Someone wrote an article about two types of digital money, Neo and Dogwifhat. They said that Neo is doing better than Dogwifhat right now because it is going up in value more. This is happening even though the government in China does not want people to use these kinds of digital money. The person who wrote the article also gave some numbers to show how much each one is worth today. Read from source...

1. The title is misleading and sensationalist, as it implies that Dogwifhat is left behind by Ethereum of China, which is not true. Both cryptocurrencies are performing well in the market, but one cannot be compared to the other based on a single day's performance.
2. The article lacks depth and objectivity, as it only focuses on the price movements of both cryptocurrencies without providing any context or analysis of their fundamentals, use cases, adoption rates, etc. It also does not mention any other factors that might influence the market sentiment, such as regulations, news, events, etc.
3. The article uses emotional language and terms, such as "plunges", "surge", "resilience", "killer", etc., to create a negative or positive tone around either cryptocurrency, which might bias the reader's perception and decision making. It also does not provide any data or evidence to support these claims, making them unreliable and subjective.
4. The article does not cite any sources or references for its information, making it hard to verify its accuracy and credibility. It also does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or affiliations with any parties involved in the cryptocurrency market, which might affect its impartiality and transparency.
5. The article ends with a promotion for Benzinga's APIs and content generation system, which is irrelevant and unnecessary for the reader, as it does not add any value or insight to the topic of discussion. It also seems like an attempt to manipulate the reader into using Benzinga's services, which might be in conflict with their interests or preferences.

Possible answer: The article has a mixed sentiment. On one hand, it highlights the impressive performance of Neo and Dogwifhat in the cryptocurrency market despite the challenges and regulations. This could be seen as bullish for these assets and their potential future growth. On the other hand, the title and some parts of the article suggest that Dogwifhat is lagging behind Ethereum of China, which implies a negative outlook for Dogwifhat and its investors. Additionally, the article mentions the recent prohibition on cryptocurrency in China, which could be perceived as a bearish factor for the entire crypto market. Therefore, I would say that the overall sentiment of the article is neither clearly bullish nor bearish, but rather mixed with some positive and negative elements.