Following Mozilla’s decision to pause crypto donations due to environmental concerns, a number of Wikimedia Foundation community members have submitted a proposal that asks the foundation to stop accepting digital currency donations. The proposal explains that crypto donations “signals [an] endorsement of the cryptocurrency space,” and also says that “Cryptocurrencies may not align with the Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment to environmental sustainability.”
Proposal claims cryptocurrencies may not align with Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia Foundation members are voting on a proposal that could prevent the foundation from accepting digital currencies like bitcoin and ethereum. The American non-profit organization started accepting crypto assets in 2019 via Bitpay. “We accept donations worldwide and strive to provide a wide variety of donation options. It is very important that we can process international donations efficiently and cost effectively,” Pats Pena said at the time. , director of payments and operations at the Wikimedia Foundation.
However, a proposal submitted by the user dubbed “Gorillawarfare” claims that accepting crypto donations goes against specific Wikimedia Foundation principles. “Cryptocurrencies may not align with the Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment to environmental sustainability. Bitcoin and ethereum are the two most highly-used cryptocurrencies, and are both proof-of-work, using an enormous amount of energy,” the proposal says.
Although the proposal mentions Cambridge’s Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, it draws on much of the research done by the Digiconomist’s Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index. The proposal seems to have a lot of support as voting members left comments pointing out an affirmation. “A long time ago. Accepting cryptocurrency makes a joke of WMF’s commitment to environmental sustainability,” said Wikimedia user Gamaliel. However, not everyone agreed and in fact, there are a large number of people who have expressed the opposite opinion. In response to Gamaliel’s statement, for example, one person wrote:
Are you aware that the traditional banking system also uses energy?
The individual insists that “every point is false and/or misleading”
There is a discussion from comments submitted by a few people who insist that members of the Wikimedia Foundation should realize that the US dollar is supported by significant amounts of carbon energy and, worst of all, violence imposed by the state. One person explained that every point raised by Gorillawarfare in the proposal “is false and/or misleading”. For example, the point of being aligned with so-called crypto industry values. The individual retorted that “that is not true, nor is accepting the USD signaling approval of the US dollar or the US government.”
In reply to the environmental concerns Gorillawarfare introduced in the proposal, the individual explained that the proposal’s point is conflated. “The proposal conflates the existence of Bitcoin to merely using it,” the Wikimedia Foundation member Awwright opined. “The proposal does not demonstrate that dropping acceptance of Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrency) will actually have an effect. As a technical matter, there is no direct relationship between making a Bitcoin transaction and energy usage (that’s significantly more than the domestic banking system).”
Commentators highlight the biases of the digiconomist
Additionally, there are numerous complaints about Gorillawarfare citing the Digiconomist, as the researcher’s work has been widely rejected for extreme inaccuracies and biases. “Digiconomist is a blog run by Alex de Vries, who is an employee of De Nederlandsche Bank NV (DNB), the central bank of the Netherlands, which is a direct competitor to Bitcoin,” notes one of the comments against the proposal. of Gorillawarfare. Another person explained that the Digitizer’s work is inaccurate, as many others have discovered, and that the Digitizer’s work is fraught with discrepancies. One individual wrote:
Digiconomist isn’t just biased and conflicted. De Vries is self published, has no editorial review process and he has a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
As of this writing, there are a myriad of individuals who are against the proposal submitted by Gorillawarfare, but the lion’s share of votes and comments support the idea. It seems the crypto community and proponents of proof of work (PoW) need to work harder to dispel the myths circulating from mainstream media pundits, the financial old guard, and paid opposition researchers.
