<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s get the obvious part out of the way: Cointelegraph screwed up massively<\/em> yesterday.<\/p>\n Call it this year\u2019s tweet \u2014 er, xeet? \u2014 heard round the crypto world. The crypto publication\u2019s X account posted that BlackRock\u2019s much-ballyhooed spot bitcoin ETF proposal had, miraculously, been approved.<\/p>\n Despite the lack of evidence, like a regulatory filing or document, the crypto world ran wild. Bitcoin\u2019s price soared. Influencers signal-boosted the \u201cnews\u201d with wild abandon.\u00a0<\/p>\n But the \u201cnews\u201d fell apart almost as quickly as it began. Fox Business\u2019 Eleanor Terrett scored the all-but-expected denial from BlackRock. Other confirmations swiftly followed.\u00a0<\/p>\n Cointelegraph, flailing in the virtual winds, first added a \u201creportedly\u201d to its post, then removed it entirely. An apology and promise of internal investigation followed.\u00a0<\/p>\n The financial<\/a> wreckage<\/a> from the incident was swiftly apparent. Bitcoin\u2019s price briefly touched $30,000 on Coinbase before gravity took hold once more. As much as $100 million in market positions were wiped out, chiefly on the short side. The social media dunkings commenced \u2014\u00a0even the US Securities and Exchange Commission got in it<\/a>.<\/p>\n Later, Cointelegraph published a post detailing its investigation into the incident, claiming that \u201c[t]he news lead originated from an unconfirmed screenshot posted by an X user who claimed it was from the Bloomberg Terminal.\u201d The publication said its internal social media policies were violated when the tip was posted to its X account.<\/p>\n There are implications for crypto media within this situation \u2014 call it a disaster \u2014 that I\u2019d like to unpack. To begin, let\u2019s look at some comments by Kristina Lucrezia Corn\u00e8r, Cointelegraph\u2019s editor-in-chief, that emerged via a video post on X.\u00a0<\/p>\n In the interest of fairness, it\u2019s important to say that we don\u2019t have the full remarks, just the video of part of a panel discussion shared by Timoth\u00e9e Semelin<\/a>. Semelin said that Corn\u00e8r sought to highlight that the social media post was just that \u2014 a post, no article \u2014 which, yeah, that\u2019s not a very productive distinction to draw, as if there\u2019s a difference in 2023 when a news outlet puts something out in the world in any form.\u00a0<\/p>\n In the video, Corn\u00e8r (correctly) called the situation \u201cdisastrous\u201d and \u201can example of what cannot happen.\u201d<\/p>\n She goes on to say: \u201cBut this is what happens when we are having constant pressure to be the first with every news. And this is not a problem of journalism per se. It\u2019s a problem of the society that, and of the technology \u2014\u00a0I\u2019m talking about indexation of Google, and talking about social media where if you\u2019re not the first, you\u2019re the last. There\u2019s no second, third, etc.\u201d<\/p>\n Corn\u00e8r\u2019s comments were cut off as she appeared to be saying \u201cand this is a big problem.\u201d<\/p>\n I think Corn\u00e8r is describing a real issue. But she\u2019s misdiagnosing the patient \u2014 specifically, what led to Cointelegraph\u2019s blunder.\u00a0<\/p>\n Publications face tough incentives from the likes of Google, X and other information technology giants. If you lack the heft of the majors, you\u2019re left with the implicit need to elbow your way to the front. Even those majors are suffering<\/a>, as Axios recently reported.\u00a0<\/p>\n I can see why the idea of muscling your way to the front of the pack with a news tip \u2014 sans article \u2014 that you think *could* be true might seem attractive. Bitcoin ETF news is, after all, all the rage. A surprise approval on a Monday morning isn\u2019t the most impossible-seeming scenario. Being first to that news? Internet paydirt!<\/p>\n I suspect this is why some well-known crypto influencers (you know who you are) rushed to repeat Cointelegraph\u2019s error, only to later qualify or delete their posts. Perversely, the rewards for being wrong online can be immense.\u00a0<\/p>\n Read more from our opinion section:<\/strong> Hot take: Someone at Alameda was actually good at their job<\/a><\/p>\n This incentive structure is also why many publications, crypto and mainstream alike, screwed up so badly in 2021 when they encountered the fake news<\/a> that Walmart would accept litecoin payments.<\/p>\n Cointelegraph\u2019s own investigation echoes this dilemma: \u201cIn an effort to publish the developments as soon as possible<\/em>, Employee 2 posted the report to X without prior confirmation of the source\u2019s veracity from the editor.\u201d<\/p>\n How to fix this? First, stop treating your audience like it\u2019s sitting in the Colosseum of Rome, awaiting the next bloodbath. Be slower, smarter, more thoughtful. Don\u2019t yank something from Telegram and stick it on X. A crypto publication can move markets \u2014\u00a0act accordingly.\u00a0<\/p>\n If you are<\/em> shooting for speed, optimize for it. Build a breaking news operation and figure out how to pay for it. Train your staff to deal with the uniquely high-pressure situations that arise during breaking news scenarios.<\/p>\n There\u2019s something a bit deeper going on, too. I think the Solana Foundation\u2019s Austin Federa made<\/a> a good point: Crypto markets, he said, followed the news just as blindly as Cointelegraph did. Despite, you know, any available evidence to support the claim.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cMarkets,\u201d Federa noted, \u201chave as much growing up to do as media.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n