Ethereum creator and blockchain icon, Vitalik Buterin, has ripped into the popular cryptocurrency media outlet CoinDesk for allegedly improper journalistic practices. In a series of tweets, Buterin scolded CoinDesk for being complicit in cryptocurrency scams, practicing sensational and gotcha journalism and for overcharging for admission to its annual event, Consensus.

CoinDesk, which is owned by blockchain investment firm Digital Currency Group (DCG), has received a significant backlash for not fully disclosing potential conflicts of interests related to the holdings of DCG. An example of this investor-media outlet relationship is CoinDesk’s recent article on ZenCash, which was just added to DCG’s “conviction list,” meaning they have invested a “meaningful” amount of money into the project. CoinDesk did disclose its relationship to DCG in the article, but many expect a more descriptive and transparent disclosure when such a blatant conflict of interest exists.

Disclosure: CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group.

Buterin described Coindesk’s coverage of EIP 999 as “terrible” and “sensationalist” referencing Rachel Rose O’Leary’s article, titled “Ethereum’s Top Developers Think a Blockchain Split Might be Inevitable.” O’Leary, a writer for CoinDesk since August 2017, specializes in covering Ethereum news and claims to only hold positions in Zcash and previously bitcoin.

https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/989541817405276161

Additionally, CoinDesk’s recent article on a supposed OmiseGO airdrop, which turned out to be a scam, underpins a significant lack of due diligence by the CoinDesk editorial staff.

Here’s the Twitter thread by Vitalik Buterin:

I am boycotting @coindesk's Consensus 2018 conference this year, and strongly encourage others to do the same. Here is my reasoning why. 1. Coindesk is recklessly complicit in enabling giveaway scams. See their latest article on OMG, which *directly links* to a giveaway scam. pic.twitter.com/WDr9uZ8XOw — vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) April 26, 2018

2. Their coverage of EIP 999 was terrible. They published a highly sensationalist article claiming the chain would split, when it was very clear that EIP 999 was *very far* from acceptance. This is why pundits need to be replaced by prediction markets, ASAP. pic.twitter.com/6A7OWlx0nR — vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) April 26, 2018

3. Their reporting policies are designed to trap you with gotchas. Did you know that if you send them a reply, and you explicitly say that some part is off the record, that's explicitly on the record unless you go through a request/approve dance first? pic.twitter.com/8in6ZYSPbR — vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) April 26, 2018

4. And by the way, the conference costs $2-3k to attend. I refuse to personally contribute to that level of rent seeking. — vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) April 26, 2018

In response to the public Twitter call-out, many other notable figures have stepped forward to call out CoinDesk for allegedly improper practices. Tim Swanson, a well-regarded fintech and blockchain consultant, added that CoinDesk does not properly disclose if a writer holds a vested interest in the coins they are covering. Additionally, since CoinDesk covers live coin sales, it needs to provide a further disclaimer to whether or not the asset being sold actually falls under a security classification.

On point (2), what is the internal review process by Coindesk to determine if a coin is or is not a security? Because if these are unregistered securities offerings that are being solicited to the general public, isn't that a no-no? — Tim Swanson (@ofnumbers) April 26, 2018

We will watch closely to see how this story unfolds, but it is clear that prominent members of the cryptocurrency community are beginning to identify key flaws in CoinDesk, which we recently identified as the number one most viewed crypto news site.

Follow us: Telegram | Twitter | Newsletter