‘Patient zero’ of Bitcoin gaslighting was Digiconomist in 2018: ESG analyst

by

As a seasoned crypto investor with a keen interest in environmental sustainability, I find myself deeply intrigued by Daniel Batten’s recent claims regarding the misinformation surrounding Bitcoin’s environmental impact. Having closely followed this debate since its inception, I can’t help but agree that there has been a significant amount of misdirection and fear-mongering, much of which seems to trace back to Alex de Vries’ 2018 report.

According to Bitcoin advocate Daniel Batten, a single analysis by Alex de Vries, founder of Digiconomist, in 2018 is responsible for the majority of misleading environmental impact conclusions about Bitcoin that have been presented since then.

In the December 12th X thread discussion, Batten stated that they had identified the initial patient in our study. This was not explicitly linked to a specific comment within the thread, but previously, Batten has critiqued a May 2018 report by de Vries titled “Bitcoin’s Escalating Energy Consumption Issue.

Digiconomist is a platform “dedicated to exposing the unintended consequences of digital trends.”

According to Batten’s analysis, reports about Bitcoin in the mainstream media often cite the “energy consumption” metric, a practice that he describes as a form of “misleading Bitcoin portrayal in the media.

“Much of the population was misinformed over many years, and as a result many investment committees, regulators and policymakers still do not know that 13 of the last 15 papers support the environmental benefits of Bitcoin.”

Digiconomist operates a “Bitcoin E-Waste Tracker” which indicates that approximately 40.97 metric tons of electronic waste has been generated by Bitcoin transactions during the past year. This equates to about 230.10 grams of e-waste per single transaction.

Nevertheless, Batten, a venture capitalist specializing in climate technology, argues that the metric measuring energy consumption per transaction in Bitcoin is “inherently faulty.

“Bitcoin energy use does not come from its transactions, therefore it can scale transaction volume exponentially without increasing emissions.” 

According to Batten, the approach that de Vries employed has recently been discredited in various scholarly articles published on platforms such as ResearchGate, ScienceDirect, and Nature.

“That’s why 96% of mainstream media outlets […] are no longer gaslighting Bitcoin’s environmental impact.”

In my recent analysis, I’ve noticed an increasing trend among various news outlets such as Reuters, Yahoo Finance, Forbes, and the Financial Times, to highlight the environmental advantages associated with Bitcoin, as I pointed out in my December 12 blog post.

Despite the progress, Batten stresses there is still so “much re-education work to do” before there will be mainstream adoption of “Bitcoin mining as part of climate action.”

CryptoMoon reached out to de Vries but didn’t receive an immediate response.

Approximately 54.5% of Bitcoin mining operations are powered by renewable or sustainable energy sources, as indicated by the Bitcoin Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Prognosis.

As Digiconomist began reporting on Bitcoin in 2018, mainstream media outlets began more frequently critiquing Bitcoin’s high energy usage.

In a report published in October 2018, The Washington Post described Bitcoin as a “high energy consumer,” implying it has a tendency to use an abnormally large amount of energy which may potentially have a detrimental impact on our planet’s climate.

Read More

2024-12-13 06:07