The media narrative and the social conversation about blockchain and digital assets digital assets have evolved in a substantial way over the course of a period of time relatively short. Which was for years a single narrative halfway between the hype, scepticism and simplification by the media, it has been a while being told with greater accuracy, context and journalistic rigour.
The stories have become more sophisticated. And with them, also the space that occupies the sector in newsrooms. It is increasingly more common to find explanations about models of business, architectural technology, regulatory frameworks or risks associated. Projects are beginning to be characterised by a greater level of depth, which means that there are more and better interactions between founders, coaches and journalists, establishing a channel for conversation that is fluid and constant.
This has led to a shift in the media’s approach to stories about blockchain technology and digital assets, with outlets gradually moving away from marginal coverage focused on sensational headlines and price volatility – or, in some cases, directly linking the technology to illegality or fraud. Instead, a different way of reporting on the sector has emerged: more analytical, more demanding, more connected to the reality of what is being built.Crypto is no longer a marginal issue or one relegated to obscure sections, but is increasingly finding its way onto the pages of business, finance and technology sections. At times, it even makes the front page when the impact is systemic or institutional.
That shift is no small matter and says a great deal about the current situation in which the sector finds itself. But it wasn’t always like that and we should not forget where where we come from.
The transformation of sectoral narratives
For years, the conversation was characterised by an unhealthy mix of overblown promises and speculative narratives from within the ecosystem itself, coupled with constant – and at times self-serving – scepticism from certain traditional quarters. Added to this was a further problem: the genuine difficulty of explaining a complex technology in terms that are easy to understand.
The result was a narrative that was fragmented, polarised and, in many cases, superficial. We saw this clearly in the analysis that we carried out at comma in 2023 on the media coverage of the sector. The discussion was organised into blocks that were practically separate. On one hand, a more technical and sophisticated and constructive, but limited to niche media and audiences specialised. On the other hand, a pillar dominated by the price, trading and speculation, which accounted for a large proportion of the attention.
At the same time, in the mainstream media and also in some financial publications, a significant proportion of the articles linked cryptocurrency with fraud, scams or a crisis of confidence. The technological aspect, meanwhile, was relegated to far more specialised outlets.
Between those worlds there was barely any connection. And when there are no bridges, the story becomes simplified. Or worse: it becomes something else.
That context explains why for, for so a long time, the sector struggled to build a narrative of its own, solid and comprehensible. There was a lack of translators capable of navigate between the technical complexity and the language of the general public. And, without that exercise in mediation, what prevailed was not dialogue, but noise.
In just three years, however, the change has been striking. And, to a large extent, this is down to the fact that both the sector and those covering it have matured at the same time.
There is undeniable credit due to the editorial teams and journalists who have chosen to treat this field for what it is: an intersection of economics, regulation and technology. This has had a direct impact on the quality of the debate. And when the way an issue is covered in the media changes, the questions asked change too.
It is no longer enough simply to know whether an asset is rising or falling. The debate now centres on which parts of this ecosystem constitute infrastructure and which are financial products; what can be integrated into the regulated framework and what cannot; and which risks are technical, which are market-related, and which stem from governance issues.
This transformation of interactions and this greater degree of interest and knowledge on the part of the media is, without any doubt, a clear sign of maturity.
The narratives that are shaping the sector
If one looks at the conversation taking place today in forums, the media and professional circles, several narrative threads that are reshaping the story become quite clear:
- The first is the institutionalisation. The entry of traditional players, whether banks, asset managers or custodians, does not only contribute volume, but also standards, processes and a way different from explaining what is happening.
- The second is regulation and compliance. The sector can no longer operate within the boundaries of the regulatory framework. And this, far from being a limitation, introduces order, rigour and a language that is more precise.
- Keep a close eye on tokenisation and market finance. Here, the focus is shifting towards real-world assets, issuance infrastructure and operational efficiency. Less abstract promise, more concrete application.
- Added to this is a fourth narrative focused on cybersecurity and resilience, which is no longer limited to the headline about ‘hacking’, but now encompasses risk architecture, audits, traceability and accountability.
- The fifth relates to identity, privacy and data: who verifies, how it protect the rights of the user and how are designed systems that are compatible with regulatory frameworks that are becoming increasingly more stringent.
- And, perhaps most significantly in the medium term, is the narrative of real utility: use cases that stand on their own without relying on price, where the value lies in the process, not in the token as a promise.
They all point in the same direction: a growing desire to distinguish between infrastructure and financial products. And that distinction, which for years was blurred, is key to ensuring that the sector is no longer perceived as a homogeneous bloc.
The problem wasn’t the technology
If there’s one thing we’ve learnt on this journey, it’s that the main problem wasn’t technical. It was narrative. For too long, communication was confused with marketing. The promise was prioritised over explanation, the roadmap over risk, and the vision over context. That might have worked during periods of euphoria, but it failed spectacularly when it came to building a reputation.
Because communication in this sector, and in any other sector that aspires to become infrastructure, is a structural component, since without understanding on the part of the general public, adoption is not possible. And without adoption, there is no ecosystem.
Blockchain was created with the aim of reducing the need for intermediaries, but that does not eliminate the need for trust; it simply shifts it. Trust no longer rests solely with a central authority, but lies in the code, in governance, in custody, in regulation… and also in how it communicates.
When that transfer of knowledge is opaque, ambiguous or overly technical, the result is the same as in the traditional system: mistrust.
Professionalisation or noise: the role of intermediaries
In this context, another tension emerges: the one that exists between media and creators of content. It is not a new debate, but in the financial sphere it takes on a dimension different dimension, because here information takes on the dimension of a raw material that directly influences financial decisions.
A reputable specialist media outlet operates according to certain principles: cross-checking sources, providing context, and exercising editorial responsibility. A channel that amplifies trends, on the other hand, is driven by different incentives: clicks, virality, and alignment with a community. And in finance, failing to highlight risk is a form of misinformation.
There is, moreover, a paradox that is hard to ignore: many of those most susceptible to FOMO (Fear of Missing Out), with few tools to understand the complexity of financial markets, tend to mistrust traditional media and rely on voices with no editorial accountability. For this reason, the debate should not be framed in terms of traditional media versus new channels. The underlying issue is quite another: professionalism versus unfiltered amplification. If the sector hopes to mature, it will need more of the former.
The unfinished business: pedagogy
Despite the progress made, there remains a structural shortcoming: a lack of pedagogy. The quality of the debate has certainly improved. But there is still a significant gap between what is constructed and what is understood.
And here it is worth emphasising a point which, although it may seem obvious, remains unresolved: you cannot hope for widespread adoption with language that only a minority understands. The technical discussion will remain technical at its core, but the public narrative must start elsewhere: with the ‘why’ and the ‘who benefits’. When users understand the value in terms of cost, efficiency, access and security, the technology ceases to be exotic. It is that balance that builds trust.
If we project this trend over the medium term, the fundamental shift is quite clear: blockchain will cease to be regarded as a ‘sector’ once it no longer needs to be defined as such. Once it becomes an integral part of the infrastructure that underpins the systems in use. Just as happened with the internet, and as is the case with any layer that supports more complex systems.
This requires better segmentation, moving away from the catch-all category where everything is labelled as crypto, and starting to distinguish precisely what each thing is. It requires prioritising value over technicalities. And, above all, it requires embracing standards: transparency, audits, controls, accountability and clear, understandable language.
But this transition is not automatic. It is a process that requires the sector to maintain a narrative that lives up to its aspirations. For it is in this coherence between what is built, what is explained and how it is perceived that its consolidation truly hinges. And it is precisely there that the role of the media proves decisive: not only in how that reality is projected, but in how it ultimately comes to be understood and accepted by the public.
