After Mozilla decided to suspend cryptocurrency donations due to environmental concerns, some Wikimedia Foundation community members submitted a proposal to ask the foundation to stop accepting digital currency donations.The proposal explains that cryptocurrency donations “signal” [an] A nod to the cryptocurrency space,” adding that “Cryptocurrencies may be at odds with the Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment to environmental sustainability. “
Proposal claims cryptocurrencies may be at odds with Wikimedia Foundation
Members of the Wikimedia Foundation are voting on a proposal that could prevent the foundation from accepting digital currencies like bitcoin and ethereum.US non-profit organization start accepting Crypto assets through Bitpay in 2019. “We accept donations globally and strive to offer a variety of giving options. It is very important that we are able to process international donations in an efficient and cost-effective manner,” Pats Pena, director of payments and operations at the Wikimedia Foundation, said at the time.
However, a proposal Submitted by a user known as “Gorillawarfare” claiming to accept cryptocurrency donations violates certain Wikimedia Foundation principles. “Cryptocurrencies may be at odds with the Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment to environmental sustainability. Bitcoin and Ethereum are the two most used cryptocurrencies, and both are proof-of-work, using a lot of energy,” the proposal said.
While the proposal refers to the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, it leverages extensive research done by Digiconomist’s Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index. The proposal appears to have a lot of support, as voting members left positive comments. “Long overdue. Accepting cryptocurrencies is a joke on WMF’s commitment to environmental sustainability,” said Wikimedia user Gamaliel. However, not everyone agrees, in fact, there are many who express the opposite opinion. For example, in response to Gamaliel’s statement, someone wrote:
Did you know that traditional banking systems also use energy?
Personal insistence that “every bit is untrue and/or misleading”
There is some discussion in the comments submitted by some people insisting that members of the Wikimedia Foundation should be aware that the dollar is made by lots of carbon energy and Worst of all, state-enforced violence. One person explained that every point Gorillawarfare made in the proposal “is untrue and/or misleading.” For example, on the point of aligning with the so-called values of the crypto industry. The individual countered: “It’s not true, just like accepting the dollar means supporting the dollar or the U.S. government.”
In response to Gorillawarfare, an environmental issue introduced in the proposal, the individual explained that the views of the proposal were mixed. “The proposal confuses the existence of bitcoin with the mere use of it,” argues Awwright, a member of the Wikimedia Foundation. “The proposal does not suggest that abandoning the acceptance of bitcoin (or other cryptocurrencies) would actually have an impact. As a technical matter, there is no direct relationship between conducting bitcoin transactions and energy use (which is much more than the domestic banking system). “
Commenters highlight bias from Digiconomist
Additionally, there have been numerous complaints about Gorillawarfare citing Digiconomist, as the researcher’s work has been widely dismissed for inaccuracy and extreme bias. “Digiconomist is a blog run by Alex de Vries, the staff The Dutch central bank De Nederlandsche Bank NV (DNB) is a direct competitor to Bitcoin”, was one of the comments against Gorillawarfare’s proposal. Another explained that Digiconomist’s work is Inaccurate, as many others have discovered, Digiconomist’s work is full of differences. One wrote:
Digiconomist is not only biased and contradictory. De Vries is self-published, has no editorial review process, and has a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
At the time of writing, there are countless people against the proposal submitted by Gorillawarfare, but the majority of votes and comments support the idea. It seems that the crypto community and Proof of Work (PoW) proponents must work harder to dispel the myths that are being circulated by mainstream media pundits, old financial guards, and paid opposition researchers.
What do you think of the Wikimedia Foundation’s proposal to stop accepting crypto assets due to environmental concerns? Let us know what you think about this topic in the comments section below.
Image Source: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wikimedia Commons, Wiki,
Disclaimer: This article is for reference only. It is not a direct offer or an invitation to buy or sell, nor is it a recommendation or endorsement of any product, service or company. Bitcoin Network Does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned herein.