I understand the desire to defend bitcoin but nobody was blaming bitcoin. It was fraud that involved bitcoin. Maybe a little less sensitivity on the subject...
I understand, I suppose it is just about it is how the article is interpreted. I don't particular want to go down the rabbit hole of deciphering each sentence but the article has the sense of a pump-and-dump newspaper filler than anything else.
How many high-net worth individuals are being 'groomed' these days to part with their earnings? And why now, if it is a thing of significance then surely grooming high-net worth individuals did not become a thing with the advent of crypto? Surely it is happening all the time?
The article is very sketchy on where the proposed €500,000 transfer was headed for. It could have been bitcoin, or shares, bonds, metals, overseas property.
Only later in the article is there reference to other victims who "
then encouraged to buy very significant amounts of Bitcoin", which in todays parlance could mean they bought 0.1 of a bitcoin when it was €3,000 (or €300 worth) and that 0.1 is now worth a significant €6,000.
Im not saying there isnt fraud, or attempted fraud, but the article is very watery in detail and smacks more that the headline uses bitcoin for click-bait more than anything.
That is just my opinion, I could of course be wrong.