White House blasts digital assets in new report, sees little value in crypto
https://www.theblock.co/post/221815/white-house-blasts-digital-assets-in-new-crypto-report

Just Share the Casts from farcaster || Not Financial Advice

Allow me to fact check the headline and the content of this article - the report is not quite positive, but the article’s lack of nuance borders on insulting.

I do recommend reading what agencies and government says directly.

Here’s page 272, for context. https://i.imgur.com/rPBwHHD.jpg

Productizing RWAfi @plumenetwork. Letting you earn from all RWAs on Plume using https://nest.credit. Hosting /rwa, /plume, /nest and https://palmer.earth

What's contradictory here? The conclusion is that the government needs to figure out how to deal with the problems of cryptocurrency, and the only positive use of the tech is their dystopian CBDC.

Head of Engineering at Courtyard.io, bringing physical collectibles onchain. nf.td/joe /courtyard /backend

Incendiary, clickbaity, and dishonest might be closer. Contradictory? I’m not saying that.

Nuance is important. I think reading the actual report is also better than a summary.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ERP-2023.pdf

I skimmed the crypto part of the report. I am curious which part do you think the article wasn’t a fair summary of the report? The report put it pretty straight, isn’t it?

The social internet is made of cats | Director @ Internet Society Hong Kong | Ex-Apple Sr. Engineer | 🇭🇰🇹🇼 | kcchu_.twitter

1/2 Having read both the report and the article, two things stood out.

Suggesting a shift in approach to crypto from agnostic to adversarial. Completely stripped of context, with cherry picked quotes that support that assertion.

The report states facts and quotes studies, doesn't suggest a shift in approach.

2/2 Stating that "the White House appears to have a dim view of distributed ledger technology as a whole" is completely inaccurate.

The post is content marketing, not journalism.

To be completely frank, I don't see criticism in the report. I see a recounting of facts that are hard to refute.

That being said, I'm sympathetic to and cognizant of the emotional response this caused.

I think in the end, it helps to deal with reality. And reality doesn't care what story people tell themselves.

1 is certainly an opinionated interpretation, but 2 seems to be fair given the strong criticisms in the report. And do you think the report suggested otherwise?