David Sacks recently got into trouble. He has been working as an AI and encryption advisor at the White House, and as a result, The New York Times has been investigating him for five months—specifically looking into "conflicts of interest."

Interestingly, the accusations thrown by the NYT were countered one by one by Sacks, but the other side, like an unkillable cockroach, continued to dig from another angle. He himself said that these people, when "fact-checking," either pretended not to see his responses or directly twisted them into another meaning.

Unable to endure any longer, Sacks directly hired the Clare Locke law firm and made all correspondence documents public—clearly indicating a determination to fight to the end. Brian Armstrong from Coinbase, enjoying the spectacle, also shared this matter.

This tug-of-war looks like an old script of media supervision vs. policy figures, but what it actually reflects is the scrutiny that the encryption industry inevitably faces after entering the mainstream.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

13 Likes

Reward
13
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BlindBoxVictim

· 11h ago

The New York Times really has a great trap, selective hearings, right? Sacks is tough, directly sending a lawyer's letter, I like this spirit. Here we go again, traditional media vs on-chain truth, it always plays out like this. NYT takes five months just to dig up a "conflict of interest"? This topic funding is way too abundant. This is the price of mainstreaming, being scrutinized under a magnifying glass. Is Armstrong's retweet a sign of taking sides? This move of fully releasing documents is indeed fierce, let's see who can't distort it. To be honest, I give full marks to Sacks for this maneuver, it's either a hard fight or admitting defeat, there’s no middle option. Media supervision has turned into selective supervision, what’s the point of calling it supervision then?

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeSurvivor

· 19h ago

The New York Times' operation is indeed a bit disgusting. --- Why does it feel like this is just consuming Sacks, endlessly dragging things out? --- This move of releasing public documents is ruthless, let's see if mainstream media takes the bait. --- Isn't this the inevitable cost of encryption entering the system? Should have known it would be like this. --- Clare Locke has made a move? It seems Sacks is really about to start fighting back. --- Laughing to death, the description of the cockroach that can't be killed is really apt, NYT's nature is indeed tenacious. --- By the way, if Sacks wins this time, will the future crypto policies reverse? --- The tactics are the same, selectively ignoring your responses and then making up stories. --- Armstrong retweeting this actually hints at a lot, Coinbase can't sit still either. --- In the end, it's still the tearing of power and influence, which inevitably has to be addressed.

View OriginalReply0

SatoshiSherpa

· 19h ago

The media loves this trap, fixating on crypto people and distorting the narrative from a different angle. I support Sacks' tough attitude; going public with documents is a strong move. The method used by nyt is truly disgusting, pretending not to see the response and still claiming to fact-check? Hehe. This is the price of crypto entering the mainstream, getting sliced open under the spotlight. Sacks, please have the law firm push back; I like this move. We can't just let the media slander at will. To put it bluntly, it's still a media power issue; no matter how you investigate, they call the shots. Why are they fixated on crypto people? Are there fewer conflicts of interest in other industries? Armstrong shared this matter; it seems the crypto circle is beginning to unite against it. Pushing back against the media takes courage; props to Sacks for this move.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunterZhang

· 19h ago

Haha, the media loves this trap, selective reporting, the things happening on-chain are much more transparent than this... --- Sacks is really going hard this time, laying all the documents bare, I love seeing this kind of confrontation, NYT's old tricks are bound to be exposed --- To put it bluntly, encryption has entered the mainstream, it's hard not to be watched now, the days of freeloading are over --- Haha, Armstrong is also here to join the fun, Coinbase is fighting for a voice in the encryption space, smart move --- This plot... feels like endless bickering, but it can indeed give the industry a proper name.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-4745f9ce

· 19h ago

The New York Times' trap is really something, when they can't argue back, they just pretend they didn't hear, typical media double standards. --- I have to say, Sacks is really holding his ground this time, directly sending a lawyer's letter and making documents public, just not letting you write nonsense. --- It really is that once you enter the mainstream, you have to take the hits, the fate of encryption people. --- Both state media and self-media are like this, selective fact-checking, it's laughable. --- Brian also comes to join the fun, this matter is getting bigger and bigger. --- The problem is that even if this round of public opinion battle is won, trust won't come back. --- It seems like NYT wants to take Sacks down, five months of tracking is quite outrageous. --- Conflict of interest? Who in policy-making doesn't have some conflict, the investigation just isn't thorough enough. --- If you ask me, just sue directly, don’t play the war of words in the media. --- This is how encryption enters the mainstream, it was fine hiding before, but now under the spotlight, everything is wrong.

View OriginalReply0

MetaverseLandlord

· 19h ago

NYT’s methods are really old-fashioned, fixating on it just to create a big news story. Sacks’ hard confrontation is also strong; once the lawyer’s letter came out, it was clear they were serious. The media loves this kind of thing; even after the question is answered, they still want to dig deeper. It’s really annoying. Once encryption enters the mainstream, it’s going to be scrutinized like this; everyone better get used to it. Interestingly, why is NYT so persistent? There must be something going on with Sacks. Brian’s retweeting of this matter has made the crypto world appear united on the surface. The involvement of law firms has indeed escalated the situation; let’s see who’s tough now. It’s the same old story of conflicting interests; policy figures are most annoyed by this. It feels like Sacks could easily counter-sue; distorting facts counts too. To put it simply, this is just traditional media’s stereotype about Web3 flaring up. The identity of a crypto advisor is inherently easy to scrutinize; it should have been anticipated. All documents are public; people who aren’t guilty do this all the time. History is about to repeat itself; the relationship between the establishment and those who deal in coins is always like this.

View OriginalReply0

GamefiEscapeArtist

· 19h ago

The New York Times' trap really seems endless, can't shake it off. --- I respect those who stand firm on this, much better than those politicians who are soft. --- Why does it feel like every time the encryption circle enters mainstream attention, it has to take a beating? It's so annoying. --- All documents public? That's something, finally someone dares to confront traditional media. --- To be honest, spending five months just to nitpick, this dedication is a bit ridiculous. --- Wait, what does this have to do with conflict of interest? I don't get it. --- Armstrong follows the trend and retweets, why does it feel like he's standing up for the whole industry? --- Pretending not to see the response and then distorting the meaning, this trap is really amazing. --- Clare Locke takes action, it seems Sacks is serious about this. --- The scrutiny of the encryption industry, anyway, can't avoid it.

View OriginalReply0

Trending TopicsView More
#JoinGrowthPointsDrawToWiniPhone17
226.37K Popularity
#DecemberMarketOutlook
19.16K Popularity
#GIGGLEAndPIPPINSurge
3.2K Popularity
#LINKETFToLaunch
2.92K Popularity
#SharingMy100xToken
3.22K Popularity

Hot Gate FunView More

1
POPOPopo
MC:$3.48KHolders:2
0.00%
2
GB CRT GB CRIPTO
MC:$3.42KHolders:2
0.10%
3
MARYSMary S
MC:$3.4KHolders:2
0.00%
4
CHIPChip-in
MC:$3.41KHolders:2
0.09%
5
морекоты
MC:$3.32KHolders:1
0.00%

Sitemap