nitter.it

While not investment advice, this is my opinion as a fund manager on the ESG case for Bitcoin after 2 months due diligence.

If you’re a manager of fund where #bitcoin is an investment candidate: failure to consider #BTC in the mix is gross negligence to your ESG obligations

If you think mainstream media write more negative environmental articles on Bitcoin than positives, that's no longer true

In the first 125 days of 2023, positive environmental write-ups outnumbered negative articles 4:1

Snapshot below

If you think crypto is dead under the current US regulatory FUD, here's some perspective.

Here's a page out of the 2023 UBS report on family offices (minimum bar is $50m-$100m of investable assets).

35% plan to increase digital asset exposure, while 5% plan to decrease.

Global cryptomarket cap today is $1.06 Trillion Current market cap of #Bitcoin is $504.02B

So assuming users hold similarly sized stacks across all crypto-assets, we currently have around

198.5 Million Bitcoin users

nitter.it/fgthiel/status/1…

The positive environmental usecases of Bitcoin mining keep growing

This greenhouse, and others like it, were using natural gas to heat greenhouses

They are now using #Bitcoin miner heat (powered by rooftop solar)

The operation is carbon negative

Unlike tree planting projects, for landfill gas powergen projects, every minute precise measuring technology can tell you how much carbon you're reducing

When a landfill can't sell that power to the grid, the best use is Bitcoin mining

probably nothing

I've been waiting 3 months to make this post

The Cambridge (CCAF) data on Bitcoin has these issues

1. energy consumption (20.6% overstated) 2. emission intensity (69.4% overstated) 3. sustainable energy mix (39.9% understated) 4. emissions (106% overstated)

Key reasons: * miner-map 17 months out of date (puts Kazakhstan at 13% of hashrate, whereas its currently <1%. Other issues) * mining dataset is non-representative and non-extensive (excludes the 52% of the network, who use 64.7% sustainable energy sources) * offgrid mining not measured (28% of network, who our analysis shows use 78% sustainable-energy sources)

Conclusion: We shouldn't be using the CCAF models of the Bitcoin Network until their model limitations are fixed. To their credit, they are aware of the limitations, and have always been transparent about them on their website.

I've been working with Luxor, Blockware and over 30 miners over the last few months to build an up-to-date model based on the Network's current miner-mix, mining map and energy sources

That work is now done.

If you want to dive into the weeds, you can find all the data, calcs, methodologies and analysis here

1. Emissions and emissions intensity batcoinz.com/accurately-dyna…

here 2. Energy Consumption batcoinz.com/improving-our-e…

and here 3. Sustainable energy mix Batcoinz.com/BEEST

These 3 articles together contains the source data for the pretty charts that @woonomic and I got together to make recently when he was over in NZ.

Otherwise, you can just look at the nice pretty charts.