What was the main issue with the Wall Street Journal's article on Hamas and cryptocurrency?

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) misinterpreted data from Elliptic, suggesting that cryptocurrency was a significant funding source for Hamas' attacks. Critics, including Nic Carter and Paul Grewal, pointed out that the WSJ's framing implied a direct link between cryptocurrency and the financing of these attacks, which lacked evidence.

How did Elliptic respond to the Wall Street Journal's article?

Elliptic publicly called on the WSJ to correct its misinterpretation of the data. They emphasized that while Hamas does utilize cryptocurrency for funding, the scale is relatively small compared to other funding sources. Elliptic expressed satisfaction with the corrections but wished for more specificity in the WSJ's acknowledgment of its mistakes.

What actions are being taken by U.S. legislators regarding cryptocurrency funding?

Over 100 U.S. legislators, led by Senator Elizabeth Warren, have urged the White House to address concerns about cryptocurrency as a potential national security threat. This follows the WSJ's article, which they believe misrepresented the risks associated with crypto funding for terrorism.

What corrections did the Wall Street Journal make to its article?

The WSJ corrected its earlier statement that incorrectly claimed PIJ had sent over $12 million in cryptocurrency to Hezbollah since 2021. They also added extra context regarding Elliptic's research on cryptocurrency financing by Hamas, acknowledging that it remains small relative to other sources.

Why is the framing of cryptocurrency in relation to terrorism funding controversial?

The framing is controversial because it can lead to misconceptions about the scale and impact of cryptocurrency in funding terrorism. Critics argue that sensationalized claims can unjustly stigmatize the entire crypto industry, overshadowing legitimate uses and innovations within the space.

What implications do these corrections have for public perception of cryptocurrency?

The corrections may help clarify misconceptions about cryptocurrency's role in terrorism funding, potentially alleviating some public fears. However, they also highlight the importance of accurate reporting, as misinformation can lead to hasty regulatory actions that might stifle innovation in the crypto sector.

What was the main issue with the Wall Street Journal's article on Hamas and cryptocurrency?

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) misinterpreted data from Elliptic, suggesting that cryptocurrency was a significant funding source for Hamas' attacks. Critics, including Nic Carter and Paul Grewal, pointed out that the WSJ's framing implied a direct link between cryptocurrency and the financing of these attacks, which lacked evidence.

How did Elliptic respond to the Wall Street Journal's article?

Elliptic publicly called on the WSJ to correct its misinterpretation of the data. They emphasized that while Hamas does utilize cryptocurrency for funding, the scale is relatively small compared to other funding sources. Elliptic expressed satisfaction with the corrections but wished for more specificity in the WSJ's acknowledgment of its mistakes.

What actions are being taken by U.S. legislators regarding cryptocurrency funding?

Over 100 U.S. legislators, led by Senator Elizabeth Warren, have urged the White House to address concerns about cryptocurrency as a potential national security threat. This follows the WSJ's article, which they believe misrepresented the risks associated with crypto funding for terrorism.

What corrections did the Wall Street Journal make to its article?

The WSJ corrected its earlier statement that incorrectly claimed PIJ had sent over $12 million in cryptocurrency to Hezbollah since 2021. They also added extra context regarding Elliptic's research on cryptocurrency financing by Hamas, acknowledging that it remains small relative to other sources.

Why is the framing of cryptocurrency in relation to terrorism funding controversial?

The framing is controversial because it can lead to misconceptions about the scale and impact of cryptocurrency in funding terrorism. Critics argue that sensationalized claims can unjustly stigmatize the entire crypto industry, overshadowing legitimate uses and innovations within the space.

What implications do these corrections have for public perception of cryptocurrency?

The corrections may help clarify misconceptions about cryptocurrency's role in terrorism funding, potentially alleviating some public fears. However, they also highlight the importance of accurate reporting, as misinformation can lead to hasty regulatory actions that might stifle innovation in the crypto sector.

cryptocurrency

Wall Street Journal corrects article misciting Hamas’ crypto terrorism funding data

August 11, 2025August 11, 2025

” This is hardly a correction,” he added.Nic Carter, partner of Castle Island Ventures and others are now getting in touch with United States Senator Elizabeth Warren to pull back an associated letter backed by over 100 U.S. legislators composed to the White House on Oct. 17. The letter mentioned WSJs misinterpreted information from Elliptic in an effort to argue that cryptocurrency postures a “nationwide security hazard” to the U.S. and that Congress and the Biden administration should act promptly before cryptocurrencies are utilized to fund another “disaster.” Liz Warren wyd? pic.twitter.com/e0Ew2TQzRb— nic carter (@nic__carter) October 27, 2023.

Related: Elizabeth Warren uses Hamas as her latest scapegoat in war on crypto Coinbases primary legal officer Paul Grewal likewise noted that WSJs opening paragraph is still framed as though cryptocurrency was the main funding source behind Hamas Oct. 7 attack on Israel.2/ @WSJs lede still maintains that the financing supported Hamas attacks depended upon “One response: cryptocurrency.” Theres no evidence of that, and WSJ knows it. pic.twitter.com/BQK80b1jMd— paulgrewal.eth (@iampaulgrewal) October 27, 2023

An earlier version of this post improperly stated PIJ had sent more than $12 million in crypto to Hezbollah since 2021,” WSJ said.WSJ said it updated other parts of the article to consist of “extra context” about Elliptics research.Corrections made by the WSJs Oct. 10 short article. Source: WSJWSJs retraction follows an Oct. 25 declaration by Elliptic which called on WSJ to remedy its misconception of the data. Elliptic added that cryptocurrency financing by Hamas stays “small” relative to other financing sources.On Oct. 27, Elliptic was “happy” to see WSJ acknowledge its mistakes however stated it wouldve liked to see WSJ be more specific about its corrections.Were pleased to see the Wall Street Journal release some corrections to their post based on our feedback.

Publication: United States enforcement agencies are showing up the heat on crypto-related crime

An earlier variation of this post incorrectly stated PIJ had sent more than $12 million in crypto to Hezbollah because 2021,” WSJ said.WSJ stated it updated other parts of the article to consist of “extra context” about Elliptics research.Corrections made by the WSJs Oct. 10 short article. Source: WSJWSJs retraction follows an Oct. 25 declaration by Elliptic which called on WSJ to remedy its misinterpretation of the data. Elliptic included that cryptocurrency financing by Hamas remains “small” relative to other funding sources.On Oct. 27, Elliptic was “happy” to see WSJ acknowledge its mistakes however stated it wouldve liked to see WSJ be more specific about its corrections.Were pleased to see the Wall Street Journal issue some corrections to their post based on our feedback.

Bitcoin Growth

Wall Street Journal corrects article misciting Hamas’ crypto terrorism funding data

Related Content

Other Questions People Ask

Question about Wall Street Journal corrects article misciting Hamas’ crypto terrorism funding data ...?

What is Wall Street Journal corrects article misciting Hamas’ crypto terrorism funding data and why is it important?

How do you choose the right Wall Street Journal corrects article misciting Hamas’ crypto terrorism funding data?