Even Wikipedia fell for the environmental FUD surrounding Proof-Of-Work mining. A proposal to โstop accepting cryptocurrency donationsโ is currently under discussion. It starts with the same very thin arguments that the whole mainstream media irresponsibly uses. However, it gets better and more interesting. In general, itโs amazing to see both sides of the argument unfolding. Even though there might be some information suppression going on.
Related Reading | Human Rights Foundation Accepts Fully Open Source Bitcoin Donations
Well do our best to summarize the whole thing, but people interested in the topic should take time to read it all. Itโs full of twists and turns. The most amazing thing about the document is that real people wrote it. Wikipedia editors are not a sample of the worldโs population, but, theyโre heterogeneous enough to make the discussion interesting.ย
Wikipedia Falls For The Environmental FUD
The original proposal poses three problems with receiving cryptocurrency donations, but, in reality, we can summarize them all in the ESG FUD category. The three points are:
-
โAccepting cryptocurrency signals endorsement of the cryptocurrency space.โ
-
โCryptocurrencies may not align with the Wikimedia Foundationโs commitment to environmental sustainability.โ
-
โWe risk damaging our reputation by participating in this.โ
Itโs a shame that, to try to prove their points, the original author uses a questionable source and a discredited one.
โBitcoin and Ethereum are the two most highly-used cryptocurrencies, and are both proof-of-work, using an enormous amount of energy. You can read more about Bitcoinโs environmental impact from Columbia or Digiconomist.โ
Counterpoint: That Data Is Compromised
ย
Even though itโs widely cited, an โemployee of the Dutch Central Bankโ posing as a neutral journalist runs Digiconomist. That fact alone disqualifies him as a credible source. However, his data is also under question because โDigiconomist Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index is not being driven by real world metrics and profitability as stated in the methodology.โ So, weโre dealing with an intellectually dishonest individual whoโs presumably paid to attack the Bitcoin network.
For more information on this shady character, go to the section โThe Digiconomist is Disinformation.โ
The Columbia report is newer, but it cites outdated data and debunked studies. Like the ridiculous one that doesnโt understand how PoW scales, or even works, and irresponsibly claims that crypto-mining could raise the Earthโs temperature by two degrees. Columbiaโs main source, though, is the โUniversity of Cambridge analysis.โ That same organization literally said that โThere is currently little evidence suggesting that Bitcoin directly contributes to climate change.โย
However, they suspiciously erased that part from their report. They changed the wording and now their FAQ just contains a โradical thought experimentโ in which โall this energy comes exclusively from coal.โ Even under those extreme circumstances, which are far-far away from reality, the energy use would be marginal. โIn this worst-case scenario, the Bitcoin network would be responsible for about 111 Mt (million metric tons) of carbon dioxide emissions1, accounting for roughly 0.35% of the worldโs total yearly emissions.โ
ETH price chart for 01/13/2022 on Poloniex | Source: ETH/USD on TradingView.com
Protecting The Process Or Information Suppression?
Under the whole thread, thereโs a section called โDiscussion moved from proposal section.โ It contains several suppressed pro-cryptocurrencies arguments. The reason is that the accounts that made them had โno other editing recordsโ. What do the people proposing that those opinions should be removed argue? That they โrisk that both vote gaming and manipulation of discussion to introduce bias and fake โbitcoinโ news.โ
Coincidentally, those low-edit accounts are the ones bringing forward the information on how bogus the original posterโs sources are. Someone had to say it and they did. And the administrators removed them from the main thread. Is this really what Wikipedia is about.ย
Luckily, other Wikipedia contributors managed to say that โBitcoin is therefore a green energy stimulus, aligned with the Wikimedia Foundationโs commitment to environmental sustainability. โ Another user urged โeveryone to understand more about Bitcoin as a whole package beyond its energy footprint (negligible when compared to the cost in oil and warfare of backing the US Dollar) as well as the continual exponential progress that has been made in making Bitcoin greener and greener.โ Yet another one said โbitcoin core is a FLOSS project attempting to promote monetary freedom.โ
In any case, the crypto detractors trying to game the vote might have a point. Except for the ridiculous โfake โbitcoinโ newsโ claim. The header of the discussion says, โthis is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikimedia contributorsโ. And the administrator tells them that they canโt remove their opinions or votes. However, โan optimal RfC scenario would not actively silence any voices, but would allow community members to inform each other which participants are not community members, who may have alternative interests.โ Thatโs fair.
What About The Votes? Is Wikipedia Banning Crypto Donations?
The vote doesnโt look good for crypto donations, but that doesnโt mean Wikipedia will ban them. At the time of writing, the โsupportโ votes are approximately double than the โopposeโ ones. Plus, roughly 150 Wikipedia persons have voted. Does this mean the ESG FUD worked and cast a shadow over the whole crypto space that will be hard to shake? Absolutely it does.
Related Reading | New Contender Emerges Despite Wikipediaโs Begrudging Listing of Cardano
It also means that people WANT to believe. And are not willing to accept the overwhelming evidence that points to PoW mining being a net positive for the environment.
Fortunately, Bitcoin doesnโt care. Tick tock, next block.
Featured Image by James on Unsplash | Charts by TradingView
