Ethereum Vs Coindesk? Vitalik Buterin Attacks Coindesk

Let's take a look at this Tweet from Vitalik regarding consensus 2018.
Vitalik "Not giving away ETH" Tweeted,

Now, this is a bad look for Coindesk, there's no way around that, and this isn't the first time we've seen a new site make some pretty significant mistakes.

This time on February 17th of this year, where the site CCN.com said,

Do you think that's what Vitalik wanted when he started Ethereum?

Vitalik went on to make some other points such as,

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.

Now, that's also kind of annoying if you're Vitalik because if something is not a reality and someone's trying to make it sound like it is, then it might make it look like there's a dissent within the Etherium project or within the community and that's not true and could end up hurting the value of Ethereum.

So, it's important that people realize that things like EIP 999, we're not anywhere close to actually happening.

Vitalik went on to say,

This screenshot from Coindesk is actually pretty amazing,

Vitalik final point was,

Vitalik then finished off the tweet storm by saying,

It does start to raise some bigger questions about Coindesk and what they are doing. The issue is very clear in the cryptocurrency space, when you have a lot of clout and you can get a lot of people to see something, what you put in front of them matters and can drastically change the value of different currencies.

Another Tweet that Vitalik retweeted was from Tim Swanson saying,

Now, sometimes you make mistakes, and I am not sure what happened with the OmiseGo give away thing, that just seems totally ridiculous that happened to Coindesk, they were essentially saying that,

It's one of the reasons, OmiseGo is now also boycotting consensus but at the same time you know let's just say you are Coindesk and you're the whole organization, you got one writer who just put something stupid in an article and you have a guy who's supposed to review it before it gets published but it only takes one error from a writer along the way for having potentially a big impact on the way that your company is viewed.

What's the line there, like if they fix it afterwards but it went up. Do we feel like you should never have an error as a site that posts a lot of content? That seems kind of ridiculous.

So, I guess it's like really a difficult situation, but I am interested to know what you guys have to say about this.

Ethereum Vs Coindesk? Vitalik Buterin Attacks Coindesk

OTHER READS