not a crime". His behavior has provided unprecedented endorsement for this market logic, making the market further lose its normativeness. As a traditional media reporter, I remain vigilant to this phenomenon.
But from a news perspective, unexpected things happen every day in this industry, which is always full of hot topics and keeps journalists busy. For the entire industry, this situation not only brings risks, but also means that a certain proportion of funds will be deposited in the development of underlying technologies, team building and talent training. This is a complex situation with both advantages and disadvantages.
The long-term sustainable development of the industry is still uncertain, and the experience of any traditional industry cannot be used to accurately predict the future of the crypto market. But what is certain is that this industry has long-term potential, and the underlying technology still has huge room for development. However, most of the mainstream participants in the market are still focusing on short-term speculation rather than truly promoting industry development.
Techub News: What do you think about Trump issuing Memecoin?
Wang Feng : Trump's issuance of currency is more of a challenge to the traditional political order than an impact on the order of the cryptocurrency circle.
In the cryptocurrency world, similar things have long been commonplace. Many people will issue coins after they have influence, and use fan economy and market speculation to make huge fortunes. The cryptocurrency world is essentially a "grassroots world" that adheres to the law of survival of the fittest. As long as someone is willing to pay, you can legally make a profit. From this perspective, Trump's behavior is not out of line.
However, as a former president with great political energy and a possible future leader, his issuance of currency on the eve of the election is a major shock to the traditional political system, because it involves issues such as conflicts of interest and transparency in national governance, and poses a challenge to the government management system.
In theory, if he sets transparent and standardized standards in the token issuance process, such as providing detailed disclosure information, it may play a positive role in guiding the industry. But in reality, his issuance method is very casual, with only a simple announcement on Twitter and social media and a crude website built to complete the issuance. This casualness will only strengthen the disorder of the market, rather than guide the industry towards standardization.
Techub News : Is “National Bitcoin Reserve” feasible?
Wang Feng : Trump can propose any policy, but whether other countries are willing to follow is another question. As a national reserve asset, Bitcoin can theoretically exist in asset diversification, but it is difficult for it to become a core reserve asset. I think there are three reasons:
The market is susceptible to manipulation: The liquidity and volatility of the Bitcoin market are too large, far exceeding that of traditional assets, and do not meet the stability requirements of national reserve assets.
Lack of Regulation: The decentralized nature of Bitcoin makes it difficult for governments to effectively control or regulate the market.
The traditional financial system does not recognize it: Although some institutions are trying to invest in Bitcoin, as a national reserve, it still requires higher credit endorsement.
The United States under Trump can do anything crazy, but if other countries want to follow suit, they must carefully consider the potential risks. The choice of national reserve assets is related to financial stability, and major countries will not easily accept Bitcoin as a major reserve asset. Trump's proposal is more like campaign propaganda than a truly feasible policy. (Author's note: This interview was conducted before the Lunar New Year, and Trump had not yet signed the Bitcoin national reserve executive order.)
Techub News : As the editor-in-chief of the Financial Times Chinese website, how do you understand the word "finance"? The excessive speculation in the Crypto market seems to be far from our understanding of "finance".
Wang Feng : This is a very big question. I don’t know where to start. As far as the market is concerned, the essence of the market is information asymmetry. Information gaps always exist, and those who seize the opportunity will always be able to profit from it. The early stages of traditional finance also experienced chaos, disorder, and reckless development. At that time, it was also full of speculation, manipulation, and the logic of survival of the fittest.
Many things that happen in the cryptocurrency world today, such as profiteering, speculation, and market manipulation, are not unfamiliar in the traditional financial industry. In the final analysis, this is all human nature. The way the market operates has not changed fundamentally, it has just changed the technical carrier from stocks, bonds, and derivatives to cryptocurrencies and DeFi, but the core logic is still that the pioneers take advantage of information asymmetry to gain benefits.
The same is true of the Ponzi scheme. As long as the bubble can continue to expand and everyone can make a profit in the short term, the game can continue. The history of the financial market continues to break people's perception of the duration and scale of the Ponzi scheme. What seemed incredible in the past often reappears in the new market in the form of a larger scale and longer period.
One of the basic laws of finance is that all wealth eventually requires someone to pay for it. As long as someone makes money, someone else will lose money. This is true in the long run, but in the short run, especially when emerging markets are expanding rapidly and regulation has not yet caught up, market manias and bubbles tend to last longer.
We are currently in an era where technology is developing faster than regulation and public awareness. Markets are taking longer to adjust and correct themselves than before, so we continue to see new bubbles break historical records, such as the current cryptocurrency bubble and AI bubble.
The duration of a bubble is unpredictable. The Internet bubble burst in the early 2000s, but the current AI or cryptocurrency bubble may last five, ten, or even longer. In addition, geopolitical factors may also affect the survival of the bubble. For example, the Trump administration has deeply tied the fate of the United States to the AI industry, which may further promote the expansion of the bubble.
Technology itself is not a bubble, but when factors such as capital, speculation, and human greed are forcibly superimposed on technological development, it may lead to the market maintaining irrational prosperity for a long time. In this environment, people may even begin to doubt whether the bubble will last forever. However, from the perspective of human history, all bubbles will eventually burst, and the market will eventually return to rationality, returning to a state based on real demand and sustainable growth.
The current wealth accumulation and industrial prosperity in the market have broken through people's traditional perception of market bubbles. However, this is mainly because we observe the market in too short a time dimension.
Some financial bubbles in history may take decades or even hundreds of years to burst and return to rationality. From this perspective, it may be too early for us to discuss when the market will collapse. From a time scale of hundreds of years, the basic laws of the market will not change, but in the short term, market frenzy may still continue for many years.
Therefore, any market judgment we make today may appear too short-sighted in the longer time scale. The operation of the financial market is not controlled by individual will, it follows its own laws of development. The most important thing is that individuals keep a clear head and take responsibility for their own decisions.
During market frenzy, it is very common to be the only one awake while everyone else is drunk. However, the only awake person may not necessarily get the best outcome. In the short-term market, the craziest, most irresponsible, and even the most selfish people may make the most profit, while those who try to stay rational and make the right long-term decisions may not be able to survive until the bubble bursts and reap the rewards.
Just like the 2008 financial crisis described in the movie The Big Short, some people who saw the market risks early on made correct market judgments and made long-term hedge bets, but many people failed to make a profit because they failed to hold on to the end. Sometimes, people who make the right judgment too early will be eliminated in the process of market mechanism operation.
The key is that everyone needs to be responsible for their own choices. Market trends are uncontrollable, and what individuals can do is to stay sober, understand their own investment logic and risk tolerance, and not be swept away by market frenzy.
