Wikimedia Foundation debates acceptance of cryptocurrency donations for environmental concerns -
Wikimedia Foundation debates acceptance of cryptocurrency donations for environmental concerns -
after Mozilla's decision to pause crypto donations for environmental reasons, a number of members of the Wikimedia Foundation community submitted a proposal in which the foundation is asked to no longer accept donations in digital currency. The proposal explains that crypto donations "signals" [an] support for the cryptocurrency area "and also says that" cryptocurrencies may not match the commitment of the Wikimedia Foundation for ecological sustainability ".
proposal claims that cryptocurrencies may not match the Wikimedia Foundation
Members of the Wikimedia Foundation vote on a proposal that could prevent the foundation from accepting digital currencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. The American non-profit organization to accept crypto-assets in 2019 Bitpay. "We accept donations worldwide and strive to offer a variety of donations. It is very important that we can process international donations efficiently and inexpensively," said Pats Pena, director of payments and operations at the Wikimedia Foundation.
however a suggestion that submitted by the user called "gorillawarfare" Acceptance of crypto donations violates certain principles of Wikimedia Foundation. "Cryptocurrencies may not correspond to the commitment of the Wikimedia Foundation for ecological sustainability. Bitcoin and Ethereum are the two most frequently used cryptocurrencies and both are a lot of energy," says the suggestion.
While the proposal mentions the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumptung Index, it uses a large part of the Digiconomist's Bitcoin Energy Consumpt. The proposal seems to find a lot of support because members of the voting leave comments that signal their consent. "Long overdue. The assumption of cryptocurrency makes a joke from the commitment of the WMF for ecological sustainability," said Wikimedia user Gamaliel. However, not everyone agreed, and in fact there were many who represented the opposite opinion. In response to Gamaliel's statement, for example, one person wrote:
Do you know that the traditional banking system also consumes energy?
person insists that "every point is untrue and/or misleading"
There are some discussions from the submitted comments from some people who insist that the members of the Wikimedia Foundation should recognize that the US dollar is supported by Significant amounts of carbon energy and The state-forced violence . One person explained that every point that Gorillawarefare mentioned in the proposal is "untrue and/or misleading". For example, the point of being aligned with the so -called values of the crypto industry. The person replied that “this is not true, just as no assuming that the USD signals a approval of the US dollar or the US government.”
In response to the environmental concerns that Gorillawarefare included in the proposal, the person said that the point of the proposal has merged. "The proposal combines Bitcoin's existence with mere use," said the member of the Wikimedia Foundation, Awwright. "The proposal does not show that the falling acceptance of Bitcoin (or another cryptocurrency) will actually have an impact. From a technical point of view, there is no direct connection between the implementation of a Bitcoin transaction and energy consumption (this is significantly more than the domestic banking system)."
commentators emphasize distortions that result from the digiconomist
In addition, there are many complaints about gorilla warfare, citing the digiconomist, since the work of the researcher was widely rejected due to inaccuracies and extreme bias. “Digiconomist is a blog by Alex de Vries, which is a employee the de Nederlandsche Bank NV (DNB), the central bank of the Netherlands From Bitcoin, ”says one of the comments on the proposal of Gorillawarfare. Another person explained that the work of the digiconomist Insapmean , as many others have discovered, and the work of the digiconomist is full of discrepancies . One person wrote:
Digiconomist is not only biased and contradictory. De Vries is self -published, has no editorial review process and has a bad reputation for factual testing and accuracy.
At the time of writing, there is a myriad of individuals who are against the proposal submitted by Gorillawarefare, but the lion's share of votes and comments supports the idea. It seems that the crypto community and the supporters of proof-of-work (Pow) have to work harder to dispel the myths that are circulating from mainstream media experts, the old financial guard and paid opposition researchers.
What do you think of the proposal of the Wikimedia Foundation, which indicates that the foundation no longer accepts crypto-assets for environmental reasons? Let us know your opinion on this topic in the comments below.
Photo credits : Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons, Wiki,
Kommentare (0)