[bigbizisverywyz]

The article then goes on to say:

>In fact the picture is rather different: a sorting process is under way

And talks more about the process of penalizing weaker crypto assets, focusing on Tether. So it's actually a balanced and interesting overview of the fallout of the current selloff on what is now becoming a rather large and very complex market all of its own.

I only mention this as your comment seems a bit dismissive based on that one sentence.

[Nekorosu]

Thanks for bringing this up! The good stuff you've mentioned is behind the paywall for me and the intro I can read does look non-balanced.

[zahma]

There are always archive links. It’s a good idea to read the whole article before condemning it.

https://archive.ph/4x3je

> “… The trouble is that a draconian crackdown would put at risk the benefits that crypto eventually promises, including new financial products that bypass stodgy banks; innovations in property rights; and the possibility of a less centralised financial system.”

[sateesh]

Bit OT, a further good idea will be to buy the subscription and support good journalism. I am not being flippant, I believe good journalism needs support.

[capableweb]

How can one make the judgement that the journalism is good when one cannot read the articles as they are behind paywalls?

[sateesh]

IIRC they offer some trial subscription where you can register and read a few articles for free in a month or so. Also articles from "The Economist" are frequently posted in HN and often comments have non-paywalled links. Reading through them probably help you to judge whether it is good journalism or not.