Gates vs Bitcoin: consumes too much energy

Gates vs Bitcoin: consumes too much energy

Gates vs Bitcoin

Bill Gates once again lashes out against the world of Bitcoin. He does it in a veiled but decisive way, rejecting the main assumption based on mining and exchanges that lead to excessive electricity consumption. In short, a criticism that corrodes the very foundations of cryptocurrency: in a world that wants to be sustainable, in short, there is no room for Bitcoin.

How does the quotation react? For the moment he basically ignores the words of Gates, certainly not new to these invectives. In fact, in the recent past, the founder of Microsoft had already explained that he did not want to invest in Bitcoin and did not believe in this type of perspective for the economy. A speculation that does not interest him, in short, but at the same time also a speculation that he considers harmful on a social level. Can a currency have management costs in terms of electricity consumption higher than those of a large nation? Can a monetary system be based on an anti-economic dynamic?

Bitcoin, the reasons for skepticism

Speaking in an interview on Clubhouse with some reporters, Gates recalled that “Bitcoin uses more electricity per single transaction of any other known method “. In short: “it's not a great thing for the climate“. But the reasoning goes deeper than a simple rejection: according to Gates if all available energy were renewable, then it would not be a problem to use Bitcoin: since this is not the case, however, energy consumption (today an increasingly scarce resource ) automatically turns into a violent act against the climate.

Economist Nouriel Roubini's judgment is drier: Bitcoin's house of cards could soon fall and the bubble could quickly explode should new climate-defending taxes find their way internationally. At that point the cost of the Bitcoin system would be unsustainable and a new deflationary trend would become clear that would completely change the horizon on cryptocurrencies. In short, Roubini “touches it slowly” much more than Gates did. The party of skeptics (Janet Yellen and Mario Draghi among them) seems to be gaining strength on increasingly incisive arguments, but for now the value of Bitcoin is careful: + 18% in a week, + 453% in six months, + 1075% in one year.

Source: Business Insider

Why Bill Gates Is Worried About Bitcoin

The Nasdaq officially entered correction territory, having declined more than 10 percent from its Feb. 12 peak. Once-highflying stocks were among the worst performers, with Apple falling 4 percent and Tesla nearly 6 percent. (The electric carmaker is now down more than 20 percent for the year to date.)

  • That has also battered celebrated stock pickers like ARK Investment Management’s Cathie Wood, who has drawn a following on internet trading forums for her bets on so-called disruptive companies like … Apple and Tesla. Her flagship exchange-traded fund is down 31 percent since Feb. 16.

  • An accelerating economic revival is a big factor, market watchers say. As the $1.9 trillion stimulus bill nears approval by Congress, investors are betting on a return to pre-pandemic conditions, including consumer spending levels. That may mean higher inflation, pushing up bond yields and giving investors wider options than just tech stocks.

    Then there’s the wild card: meme stocks. Shares in GameStop and other companies beloved by internet traders rallied yesterday, though your guess as to why is as good as ours. (Separately, GameStop said its board would form a committee to study strategies to take advantage of the run-up in its stock.)

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s biggest business trade group, has clarified its policy on giving to political action committees in the wake of the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol — and it’s not as tough as the organization once suggested.

    “We do not believe it is appropriate” to judge lawmakers “solely based on their votes on the electoral certification,” the group said last week, though the storming of the Capitol was prompted by congressional votes to certify the 2020 presidential election. The Chamber will instead consider other actions, like whether lawmakers promoted baseless voter fraud conspiracies, in deciding whether to support them.

  • The group had left the door open to something short of wholly disavowing some lawmakers. Its chief policy director, Neil Bradley, declared days after the insurrection that some lawmakers had “forfeited the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s support. Period, full stop.” But he never called out specific politicians. He also said that the chamber would “consider the totality” of what elected officials subsequently said and did.

  • The Chamber is taking a stance that might cause blowback for member companies, which are more vulnerable to backlash than trade groups, with employees and brand reputation to consider. Some of its board members have urged tougher actions: Dow said it would suspend all PAC contributions “to any member of Congress who voted to object to the certification of the presidential election,” while IBM, which has no PAC, has called for broader policy changes. But the group’s position maintains relationships with congressional Republicans as it lobbies on key issues like corporate taxes. (The Chamber noted that it had held discussions with “over 100” of its members about its decision.)

    Debate over election issues as a business concern isn’t going away. Georgia lawmakers have approved voting restrictions that opponents say threaten democracy. Activists have called on the corporate community to speak out against the legislation, though some major players — including Delta, a Chamber board member — have not done so.

    Powered by Blogger.