They're literally aiming at saving thousands of lives and the comments are all focused on how bad NFTs are. Give me a break, talk about missing the point.
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible" ~ Stanisław Jerzy Lec
No transaction individually harms the environment. The collection of all transactions harms the environment. This one transaction is part of that collection and it has potential to help attract people to the platform which will encourage more transactions in the future.
Just donate the money, using a fraction of the carbon cost, and if you want to generate hype, do a match.
What a waste of time and energy.
It's not nonsensical from the perspective of their mission if it increases the amount of money that they're able to raise.
> What a waste of time and energy.
They're emitting ~90 kilograms of CO2 to save 2000 lives, which is a good trade-off if they wouldn't have been able to raise that much through traditional channels.
Source? I'm curious to see exactly how the environmental harm of a fundraising dinner is quantified.
edit:
When I google "ethereum transaction energy cost" the Google featured snippet says 50kwH for a single transaction. I find it hard to believe that it would take 50kWH to cook a single dinner. If you're referring to multiple dinners, then you would have to subtract the cost to eat in general as eating is a human necessity - hence me asking your source since I'm genuinely curious.
But again, I want to reiterate that focusing on the environmental impact here is totally missing the point. It's like saying the outside of the hospital is painted a jarring color.
also, given that it's already very easy to send money to any non-profit talking about the potentially unnecessary environment costs doesn't seem unreasonable. the only reason people bring it up is because there's an alternative that doesn't incur the same costs but achieve the same thing.
Neither of us put up numbers, but I didn't call you disingenuous. I stand by what I said until I see math to the contrary.