Interview: Eric, Techub News
Compiled by: J1N, Techub News
The bubble in the financial market is not accidental; it is a product of the intersection of technological innovation, capital drive, human greed, and regulatory lag. The development paths of industries such as cryptocurrency, AI, and the internet are remarkably similar: new technologies spark imagination, capital fuels the momentum, information asymmetry creates arbitrage opportunities, and regulatory delays allow market enthusiasm to persist.
Technology itself is not a bubble, but the market's premature pricing of technology often creates irrational prosperity. Bubbles can last five years, ten years, or even longer, and geopolitical and capital games make the market even more unpredictable. However, history tells us that ultimately everything will return to rationality.
In such cycles, individual clarity and choices are particularly important. "While all are drunk, I alone am sober" does not always lead to the best outcomes; the market's irrationality can often outlast the patience of most people. Understanding market rules and recognizing bubble cycles is key to maintaining rationality and avoiding being swept away in times of frenzy.
In December last year, the Financial Times published a rather ironic article in its column Alphaville, known for its critical style, in the context of Bitcoin breaking the $100,000 mark, "apologizing" for its long-standing remarks about the Crypto market being rife with fraud and manipulation. This piqued my curiosity about how traditional financial markets and leading financial media view Crypto. After all these years, have their impressions of Crypto changed?
To this end, we interviewed Mr. Wang Feng, the editor-in-chief of the Financial Times Chinese website, to see what "shape" Crypto takes in his eyes:
Techub News: What kind of channel is Financial Times' Alphaville? I specifically looked it up and found the content to be very direct and critical. What was the reason for establishing this channel? Why is the writing style so bold?
Wang Feng: This is one of FT's many columns. As I recall, its authors are not full-time reporters or editors of FT. FT's columns come in two types: one is written by FT's full-time employees, and the other is contributed by external professionals. Alphaville belongs to the latter, with authors typically being professionals in the financial field who have a regular contribution relationship with FT. It is a team-operated column rather than being the responsibility of a single author.
The writing style of Alphaville is quite different from other FT columns. Other FT columns are more formal, following the format of news analysis or commentary, maintaining a certain objectivity whether in the first or third person. Alphaville is more like a blog, heavily citing financial industry analysis reports and company annual reports, and directly commenting. The language style is more casual and free, close to colloquial, and sometimes the expressed views are direct, abrupt, and even carry a certain humor or irony.
When we translate such articles, we also find the style to be quite unique, and sometimes we may not choose to use its content. Nevertheless, its topics closely follow market dynamics, written by industry professionals, and can quickly provide insider analysis, making it quite popular among investors. The focus of the column is on the market and investment, with "Alpha" representing absolute return, as can be seen from the column's name, its core purpose is to provide guidance for investment.
Techub News: You just mentioned that the views of Alphaville do not represent the official position of the Financial Times. Taking the article about Bitcoin breaking $100,000 as an example, they published a sarcastic "apology" article. Since the article can be published on the FT website, does it mean it has been reviewed? Or can Alphaville's content be published freely?
Wang Feng: The final decision on whether to publish an article lies with FT's editors. Although the authors may not be FT employees, there is some communication between the writers and editors; topics may be discussed with editors beforehand, or the writers may submit directly after completion, with the final decision made by the editors.
As for whether it represents FT's overall position, this is a complex issue. In Western media, columns, commentaries, and analytical articles are usually not considered to represent the views of the entire newspaper. Newspapers, websites, blogs, and other multimedia content are generally meant to provide diverse information to readers rather than convey a single position.
Only in very rare cases, such as during a presidential election in the United States, will a newspaper publicly support a candidate. At that time, the newspaper will speak in an official capacity. But in most cases, especially with British newspapers, the editorial side does not overly consider whether a particular column represents the overall stance of the newspaper.
FT does not express a position with a single voice but provides a wealth of information, commentary, opinion analysis, and data to serve readers as a whole. In media, the only content that can formally represent the newspaper's position is the editorial, which may have different naming conventions in different newspapers, such as "Leader" or other specialized names.
Editorials are usually written by the Editorial Board, and such articles must be approved by the editor-in-chief, especially when involving important issues, often going through team discussions and reviews. Therefore, editorials can be considered content that formally represents the media's position.
However, FT and many other media outlets have various columns and commentaries, which may be written by internal reporters or contributed by outsiders. One cannot expect every column's analysis and views to represent the overall stance of the newspaper. In most cases, the media does not wish to maintain a single voice on all issues. The primary responsibility of the media is to provide objective reporting, facts, and data, while expressing opinions is a secondary function.
Especially in the Western media environment, unless encountering significant political issues, such as the U.S. presidential election, where a newspaper may publicly support a candidate, it usually does not express views with a unified stance. Most of the time, discussing whether an article represents the newspaper's position is not very meaningful, as the media's task is to provide information rather than dominate public opinion.
Moreover, most journalists and editors are not industry experts; their responsibility is to find true insider experts and organize and share information with readers.
Techub News: The ironic article published by Alphaville mentioned at the end that their criticism is not only aimed at Bitcoin but also applies to traditional finance. This indicates that they are not simply opposed to cryptocurrency but hold a critical stance towards the financial industry as a whole. Why would a financial media outlet make such a statement?
Wang Feng: Alphaville has always had this style. If they see unfair phenomena, information gaps, or other unjust behaviors in the market, they will directly criticize them. Whether it is cryptocurrency or traditional finance, if they discover monopolies, lack of transparency, or behaviors that exploit information asymmetry for improper gains, they will expose them.
Many senior reporters and editors at FT hold a skeptical and critical attitude towards market phenomena. After long-term observation of the traditional financial market, they believe there are many situations where profits are made through information opacity, which is the core profit model of the financial industry. Therefore, they remain vigilant about industry chaos and tend to reveal potential unreasonable phenomena.
From a value system perspective, they assess whether the profits of financial institutions match their contributions and judge their rationality. Thus, the traditional financial industry has made them "displeased" with many things, while they see more issues with cryptocurrency, such as lack of transparency, unfairness, and even suspicion of fraud. Therefore, Alphaville's criticism of the crypto market appears even more intense.
However, readers familiar with the column usually understand its style. They criticize any unjust market behavior, not simply targeting a specific industry or product, but hoping to improve information transparency in the market to some extent.
Techub News: From your and FT Chinese website's perspective, how do you view cryptocurrency?
Wang Feng: In recent years, we have produced a lot of related content and also followed FT's English version's reporting in the cryptocurrency field. FT currently has a dedicated channel for virtual assets and cryptocurrencies on its website, updating multiple pieces of content daily, mainly translated from the English version, along with some original reports and third-party columns.
The attitude of FT's English version is that cryptocurrency is a market that must be paid attention to because it objectively exists and has a large volume of trading. As long as there are markets and investors, there is reason to report on it. Although columns like Alphaville hold a deep skepticism and critical attitude towards the opacity, information asymmetry, and even suspicion of fraud in the crypto market, as a media outlet, FT still needs to report on this market to meet reader demand and provide fair information.
The reporting direction of FT Chinese website is generally consistent with that of FT's English version. The Chinese-speaking world occupies an important position in the cryptocurrency and Web3 fields, once holding "half the sky" of the industry, so we have even more reason to follow related reports. In recent years, we have adopted a "cautious but necessary to follow" attitude towards this field, hoping to provide diverse perspectives without overly expressing the editor's personal views.
Our reporting method is mainly objective news rather than driven by personal opinions. For example, when we interview industry analysts, entrepreneurs, and industry leaders, we try to present different angles rather than guide readers to form a specific viewpoint. Because this market is extremely risky, full of interests and temptations, we are very cautious to avoid casually expressing subjective views to prevent being proven inaccurate or one-sided in the future.
Although most of our content is still primarily translated from English, due to the vibrant Web3 entrepreneurial ecosystem in the Chinese-speaking world, we also have independent information sources and sometimes grasp industry dynamics even faster than the English FT. For instance, our interview reports can present the crypto trends in markets like Hong Kong and Singapore while also paying attention to emerging markets in Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
My personal views do not represent anyone or any institution. From my years of contact and reporting, I believe that cryptocurrency does have potential from a technological perspective, especially when combined with Web3 and AI, it may become the outbreak point of the next internet revolution. This technology itself has its value, especially in areas like blockchain decentralization, smart contracts, and data security.
However, at the same time, the cryptocurrency market suffers from information opacity and inadequate regulation, with a large amount of speculation, manipulation, and even fraudulent behavior, which is also why the media, regulatory agencies, and the traditional financial industry remain cautious. The traditional financial industry has long relied on information asymmetry to gain profits, while the issues in the crypto market are even more severe, with lower transparency, making it prone to bubbles. Therefore, many senior reporters and market observers hold a skeptical attitude towards cryptocurrency and are willing to expose the chaos within.
In recent 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 in competition. Our reporting will focus on the developments in these regions while also expanding to emerging markets in Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
Techub News: How do you view the current state of the cryptocurrency market?
Wang Feng: From a technological perspective, blockchain and its related technologies have great potential, especially when these technologies are combined, they can drive new technological developments. Indeed, many professionals are deeply engaged in research and development, which is worth paying attention to.
On the other hand, the market is filled with temptations, and the ways to profit are often crude and wild, even surpassing those of the traditional financial industry. From leaders of the free world to bold innovative entrepreneurs, many can create immense wealth in a very short time. This phenomenon has led to extreme restlessness in the market, especially among ordinary investors, most of whom do not pay attention to underlying technological innovations but instead think about how to "make quick money" or exploit others.
The incident of Trump issuing a coin further reinforced the market atmosphere of "issuing coins is justified, and exploiting others is not a crime." His actions provided unprecedented endorsement for this market logic, causing the market to lose its normative character even further. As a traditional media journalist, I remain vigilant about this phenomenon.
However, from a news perspective, unexpected events happen in this industry every day, always filled with hot topics and discussions that keep reporters "on their toes." For the entire industry, this situation brings both risks and means that a certain proportion of funds will be invested in underlying technology research and development, team building, and talent cultivation. It is a complex situation with both advantages and disadvantages.
The long-term sustainable development of the industry still faces uncertainties, and experiences from any traditional industry cannot be used to accurately predict the future of the crypto market. However, it is certain that this industry has long-term potential, and the underlying technology still has significant room for development. The mainstream participants in the market, however, mostly focus on short-term speculation rather than genuinely promoting industry development.
Techub News: What do you think about Trump issuing Memecoin?
Wang Feng: Trump's coin issuance is less a shock to the order of the crypto world and more a challenge to the traditional political order.
In the crypto world, similar events are already commonplace; many people issue coins after gaining influence, using fan economics and market speculation to amass huge wealth. The crypto world is essentially a "wild world," adhering to the survival of the fittest principle; as long as someone is willing to pay, profits can be legally made. From this perspective, Trump's actions are not out of line.
However, as a former president with significant political energy and a potential future leader, issuing a coin on the eve of an election is a major shock to the traditional political system. This raises issues of conflict of interest, transparency in national governance, and poses challenges to government management systems.
Theoretically, if he established transparent and standardized criteria during the token issuance process, such as providing detailed disclosure information, it could have a positive guiding effect on the industry. But in reality, his method of issuing coins was very casual, merely announcing it on Twitter and social media, and setting up a rough website to complete the issuance. This casualness only reinforces the disorderly state of the market rather than guiding the industry towards normalization.
Techub News: Is a "national Bitcoin reserve" feasible?
Wang Feng: Trump can propose any policy, but whether other countries are willing to follow suit is another question. Bitcoin, as a national reserve asset, could theoretically exist within a diversified asset allocation, but it is difficult to become a core reserve asset for three reasons:
The market is easily manipulated: The liquidity and volatility of the Bitcoin market are too high, far exceeding traditional assets, which does not meet the stability requirements for national reserve assets.
Lack of regulation: The decentralized nature of Bitcoin makes it difficult for governments to effectively control or regulate the market.
Traditional financial systems do not recognize it: Although some institutions are attempting Bitcoin investments, as a national-level reserve, it still requires higher credit endorsement.
The United States under Trump's leadership can do anything crazy, but if other countries want to follow, they must carefully consider the potential risks. The choice of national reserve assets relates to financial stability, and major powers will not easily accept Bitcoin as a primary reserve asset. Trump's proposal seems more like campaign propaganda rather than a truly feasible policy. (Note: This interview took place before the Lunar New Year, at which time 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 term "finance"? The excessive speculation in the crypto market seems far removed from our understanding of "finance."
Wang Feng: This is a very big question, and I honestly don't know where to start. In terms of the market, the essence of the market is information asymmetry; information gaps always exist, and those who seize the opportunity will always profit from it. The early stages of traditional finance also experienced chaos, disorder, and a wild development, filled with speculation, manipulation, and the logic of survival of the fittest.
Many things happening today in the crypto world, such as exploiting others, speculative hype, and market manipulation, are not unfamiliar in the traditional financial industry. Ultimately, this is all human nature. The way the market operates has not fundamentally changed; it has merely changed its technological carrier, from stocks, bonds, and derivatives to cryptocurrencies and DeFi, but the core logic remains that early movers exploit information gaps for profit.
The essence of a Ponzi scheme is the same. As long as the bubble can continue to expand, everyone can profit in the short term, and this game can continue indefinitely. The history of financial markets continually breaks people's perceptions of the duration and scale of Ponzi schemes; phenomena that once seemed unbelievable often reappear in new markets on a larger scale and over longer periods.
One of the basic laws of finance is that all wealth ultimately requires someone to pay the price. As long as someone makes money, someone else will lose money. This holds true in the long term, but in the short term, especially during the rapid expansion of emerging markets where regulation has not kept pace, market enthusiasm and bubbles can often persist for a longer time.
Currently, we are in an era where the speed of technological development far exceeds regulation and public understanding. The time required for the market to self-adjust and correct is longer than ever, which is why we continually see new bubbles breaking historical records, such as the current cryptocurrency bubble and AI bubble.
The duration of bubbles is unpredictable. The internet bubble burst in the early 2000s, but the current AI or cryptocurrency bubbles may last five years, ten years, or even longer. Additionally, geopolitical factors may also affect the survival of bubbles; for example, the Trump administration has deeply tied the fate of the United States to the AI industry, which may further drive the expansion of bubbles.
Technology itself is not a bubble, but when capital, speculation, and human greed are forcibly layered onto technological development, it can lead to a long-term maintenance of irrational prosperity in the market. In such an environment, people may even begin to doubt whether bubbles will ever cease to exist. However, from the perspective of human history, all bubbles will eventually burst, and the market will ultimately return to rationality, reverting to a state based on real demand and sustainable growth.
The accumulation of wealth and industrial prosperity in the current market has already surpassed traditional perceptions of market bubbles. However, this is mainly because we are observing the market from too short a time dimension.
Historical financial bubbles may take decades or even centuries to burst and return to rationality. From this perspective, discussing when the market will collapse may be premature. From a time scale of hundreds of years, the basic laws of the market will not change, but in the short term, market enthusiasm may still persist for many years.
Therefore, any market judgment we make today may seem overly shortsighted when placed on a longer time scale. The operation of financial markets is not controlled by individual will; it follows its own development laws. The most important thing is for individuals to remain clear-headed and take responsibility for their decisions.
During periods of market enthusiasm, the situation of "while all are drunk, I alone am sober" is very common. However, the sober ones may not necessarily achieve the best outcomes. In short-term markets, the most reckless, irresponsible, and even selfish individuals may reap the greatest profits, while those who try to remain rational and make long-term correct decisions may not survive to reap the rewards when the bubble finally bursts.
Just like in the movie "The Big Short," which depicts the 2008 financial crisis, some early observers who recognized market risks made correct market judgments and engaged in long-term hedging bets, but many did not profit because they could not hold out until the end. Sometimes, those who make correct judgments too early may be eliminated in the process of market mechanisms operating.
The key is that everyone needs to take responsibility for their choices. Market trends are uncontrollable, and what individuals can do is to remain clear-headed, understand their investment logic and risk tolerance, and not be swept away by market enthusiasm.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
