This week will start the Innovation Exchange: Data Insights Spotlight virtual conference. It will run today through Thursday. You can register here. If you have questions about it, don’t hesitate to reach out to me, and I’ll do my best to answer your queries: anthony.malakian@infopro-digital.com.

Also, let me acknowledge that this last week wasn’t the strongest week of content in WatersTechnology’s history. We had two days where we didn’t post much, and of the few stories that we did publish, only a couple were truly exclusive. Coming back from a two-week vacation, I simply didn’t do a good job moderating the site, but I also understand that this is what failing looks like, and I’ll do my damnedest to make sure it’s blip over the course of the year.

And, if I’m being even more honest, this column is more of a rant and isn’t very useful from an “industry perspective” point of view, so continue at your own risk. The “Waters Wrap” is supposed to serve as, partially, an opinion piece, but when I do it right, it’s more about contextualizing industry trends based on articles we’ve written. I’m not going to do that here. I’ve failed, but hopefully, you’re entertained, and maybe it’ll be a little bit thought-provoking.

On the bright side, though, to start this week, I think our subscribers will like this story written by Max Bowie about the London Stock Exchange raising its Sedol fees. This should be a good week. We will redeem ourselves, and quickly.

But first, this column.

Information and Responsibility

In my family, we love debating (at times arguing) all manner of topics, from sports to politics to religion to media to alcohol to family history. Some members of my kin will employ a tactic where they will—with great confidence—state something as fact. If no one immediately calls them on their bullshit, the fact stands. It’s both artistry and Orwellian. Artistry, because you have to be subtle—if you get caught on one lie, everything else you say will be put under the iPhone microscope to check on some “fact” that was just stated. Orwellian, because facts are just what the collective ends up believing, whether true or not.

I do love it, but after four days (which is what I just experienced on my vacation), I had about enough of my family, and I was singing, “Why don’t you leave me alone…well I feel so broke up, I want to go home.” It’s a lovely dynamic, trust me, but few outsiders could take it for very long.

I bring this up because as my dad gets into his mid-70s, his grasp of “fact” seems to be fading. It will likely one day happen to me, too, so I don’t let it upset me, even though he has been one of the wisest individuals I’ve ever known. And he still is—I go to him for counsel all the time, even to this day—but I don’t fully trust what he believes to be “facts” as it pertains to the current state of political affairs, if you get my gist. So if he says something kinda crazy, I could correct him vehemently and even harshly, but what purpose does it serve? I’m not going to argue with this man I love deeply, especially not over trivial bar talk. It’s not like I’m going to win him over at his age, and he isn’t exactly going to live forever…so why fight? Instead, as the great Idina Menzel song goes, you let it go.

I take a similar ethos with me when it comes to online interactions, though it’s from a much different plateau. Let me explain.

On Facebook, Twitter, and, to a lesser degree, Instagram, you will often encounter “negative” people (or bots). You, as an individual, have a choice—engage or ignore.

So, for example, while on vacation, I stupidly looked at Twitter one day (I was trying to ignore it), and a female reporter whom I respect a lot responded to some “Twitter egg” that wrote something quite sexist. Her followers proceeded to (rightfully) shit on this piece of asshole (assuming it was a human and not a bot), while some other “eggs” championed on the asshole. The a-hole only had a few dozen Twitter followers; the reporter has over a quarter-million.

There’s this idea of, “If not me, then who?” The belief is, if I allow this comment/aggression to go unchallenged, it will become accepted as fact. So I must, at this moment, point out how wrong/racist/misogynistic this individual is, or else the idea will fester and grow. While it’s noble in real-life settings, online is not real life.

Here’s what actually happened. A scumbag troll (or a straight-up bot) simply tried to elicit a reaction—any reaction—from someone with a huge platform, thus giving this individual (or bot) a megaphone to connect with other trolls and losers, while angering others. In this case, the troll was massively successful.

We all have a responsibility when it comes to what we choose to present to other people in a community, and I believe this to be especially true online. Yes, you can get your followers to absolutely eviscerate a troll online, but what happens when 1, 2, 3, 5, or 10% of your followers agree with that troll? Now they’re connected, and you initiated that connection. You’re now a hate group Tinder. Congratulations—you definitely won that interaction.

In my last column, I wrote about editorial responsibility. Here, I’m talking more about the responsibility of disseminating information. As the pool of media outlets has grown exponentially, media outlets have largely lost their way when it comes to what should be reported. Gossip, innuendo, and misinformation are now mixed in with real news reports.

But this is also a symptom because of what you, the reader, believe is worthy of being news. You “engage” with salacious articles, retweeting posts that are clearly meant to be click-bait bullshit, or responding to social media posts that were obviously meant to garner a negative reaction. You fed the beast. Do you want to be that person? What did it gain you? What purpose did you serve? (The answer to that last one is that you served the troll/bot…again, congratulations.)

I feel like I’m on a bit of a soapbox, and I’m not sure there’s a real point that connects to fintech, but this idea has been bouncing around my head for a while. Our Reb Natale wrote an outstanding post-mortem about the GameStop/Reddit craziness a while back. She connected the market volatility to the Capitol Hill riots in Washington DC on January 6, writing this: “Those in charge of finding these early warnings were either looking in the wrong places, or shrugging off what they thought was nonsense online talk. This isn’t to say that what goes viral on social media is gospel—it is not. But it can have a real-world impact, often frequently and swiftly.”

And Bob Sloan, the managing partner of S3 Partners, told this to Reb: “If we look at information as a bid and an ask … there’s market structure in everything, right? Everything. From voting booths, to supply chains, to financial markets—there’s market structure. So what we’re really saying is we don’t understand the impact of this market structure.”

For the longest time, market data and reference data were clearly defined, but alternative data—led by online interactions—has muddied these waters. I’m truly not sure where I’m going with this, but I guess the general premise is that we need to be more discerning when it comes to information that we consume, and information that we choose to share; if we treat it as real market and reference data, it will become just that. If you share garbage—even if you protest against that garbage—are you not elevating that garbage?

Phonies. Everywhere, phonies.

In middle school or high school, I had to read JD Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye. As a moody teen, I was told I would love this book. Perhaps on brand, I hated it. Outside of making me want to assassinate someone famous, I got nothing from this supposedly “great American novel.” I thought the book’s protagonist, Holden Caulfield, was a whiny little bitch whose ass I would’ve probably kicked if he went to my school. And his use of the word “phony,” or some derivation thereof, drove me crazy. Decades later, and I can’t look at that word and not wince.

But you know what, that punk-ass-bitch Caulfield was right—phoniness is everywhere around us.

I could go in many different directions with this rant, but let me try and focus on ESG and bitcoin. This past week, Elon Musk made headlines, announcing that Tesla won’t accept bitcoin until the cryptocurrency can be sustainably mined. Now, there are reasons to believe that this edict has nothing to do with altruistic intentions, but it was a shot across the bow of the crypto pirate ship and it helped to drag down bitcoin’s price.

That bit of news reminded me of another story I read in Business Insider earlier in the week. Here was the headline: “Crypto’s carbon footprint is a ‘stumbling block’ for big investors. Here’s how money managers like Fidelity and Invesco are addressing those concerns.”

A bit click-bait-y, sure, but that’s BI (though, it should be said, I’m a happy subscriber). And the article was interesting, as it was fun to read execs from some large institutional investors (including BlackRock) explain this morality play that’s unfolding in their boardrooms—to invest in crypto to find alpha for their clients, and if they do that, how do they adhere to our ESG proclamations?

This is pretty simple: You cannot be investing in bitcoin, no matter how profitable it may be, and at the same time, talk about how you care about sustainability and the environment. It’s that simple. Now, I’m a conservative and a capitalist—while I will not invest in crypto because of sustainability issues, I don’t fault those who do. Just stop talking out the side of your mouth…if you’re investing in bitcoin, you only care about sustainability so much. You really want those returns. You’re. A. Phony.

Comedian Ricky Gervais once said this about the Hollywood elite while presenting at the Golden Globes: “If you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent, and your God, and fuck off, OK?”

The same can be said about companies and their “sustainability efforts.” Or, ESG data providers that are trying to “help investors make more responsible investments.” Or, companies that profess to care about diversity in senior management positions but mysteriously have a lot of old white men (of which, I am) in senior positions.

Phonies. I simply hear a lot of phonies.

This column is tinged with anger, and I’m not sure why. And, again, this wasn’t one of my better columns. I had some ideas, but I just didn’t quite execute them. This is more the stuff I rant about at the White Horse Tavern. I apologize. Next week, I’ll be back with proper fintech conversation. But, for what it’s worth, I’m fully immunized, so if you’d like to grab a drink at the White Horse and talk fintech, hit me up: anthony.malakian@infopro-digital.com.

The image at the top of the page is Jean Veber’s “The Rouart Sale,” courtesy of The Cleveland Museum of Art’s open access program.