Because it's a nonsensical word that was only used by people to wave away obvious and legitimate criticisms. You don't see analysts reports in finance being called FUD, even when they are critical. That's because in the real world, people deal with and/or respond to criticism. In the crypto fantasy world, all of that is resolved just by calling it "fud".
You're a little off base with your history. I make no claim on current usage of the word but saying this was only ever used to wave away obvious and legitimate criticism is not correct.
> In addition to acknowledging that free programs can compete with commercial software in terms of quality, the memorandum calls the free software movement a "long-term credible" threat and warns that employing a traditional Microsoft marketing strategy known as "FUD," an acronym for "fear, uncertainty and doubt," will not succeed against the developers of free software.
An argument? Crypto is facing a crisis moment. An "exchange" which has never been audited and won't say where it is, legally or physically, has halted redemptions. That prompts legitimate questions as to their liquidity. Dismissing any criticism as FUD short circuits asking why we should believe their liquidity is adequate.
> doesn't always mean that it is because of insolvency, which is what my FUD comment revolves around
Straw man. Nobody said this is definitive proof of imminent insolvency. Just that it raises legitimate concerns, concerns Binance has done a bad job addressing. The perception problem that itself creates is quite real.
More broadly, not all fear and caution is unwarranted. Telling someone pointing at what looks like a crocodile that they’re being fearful for not wading is technically correct in the most useless way.
That is what the word FUD does. It equivocates every kind of criticism and then minimizes them. That is why I do not trust the use of the word. It is a calling card for rhetorical dishonesty.
