Note that the value of ETH is higher than the value of the energy needed to mine it; that's why people mine. So is your complaint really about mispricing of energy (externalities) or about other people having different values than you?
If a person is willing to spend money (for energy, or for buying crypto on an exchange), we can say crypto has "demonstrable value" for that person, no matter what they want to do with that crypto.
I agree that spending money and receiving value are correlated. I just don't think they're identical.
A core point was that economic growth has now decoupled from many resources. Computers are an obvious aid here; look at how much time we spend in front of one screen or another. My laptop is hugely valuable to me, but it took something like 1g of materials per hour of use to build it, and uses way less power than the lightbulb I previously would have read a book by.
Technology is fundamentally deflationary. So if you believe that inflation (and growth) is necessary for social stability, you must incentivise consumption beyond technology's capacity to improve efficiency.
I can think of a few obvious places where they split. One is where we increase quality. A well-trained chef doesn't use significantly more resources than a bad cook, but the result is much better. There's also quantity; by 1980s prices, I have lost millions of dollars worth of data storage in my couch cushions. (Entertainment is a great example of both dimensions.) And it can be perfectly healthy for an economy to decrease hours worked for the same or better result, as in Germany: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/12/28/why-do-s...
So sure, we want currency stability, and we don't want recessions. But I don't think we face a Midas Plague [1] scenario.
[1] https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1954-04/Galaxy_195...
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-hi...
> Yet when you have very low inflation, getting relative wages right would require that a significant number of workers take wage cuts. So having a somewhat higher inflation rate would lead to lower unemployment, not just temporarily, but on a sustained basis.
Just to be clear that we understand the policy here in blunt terms: The point of inflation is to cheat the working classes out of their income so that the ruling class can lay claim to high employment metrics. This is the price of currency stability.
I don't think the ruling class gives a shit about employment metrics. As we saw with the fashion for "austerity" in Europe, they were positively gleeful about other people's suffering. And no wonder; high unemployment reduces labor's bargaining advantage over capital, thereby increasing their relative power.
My electric grid provider buys power from Hydro Québec. I'm happy they're using a differential rate tariff for crytpo farms. Maybe it will slow the escalation in my bills, which outrun my attempts to conserve electricity.
That being said, crypto farms are an almost ideal workload for a smart grid, as long as they can shut off when other customers draw peak loads. They are a predictable base load, drawing power all the time. A grid with a smaller difference between peak design load and base load has a better return on capital.
That means a grid charging more to miners than other customers acts against its own narrow self-interest. But, grids do it anyway. My local grid pays to retrofit city street lights (another nice base load) from sodium vapor to LEDs to save power, for example.
If we (collectively) embrace crypto, we must also embrace nuclear power because it's great for base load and emits no carbon. Is that a bargain worth making?