BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Optimism Bias, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 25.8% saturation with 123 hits. Analysis detected 1,125 faulty-reasoning hits from 476 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.4% and a BS Rank of 62% (8,376 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.70% of the article peer group.

As stablecoin use surges globally, traditional finance is rushing to keep pace. 
Many businesses, though, are still getting up to speed on how to integrate dollar-pegged tokens into customer payments, and London-based startup Velocity—which on Tuesday announced a $38 million Series A funding round—is one of the firms helping them to do so. 
“These are companies that do not understand that they can be using stablecoins to solve their problems. 
Those are the people we are going for,” said Rob Hadick, a general partner at the venture capital firm Dragonfly, which has carved out a niche in backing firms that facilitate fiat-to-bridge transactions. 
Dragonfly and Firstmark led Velocity’s Series A round, which also included investments from Coinbase, Capital One Ventures, and Wintermute. 
Eric Queathem, founder and CEO of Velocity, declined to specify at what valuation his startup raised its most recent stash of capital. 
Corporate stablecoin push 
Founded in 2025, Velocity aims to tap into the industry’s rapid expansion, with its name pointing to its goal of making payments faster through stablecoins. 
The company declined to name specific clients but said its customers include a mix of global merchants, payment providers, fintechs, and financial institutions. 
Queathem has encountered the frustrations that arise when using traditional banking rails to settle cross-border transactions. 
Before Velocity, he spent the last nine years at payments technology company WorldPay, leading corporate strategy and acquisitions before launching their crypto and global payouts division. 
There, he saw that while consumer payments looked sleek, the underlying infrastructure was “awful.” 
Velocity sees traditional banks and foreign exchange houses as its main competitors, rather than other payments startups. 
Hadick described Velocity as a model that moves beyond simpler use cases into the more complex treasury and cross-border settlement needs of large companies. 
“What Velocity has built is what we think is the easiest, most comprehensive set of solutions for these businesses to come on-chain and to do [so] in a way that’s familiar to them,” Queathem told Fortune . 
The company already operates in the United States, parts of Europe, and Australia, and plans to use the new capital to obtain licenses required to expand into Africa and Latin America. 
It will also invest in infrastructure for secure asset custody and develop features such as yield-generating stablecoin products. 
Stablecoins have rapidly expanded over the past two years, extending beyond fintech and into Wall Street. 
Proponents say they enable faster cross-border payments and lower transaction costs, and venture investors have committed hundreds of millions of dollars to the sector over the past year. 
In June, Open Standard, a consortium of financial firms including Stripe, Visa , BlackRock , and more than 140 others, said it would launch its own stablecoin to compete with the market’s current leaders. 
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.4%Camila Grigera Naón: 3.1%Fortune: 4.2%Confirmation Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%Camila Grigera Naón: 5.5%Fortune: 3.3%Availability Heuristic10.7%This article: 15.8%Camila Grigera Naón: 5.3%Fortune: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic15.8%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Camila Grigera Naón: 5.2%Fortune: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias7.8%This article: 6.9%Camila Grigera Naón: 5.7%Fortune: 6.7%Framing Effect6.9%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 18.1%Camila Grigera Naón: 8.7%Fortune: 3.4%Optimism Bias18.1%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Camila Grigera Naón: 1.0%Fortune: 7.0%Negativity Bias2.9%This article: 6.9%Camila Grigera Naón: 2.3%Fortune: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Camila Grigera Naón: 1.2%Fortune: 0.8%In-Group Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Camila Grigera Naón: 10.7%Fortune: 3.2%Halo Effect10.5%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 1.2%Fortune: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.4%Camila Grigera Naón: 1.1%Fortune: 1.5%Recency Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 3.6%Camila Grigera Naón: 1.2%Fortune: 0.2%Straw Man3.6%This article: 25.8%Camila Grigera Naón: 12.3%Fortune: 4.8%Appeal to Authority25.8%This article: 3.8%Camila Grigera Naón: 1.3%Fortune: 2.2%False Dilemma3.8%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.6%Camila Grigera Naón: 4.9%Fortune: 6.0%Hasty Generalization8.6%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 15.5%Camila Grigera Naón: 5.2%Fortune: 0.5%Bandwagon15.5%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 2.6%Fortune: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.4%Camila Grigera Naón: 1.1%Fortune: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.4%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 5.3%Camila Grigera Naón: 1.8%Fortune: 0.2%Appeal to Nature5.3%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.8%Camila Grigera Naón: 4.7%Fortune: 2.5%Anecdotal7.8%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.8%Camila Grigera Naón: 2.6%Fortune: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.8%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.9%Camila Grigera Naón: 5.0%Fortune: 1.5%Unattributed Quote14.9%This article: 3.6%Camila Grigera Naón: 1.2%Fortune: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection3.6%This article: 23.3%Camila Grigera Naón: 7.8%Fortune: 4.4%Biased Writer Voice23.3%This article: 5.3%Camila Grigera Naón: 1.8%Fortune: 1.3%Indoctrination5.3%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Camila Grigera Naón: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 17.9%Camila Grigera Naón: 14.9%Fortune: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…17.9%

476 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers61%attributed speech185writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageRob Hadick • 17 words • 100.0% coverageRob Hadick • 33 words • 100.0% coverageDragonfly • 19 words • 0.0% coverageEric Queathem • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageVelocity • 23 words • 100.0% coverageEric Queathem • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageVelocity • 17 words • 0.0% coverageRob Hadick • 24 words • 0.0% coverageEric Queathem • 37 words • 100.0% coverageVelocity • 31 words • 100.0% coverageVelocity • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageOpen Standard • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Open Standard

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words12% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-22.2 ptsWriter: 22.2%Open Standard: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-13.5 ptsWriter: 13.5%Open Standard: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Open Standard: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.