Following Mozilla's decision to pause crypto donations due to environmental concerns, a number of Wikimedia Foundation community members have submitted a proposal calling on the foundation to stop accepting digital currency donations. The proposal explains that crypto donations “signal [an] advocacy of the cryptocurrency space” and also says that “cryptocurrencies may not be consistent with the Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment to environmental sustainability.” Proposal claims cryptocurrencies may not be in line with Wikimedia Foundation Members of the Wikimedia Foundation are voting on a proposal that could prevent the foundation from accepting digital currencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. The US non-profit organization started accepting crypto assets...
Following Mozilla's decision to pause crypto donations due to environmental concerns, a number of Wikimedia Foundation community members have submitted a proposal calling on the foundation to stop accepting digital currency donations. The proposal explains that crypto donations “signal [an] advocacy of the cryptocurrency space” and also says that “cryptocurrencies may not be consistent with the Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment to environmental sustainability.”
Members of the Wikimedia Foundation are voting on a proposal that could prevent the foundation from accepting digital currencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. The US non-profit organization started to accept Crypto assets in 2019 via Bitpay. "We accept donations worldwide and strive to offer a variety of donation options. It is very important that we can process international donations efficiently and cost-effectively," said Pats Pena, director of payments and operations at the Wikimedia Foundation.
However a Suggestion The claim, submitted by the user named “Gorillawarfare,” claims that accepting crypto donations violates certain principles of the Wikimedia Foundation. "Cryptocurrencies may not reflect the Wikimedia Foundation's commitment to environmental sustainability. Bitcoin and Ethereum are the two most widely used cryptocurrencies and both are proof of work and consume enormous amounts of energy," the proposal says.
While the proposal mentions the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, it uses much of the research from Digiconomist's Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index. The proposal appears to have a lot of support, with voting members leaving comments indicating their approval. "Long overdue. Cryptocurrency adoption makes a joke of WMF's commitment to environmental sustainability," said Wikimedia user Gamaliel. However, not everyone agreed, and in fact there were many who held the opposite opinion. For example, in response to Gamaliel's statement, one person wrote:
Do you know that the traditional banking system also consumes energy?
There is some discussion from the submitted comments of some people who insist that members of the Wikimedia Foundation should recognize that the US dollar is supported by significant amounts of carbon energy and The worst is state-enforced violence. One person stated that every point Gorillawarfare mentioned in the proposal was “untrue and/or misleading.” For example, the point of being aligned with the so-called values of the crypto industry. The person responded that “this is not true, nor is the assumption that the USD signals an endorsement of the US dollar or the US government.”
In response to the environmental concerns that Gorillawarfare included in the proposal, the person stated that the point of the proposal was merged. “The proposal conflates the existence of Bitcoin with its mere use,” said Wikimedia Foundation member Awwright. "The proposal does not show that the declining adoption of Bitcoin (or any other cryptocurrency) will actually have an impact. From a technical perspective, there is no direct connection between conducting a Bitcoin transaction and energy consumption (which is significantly more than the domestic banking system)."
Additionally, there are many complaints about Gorillawarfare citing the Digiconomist, as the researcher's work has been widely rejected for inaccuracies and extreme bias. “Digiconomist is a blog by Alex de Vries, who is a Employees “De Nederlandsche Bank NV (DNB), the central bank of the Netherlands, which is a direct competitor of Bitcoin,” notes one of the comments on Gorillawarfare’s proposal. Another person explained that the work of Digiconomist inaccurate, as many others have discovered, and is the work of the Digiconomist 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 poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
At the time of writing, there are a ton of individuals who are against the proposal submitted by Gorillawarfare, but the lion's share of votes and comments support the idea. It appears that the crypto community and Proof-of-Work (PoW) advocates will have to work harder to dispel the myths circulating by mainstream media pundits, the old financial guard and paid opposition researchers.
What do you think of the Wikimedia Foundation's proposal that suggests the foundation will no longer accept crypto assets for environmental reasons? Let us know your thoughts on this topic in the comments below.
Photo credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons, Wiki,
Suche
Mein Konto