Anyway its a sensationalist statistic designed to arouse your response. I’d expect theres heaps of things more wasteful.. office building services running 24/7 comes to mind
Bitcoin consuming massive amounts of electricity is bad. Idle devices consuming massive amounts of electricity is also bad.
Edit: that's my whole point: mining BTC is generating value by verifying transactions. In turn, the miner gets paid for their work.
Mining bitcoin is most similar to a central bank printing/issuing money (except it's issued to the person that can waste the most electricity or show proof of stake rather than being issued selectively by the central government).
Banks can add to the money supply by lending out money which has been saved in them by others, but there is nothing unique to fiat currencies about this, and the same can be done with Bitcoin or other crypto. I suspect you wouldn't say that 'banks can create new bitcoins without mining', but that's the same thing as saying 'banks can create new money without printing it'.
We have yet to see if alternative systems like proof-of-stake can gain the same trust and replace proof-of-work while actually consuming less energy in practice. I'm hopeful though.
There are no companies that generate dollars. That would be counterfeiting.
Other than banks. Banks generate new dollars through fractional reserve lending, though they also destroy them.
Sure, there's bitcoin cash, lightning network stuff - but uhh, where's the beef? I mean, seriously, where are the users using Bitcoin at volume?
It seems like Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme for people mining (or HODLing) Bitcoin, not a store of value, not a mechanism of currency.
Also: Bitcoin's maximum possible transaction rate could be arbitrarily scaled up without impacting the electricity usage at all (but it would have other trade-offs not related to energy usage, which has made it hard to establish a consensus on the issue).
A system where you essentially can't transact is economically dead. The health of an economy is measured by how quickly money flows in it, not in how wealthy a dragon sitting on a pile of gold can get.
It can be a speculative system, but that's far less useful than being a monetary system. Bitcoin is a terrible currency in the same way that houses, or diamond rings are a terrible currency. Settling transactions in them is slow and incredibly expensive.
> The health of an economy is measured by how quickly money flows in it
Bitcoin isn't an economy. It is just a small part of the overall economy
That's because you don't need a 50% attack to destroy bitcoin. You just need the stroke of a pen, and it's price, and utility would collapse.
Those things should ought to have a much higher cost to attack since they hold significantly more value than Bitcoin currently.
> You just need the stroke of a pen, and it's price, and utility would collapse.
Then simply valuate it on what it will be worth in a post-regulation future rather than its current value. If you really believe that will happen, then it presents a great shorting opportunity for you and you would be helping to price in risks such as that.
Depending on the kind of regulation, its value would either be roughly the same (if the regulation is of the KYC form), or would go into free-fall (if the regulation is of the 'this is illegal, starting 30 days from now').
But that's not my point. My point is that the much touted BTC resilience to a 49% attack is a solution to a problem that nobody has.
> My point is that the much touted BTC resilience to a 49% attack is a solution to a problem that nobody has.
If nobody has the problem, then nobody will buy it.
If it can, why hasn't it?
It's also not clear the market has a strong demand for an increased transaction rate yet. Eventually it will be almost unavoidable, but we might not be there yet. If that's the case then it might be harmful to increase the number of frivolous/unnecessary transactions for no reason.
For context, just one part of the US economy is the stock market. The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) which came up in the news recently processed $2.15 quadrillion in securities in 2019.
The 30 day average for estimated transactions in Bitcoin is around 5-6 billion, or still around 1/1000th just one art of the US economy's transaction volume.
At 5 transactions per second, the average transaction size would have to be around $1,268,2308 to equal the velocity of just one portion of one sector of the US economy. 5 transactions per second is actually higher than the average transaction throughput over the past several years.
Plenty of reasonable people likely think that Bitcoin doesn't create any value.
EDIT: proof of storage -> proof of space
However, people can, and will, lie and cheat for profit. In this case it's in the form of PR and playing nice with the Government, possibly for tax reasons.
We've seen this same story play out in the car industry[0], and that has far fewer (albeit far larger) players that need to be properly regulated.
So, from a technical perspective, how would you achieve this goal? Could one mathematically and cryptographically prove that the work was done using renewable energy? I don't know, that's something for someone much smarter than me to figure out.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
I'm not sure if this is possible to extrapolate to prove an energy generation process... But, it's exciting that a physical material can be cryptographically proven over a network (if I'm reading this abstract correctly).
Your dangling iPods and Alarms Clock, however, are just hunks of junk, sitting around, highly illiquid.
I'd bet that _all_ idle "devices" in in the US are providing far more utility by being ready and available to do ... anything (you did say all), than bitcoin which is _only_ a vehicle for speculating on intrinsic value being used by a tiny minority.
Sorry but I'm fed up of these stupid comparisons, if bitcoin uses 0.56% of the worlds electricity, there are a maximum of 178 ways to divide up the rest... it's simply not on that scale of usefulness, _and_ it is not comparable to fucking visa because it doesn't serve the worlds transactions, no one buys coffee with bitcoin. It's also not comparable to the USD for the same reason. Everything you compare it to will be of more material value to the world and almost always consume less energy, even if it's icecream. </rant>
Of course there's no guarantee that bitcoin or any of the other cryptos will resolve this issue for us, but they are our best chance at the moment.
That's not what this is about, Bitcoin has utterly failed at that mission, and nothing about cryptocurrencies necessitates computationally wasteful proof of work. The only reason Bitcoin is still popular is because of people using it for speculating, it's not a viable currency.
It has failed at being a usable currency, and not merely for socioeconomic reasons. A currency is more than just intrinsic value.
Think of how much unnecessary transacting and consumption is going on right now to escape a constantly inflating dollar. "Investments" and consumptions will tank with a deflationary store of value.
People keep repeating this as if it's a well known truth, and I'm wondering where they came up with the idea. Why are we to believe that inflation is the source of our current economic woes?
Certainly someone is gobbling up those dollars. I don't think it's most people though.
If the money supply were to suddenly shrink, the average person would not become richer; that added value would be concentrated in fewer hands. That's basically what is happening with bitcoin.
It already succeeded in helping rich people in China to bring their wealth out of control. This has maximum utility for a lot of people. I'm not sure what will come after the current financial system (and it most probably won't go anywhere and will co-exist for some years before crypto will be banned everywhere), but this new type of wealth transfer mechanism already gets used a lot. Everyone who distrusts the current financial system or is oppressed by their regime is interested in it.
I don't know how the world will look like (it'll probably be very hard to continue the current path because capital has found a new way to move across borders and avoid taxes, again) and I don't know if it's generally good for global society, but Pandora's box is open.
I agree with the energy discussion and that it's wasteful, but the utility of it (transacting without governmental permission) seems to be higher for the participants. And they don't care about its socioeconomic impact, they care about its utility for them (money for miners and speculators who keep BTC's value high and the network functional, permissionless transaction for the actual target audience / users of BTC). BTC was built for permissionless money transactions, the speculation is just a byproduct and everyone is focusing on it instead of looking at its actual value for its users.
edit for the sibling comments: You need BTC only to move your assets from one country/wallet to another. You can then move it to a stable coin like USDC and slowly and safely get it out of the crypto system without having to deal with the volatility. This takes you half an hour and you're done. It's currently an investment vehicle, but its utility comes from being able to get money from A to B regardless of government intervention. Even if BTC drops to $3k, it still has this value. Looking at the price of BTC is missing the point: it's more than $0 and you can do a transaction in 10 minutes and that is all that matters to move assets.
How would one measure that? The price of one bitcoin compared to the price of a kilogram of gold? That seems arbitrary. Total market value? Transaction volume?
Governments are already taking efforts to fight against crypto. The fact that bitcoin is classified as an "asset" is the government adding friction to using it. Every time you transact in bitcoin you have to put that on your taxes because there's some capital gains/loss. Of course, they don't talk about it as if that is an attack, but it is. And they wouldn't be attacking it if they weren't scared. It's surely not guaranteed, maybe not even likely, but it's still possible that we will win.
Your government rant is a non-sequitor - bitcoin doesn't become any more efficient just because The Man doesn't like it.
I've actually wondered about this -> why not use the SP500 as a form of currency? It seems like this would fit somewhere in between the US dollar and Bitcoin - store of value, increases in price over time (or at least historically does), pays dividends (so a productive asset). Downsides are no capped supply, and volatility (but so is Bitcoin).
It's got to be on a similar playing field right? i wouldn't be surprised if it was a little more than 0.56% globally. But look at how much _billions_ of people get out of it all over the world: entertainment, art, education, something to connect to people with... it has a huge and invaluable impact on society - i dare anyone to try compare that to Bitcoin (not blockchain, not the utopian crypto dream, but Bitcoin).
The pitchforks are out in this thread quite simply because people dont like other people outmaneuvering them in purchasing power but of course is disguised as a virtue signal.
Let me provide one counter though: I couldn't give a rats ass whether you outmanouver me financially, I do care whether my child has a livable planet for his lifetime.
None of this excuses Bitcoin.
That’s a bit simplistic and completely lacking in big picture perspective. You even underline “only” as if you’re very confident in what you’re saying. Please do some research.
Bitcoin has many virtues, but a "store or value" is demonstrably not one of them. Why do you, and many others, feel that it is in spite of its volatility?
> about as "reliable" as a store of value as a casino chip
Casino analogies are misleading because the problem with the casino is that the expected outcome is negative. The problem with the casino isn't the volatility.
There are plenty of stores of value which have extreme volatility but are still prized by investors, like real estate or artwork.
> demonstrably not one of them
We are talking about an asset class that has existed for about 1 decade. Nobody is really sure what it will be able to achieve, but its ability to act as a store of value seems promising. As more people form their opinion about this and other matters related to cryptocurrencies, we should expect the volatility to decrease. So the volatility at the current moment is not really a good indicator for the long-term volatility.
However idle devices power consumption also needs to be addressed.
If someone is murdered in one city, that doesn't suddenly become less bad when someone else is murdered in another.
I wonder how much electricity California will be consuming when we stop selling gas cars and go all electric...
To put in in numbers, according to the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index[1] (they link to other research that arrive at similar conclusions, if not worse): the total footprint is almost 37 million tons of CO2, a single transaction accounting for over 300 kg. A single transaction requires the same amount of energy as an average household over 22 days, or emits the same amount of CO2 as a 2020 Civic driving 1,000 miles.
The comparison with the visa network is just as wild: a single bitcoin transaction takes more energy than 432,000 visa transactions.
At this point it's highly irresponsible to continue using and supporting Bitcoin.
Does not make sense? Of course not because dividing the amount of electricity used to mine a block by the amount of transactions also doesn't make sense.
If you, after 20 years, sell that house for $600,000, does that mean that you were paid $20, each time you entered your house?
A bitcoin transaction, on the other hand, is quite literally a colossal waste of electricity, to enable an incredibly small amount of value (Settling one transaction.)
You may be able to argue that it also enables another kind of value (A bunch of bitcoin hoarders getting rich), but that's not value that's of relevance to literally anyone else in the world.
Look, you can make an argument that traditional billionaires help the world by much handwaving of invisible hands efficiently allocating resources in open markets.
What second order forms of value for the world does the existence of bitcoin speculators create?
Yeah because - smart people in the bitcoin space NEVER spent any time thinking about energy consumption.
These same regulators would love to steer policy and public opinion by calling something that reduces their influence bad for the climate, even if such a thing is run on clean energy, solar, etc. That seems suspicious.
Beware of what -isms you are repeating and supporting - they are very likely aligned with other -isms you would not support, or are a root cause of the issue you care about in the first place. Environmentalism is no exception.
Overall, blockchain currency has the ability to help humanity. If that requires more power, well, so does everything. I'd focus on how to generate that power renewably, not to argue against a technology that millions in the unbanked world could use to better their situation. I'd suggest you learn more about the problems that present cryptocurrency as a potential solution before just listing new problems.
I've yet to hear of anything "world-changing" BTC could do that isn't already done better by traditional systems.
Bitcoin has already changed humanity for the better and it's only getting started.
How has the US dollar been destroyed? It has enjoyed remarkable price stability, very close to the target rate, which is what everyone expects and can plan for.
The other has seen astronomical, wild price swings, which no one could plan for, and while it's currently enjoying a high value (just as tulips once did), it was worth 95% less just 10 months ago - and probably will be again soon.
> The other has seen astronomical, wild price swings, which no one could plan for, and which is currently enjoying a high price (just as tulips once did), but which was worth 95% less just 10 months ago - and probably will be again soon.
People have been saying this at their own expense for a decade.
If housing were expensive because the dollar had lost value, then you would expect it to be cheap to buy a house in SF in some other form of currency. But it's not, no matter what medium of exchange you want to use, it's still expensive.
And there are of course lots of locations with significant supply where housing in the US is dirt cheap, like Detroit.
Health care is more complex, but the same general idea applies. Whether you pay in USD, or anything else, it's still expensive.
> Whether you pay in USD, or anything else, it's still expensive.
> no matter what medium of exchange you want to use, it's still expensive.
Not if you hold BTC. It's unfortunate that people are self-sabotaging by keeping USD based assets when there's actually an alternative that's not in a inflationary spiral.
I think the BTC hate on this site is unique though. In the "real" world people are pretty excited about crypto and acting in their own best interest by acquiring it.
The classic false dichotomy by people peddling crypto. Nobody is keeping their money in a savings account. There are productive investments that aren't crypto.
Ironically, crypto's returns are all due to Tether...which is purely inflationary printing. USDT is what you'd get with the USD if the Fed were run by actual criminals.
Let's chat in a year.
BTC (and several other cryptos) are the only safe place to store money in the long term.
> Let's chat in a year.
Indeed. No one who's bet against crypto has come out looking prescient.
50k to 15M in GME calls in less then 1 month if you were lucky.
It's all gambling but to say bitcoin is the best source of wealth/gambling shows your lack of experience.
Where would you put your money now that bitcoin is 50k?
I want to compare that to my stock + calls on random meme stocks. (also vs s&p)
> Where would you put your money now that bitcoin is 50k?
BTC of course. USD is only going to continue to drop.
I invested a nice sum of money in November 2019.
Option 1: BTC from 9300 to 48000 means 5x
Option 2: TSLA from 62 (pre-split) to 796 means 12x. (much much more via calls)
Which do you think I went for? Which strategy do you think will continue to make reliable money in the future?
What about November 2018 or November 2017? Like I said, Bitcoin has consistently been up in the long term for the past decade.
SO you mean EXACTLY what you're doing with BTC?
I swear the BTC cult rivals the Qanon crazies in cognitive dissonance.
The risk profile of Crypto vs an index fund is exponentially worse.
What you should care about is what asset provides you the best return with the lowest risk.
At any time in history you can look back at the past ten years and say "Clearly X stock was the best choice for investors and you're foolish to claim otherwise!"
Meantime, it's useful to keep track of who is most vocally against a technology that could eliminate graft.
> Overall, blockchain currency has the ability to help humanity. If that requires more power, well, so does everything.
You jump immediately into whataboutism: what about all the other things that require power.
Bitcoin is not beyond criticism. It is currently 99.99% used for speculation. Does it have potential? Absolutely. Do a number of competing non-PoW/non-blockchain based solutions also have potential? Yes. Do those competitors potentially use far less energy? Also yes.
In the best case, Bitcoin is using a metric shit-ton of energy before actually hitting critical mass for its social use-cases. In its worst case, its a Tether-backed ponzi that is siphoning a tremendous amount of energy from more productive uses.
Cryptocurrencies is what happens when libertarian techbros try do "disrupt" basic financial systems without taking the time to figure out how it's really working.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Peaple saying that embracing bitcoin is going to create a fairest world for all are either deluded or trying to sell you something.
In 2017 hundreds of projects (be it premined coins or "ICOs") got literally billions of dollars for all sorts of revolutionary projects. What are the results? Where's the revolution? Why am I know posting on HN through the blockchain?
11 years on and still no use case besides pyramid schemes and buying drugs online. Great job folks.
Like, at least the current fiat model actually works for most people.
This is textbook conspiracy theory here. Don't forget that even if bitcoin was running 100% on renewable energy (which it definitely is not), the added load on the grid definitely causes coal/gas plants to fire up and make the grid CO2 emissions of the country where people mine bitcoin to get worse.
I don't buy the decentralised argument either, more than 51% of the hashrate is in China and the government can decide to shut all of this down the day they want to reduce their unproductive CO2 emissions.
Honestly, it continues to surprise me how clueless most of HN commenters are on this topic.
How many other topics that get posted here have the same thing happening??
Why would we want to create another currency system when we feel enslaved to the first one but at the same time aware we are the minority of people, and hold an incredible privilege.
It's easier to pretend you don't understand, or just don't think about it, look the other way and suck on those corporate titties to the tune of 250k USD/year because that's the attitude that got us to the top.
It would seem that Bitcoin is more popular amongst those who don't use cryptocurrencies, and Ethereum is more popular amongst those who are. Just a thought.
Once even one of the major chains is on Proof of Stake or Proof of Space or something we can talk about how associating cryptocurrency with PoW is unfair. AFAIK the closest we've come is that Ethereum people started experimenting with proof of stake in December? Things like that are progress but don't do anything to put a dent into the massive electricity and resource squeezes being created by cryptocurrencies.
If you look at the five biggest coins by market cap (excluding USDT which is just digital Dollar) then three of them use proof of stake, Cardano, Polkadato and Ripple. Ethereum is actively transitioning to proof of stake.
Bitcoin is the ONLY outlier. Though also the biggest market.
Cardano, Cosmos, Polkadot are a few protocols that are PoS but are still very early in their development.
> "we're what, over a decade in to the history of cryptocurrency"
I would argue that's not long at all. The internet was technically invented in the 1960s (ARPANET) and TCP/IP went global in the early 1980s. Took a while for things to get to where we are now.
And they don't have a fair distribution mechanism. They exist primarily to make their creators rich.
Anyway, yes, I agree that 99% percent of existing cryptocurrency implementations are at least partially affected by short-sighted greed.
However, I think it's important to note that there is no technological constraint preventing the potential success of more egalitarian implementations. In that sense, it's at least disappointing to see technological potential for societal benefit being so categorically dismissed due to the flaws of early prototypes such as Bitcoin.
We have a technology that takes thousands - by some measures hundreds of thousands - of times as much power as existing networks for one transaction, that isn't used in a practical day-to-day sense anywhere, and many people are still defending Bitcoin specifically as a successful currency. How much power does it have to consume, how few real-world uses does it have to have, before everyone agrees it could really do with some improvements?
Convincing users to migrate to 'alt coins' requires longevity of these chains, amongst other qualities, to prove they can be successors.
* User A: Bitcoin is bad, it uses tons of electricity.
* User B: Bitcoin is great, and [other thing] uses just as much electricity.
And I'm just confused why User B never says something like "Bitcoin is great, but I agree it really needs to use less power and allow for more transactions."
To your point I've also seen that some coins may still prefer PoW, and may have mitigated many of the disadvantages of it (e.g. made it harder to centralise mining).
Moreover, the driving force behind Bitcoin keeping it ahead of the pack so far is the promise of short/medium term profit as an investment vehicle due to the artificial scarcity of its deflationary algorithm. Other cryptocurrencies are better positioned toward forming a long-term solution as a low overhead global decentralized payment platform, but what they offer is more of a collective benefit rather than a strong monetary incentive to any individual backer/investor on an individual level. (Which arguably is just an emergent property of human greed within the regime of unchecked capitalism.)
In first world countries for most people I would argue for all its faults the banking system is "good enough". In my local country can send money to people almost real time and pay by card quickly and easily without fees. Sure there is still room for improvement, but for most average people the need to change is low. Especially when I still need the banking system as "primary" to pay my taxes, settle my bills, etc - you know all the "real stuff".
[1] https://modernconsensus.com/cryptocurrencies/bitcoin/russian...
International sanctions. Civilize or die.
If we didn't have those problems in the first place, Bitcoin wouldn't be as attractive.
Chainalysis does it all the time.
Satoshi left the scene without ever cashing anything out, and before blockchain analysis really became a thing. He's not relevant to modern bitcoin at all outside of having been a founder of it a long time ago.
If he were spending bitcoin today, he could be found and identified easily, which is likely why he (actually the conglomerate that posed as him, Satoshi isn't likely a person) left once he achieved his goals.
Where is the coinmarketcap-like tool that indexes cryptocurrency projects' energy (in)efficiencies and e-waste footprints? Where is the tool that's easy to use and shows how efficient cryptocurrency projects are in real time? Without that, the whole space is in serious jeopardy, including those few projects that actually have the potential to benefit people and the planet.
It seems to me that what has happened historically i.e. ever more people starting to mine will continue as long as Bitcoin remains valuable.
A single dam.
So, really the comparison is more a testament of how little electricity Argentina uses.
Pick the Netherlands instead for the comparison, which has similar consumption to Argentina.
A whole country could be powered by a single dam.
The largest dam in Sweden, which is my reference, a country where hydro is the biggest source of electricity, produces 2TWh/y.
(And sadly much of that energy now goes to heavily subsidized Facebook and Google servers because it is cool to have those companies in your town, and collect income tax from the 10-ish people that work there)
If you consider 98 million barrels per year used by the military to protect 1.5 trillion USD, every million in the bank uses 65.5 gallons of oil per year.
The things that are worth buying with bitcoins are still largely produced by the conventional economy.
It's true miners have obstructed attempts to make these kind of changes but they don't control the price of Bitcoin. If market demand for a higher transaction rate becomes great enough and they don't adapt, then another coin with bigger blocks will simply outcompete Bitcoin.
An article I read today provides a comparison point for realtime transaction processing, Fedwire, along with its transaction volumes and server count. It's interesting to compare that with Bitcoin's volumes. The article also makes claims about the energy consumption (suggesting FAANG's energy consumption is already dwarfed by Bitcoin) but I can't manually verify those myself: https://www.ofnumbers.com/2021/02/14/bitcoin-and-other-pow-c...
The above article estimates a best case total of 55.1 TWh/year for the major Proof of Work chains, and also provides estimates for various types of mining equipment, etc.
You could say the same thing about the US military, which is the world's single largest producer of CO2 emissions.
Bitcoin is the first financial break-through in a long, long time. Is designed to move control away from the few back into the hands of the people. In Argentina people love investing in Bitcoin because their currency is awful. It loses value because the government can print more. Just like in the US. No government can print more Bitcoin so the value keeps growing.
Bitcoin alternatives like Bitcoin cash (or regular Bitcoin but with a bigger block size) can be used across the border without censorship. Remember MasterCard banning donations to Wikileaks? Bitcoin cannot be banned.
Back to your comment. Now we have solar, we have wind power. All clean sources of energy. They are cheaper than coal and can power everything. Including Bitcoin.
I wouldn't expect crypto to disappear. The market is currently worth $1.5 trillion, people will fight for its adoption to keep their investment.
Using energy on "worthless" cryptocoins isn't great but we produce tons of other worthless shit using tons of energy and materials that will be worth nothing in just a few years without blinking an eye.
(If person A says that traffic accidents are horrible, and person B says "Is that any worse than war?"; while B is correct, that doesn't make traffic accidents any less horrible.)
https://medium.com/celoorg/celo-to-go-carbon-neutral-with-pr...
Also, the vast majority of the electricity being consumed for bitcoin mining is hydro in China and has nothing to do with climate change.
Also, equating bitcoin to cryptocurrency isn't accurate at all. There are hundreds of others.
Side concern but isn’t this concentration a red flag? Likely many miners are in China or Russia due to the electricity prices. Can’t they collude to execute a 51% attack?
This is why I'm not a bitcoin maximalist and I'm not a huge fan of it. I have a suspicion that eventually it will fail.
https://pd.coinshares.com/EN-Mining-Whitepaper-December-2019
Presumably a proof of stake system with energy consumption within a few orders of magnitude of centralized ledgers would not be sickening.
All transactions occur in the market square, at the Town Ledger. Everyone's balance is public, and every transaction is witnessed by everyone else lining up for their turn at the Ledger. Everyone keeps an eye on their balance and the balance of a few friends. The mayor locks up the Ledger at night of course, but discrepancies tend to get the mayor lynched so she keeps a very close eye on it.
The system started by tracking barters, but it got too confusing to track all the different things, so it was agreed to simply write down a number equivalent to the trade's value in chickens as determined by average exchange rate over all previous transactions - nothing special about chickens, they were just a very commonly traded good which made for well-defined exchange rates.
After a few chicken runs, the villagers agreed to abandon the chicken standard in favor of shiny meteorites that fell from the sky once every ten years. They were technically slightly inflationary, but people lost them from time to time as well so it kind of evened out. Anyway, there weren't many of them around; most transactions were in fractions of a shiny meteor-pebble. It was just a convenient reference.
And nobody had to mine anything.
The proper response to climate change is not necessarily to consume less energy.
Where is the coinmarketcap-like tool that indexes cryptocurrency projects' energy (in)efficiencies and e-waste footprints? Where is the tool that's easy to use and shows how efficient cryptocurrency projects are in real time? Without that, the whole space is in serious jeopardy, including those few projects that actually have the potential to benefit people and the planet?