We risk damaging our reputation by participating in this.While there are eco-friendlier cryptocurrencies, they are less widely-used, and still have the issues mentioned in point one. Discussions of energy usage in the crypto space often involve claims from proponents of Ethereum that they will be moving to a considerably eco-friendlier proof-of-stake model in the near future (though this has been promised for several years now), or that Bitcoin might do so in some future world (though they have not signaled an intention to)-regardless, the current models continue to be extremely damaging to the environment. You can read more about Bitcoin's environmental impact from Columbia or Digiconomist, and Ethereum's from Digiconomist, or see the list below, or use your search engine of choice to do your own research. Bitcoin and Ethereum are the two most highly-used cryptocurrencies, and are both proof-of-work, using an enormous amount of energy. Cryptocurrencies may not align with the Wikimedia Foundation's commitment to environmental sustainability.In accepting them, I believe we are mainstreaming the usage of "investments" and technology that are inherently predatory. Cryptocurrencies are extremely risky investments that have only been gaining popularity among retail investors particularly in recent times, and I do not think we should be endorsing their use in this way. Accepting cryptocurrency signals endorsement of the cryptocurrency space by the Wikimedia Foundation and members of the Wikimedia Movement.I propose that we stop accepting cryptocurrency donations. The Wikimedia Foundation currently accepts cryptocurrency donations in currencies including Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Ethereum, as explained on the "Other ways to give" page. 2.26 Recent developments regarding the reputation argument.2.25 Cryptocurrencies are only a tool for crime and a financial scam.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |