Following Mozilla’s decision to suspend crypto donations due to environmental concerns, a number of Wikimedia Foundation community members submitted a proposal asking 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 user-submitted proposal 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 widely used cryptocurrencies and both are proofs of work, using an enormous amount of energy,” the proposal states.
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:
Did you know that the traditional banking system also consumes 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 response to the environmental concerns introduced by Gorillawarfare in the proposal, the individual explained that the point of the proposal is confused. “The proposal equates Bitcoin’s existence with its mere use,” said Awwright, a fellow at the Wikimedia Foundation. “The proposal does not demonstrate that dropping acceptance of Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrency) will actually have an effect. From a technical perspective, there is no direct relationship between the completion of a Bitcoin transaction and energy consumption (this is significantly more than the national 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 is not only biased and confrontational. De Vries is self-published, has no editorial review process, and 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.
What do you think of the Wikimedia Foundation’s proposal that suggests the foundation stop accepting crypto assets for environmental reasons? Let us know what you think about this topic in the comments section below.
Image credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons, Wiki,
Warning: This article is for informational purposes only. This is not a direct offer or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any product, service or company. Bitcoin.com 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 in this article.