{"id":4726,"date":"2022-01-13T17:52:15","date_gmt":"2022-01-13T17:52:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/egrowonline.com\/?p=4726"},"modified":"2022-01-13T17:52:15","modified_gmt":"2022-01-13T17:52:15","slug":"wikimedia-foundation-debates-acceptance-of-cryptocurrency-donations-over-environmental-concerns-bitcoin-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/egrowonline.com\/?p=4726","title":{"rendered":"Wikimedia Foundation Debates Acceptance of Cryptocurrency Donations Over Environmental Concerns \u2013 Bitcoin News"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/header>\n
\n\"Wikimedia\n<\/div>\n

Following Mozilla\u2019s decision to pause crypto donations due to environmental concerns, a number of Wikimedia Foundation community members have submitted a proposal that asks the foundation to stop accepting digital currency donations. The proposal explains that crypto donations \u201csignals [an] endorsement of the cryptocurrency space,\u201d and also says that \u201cCryptocurrencies may not align with the Wikimedia Foundation\u2019s commitment to environmental sustainability.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Proposal Claims Cryptocurrencies May Not Align With the Wikimedia Foundation<\/h2>\n

Members of the Wikimedia Foundation are voting on a proposal that could stop the foundation from accepting digital currencies like bitcoin and ethereum. The U.S. non-profit started accepting<\/a> crypto assets in 2019 via Bitpay. \u201cWe accept donations globally, and we strive to provide a large variety of donation options. It\u2019s very important that we can get international donations processed in ways that are efficient and cost-effective,\u201d Pats Pena, director of payments and operations at Wikimedia Foundation said at the time.<\/p>\n

\"Wikimedia
The Wikimedia Foundation proposal submitted by Gorillawarfare.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

However, a proposal<\/a> submitted by the user dubbed \u201cGorillawarfare\u201d claims that accepting crypto donations goes against specific Wikimedia Foundation principles. \u201cCryptocurrencies may not align with the Wikimedia Foundation\u2019s commitment to environmental sustainability. Bitcoin and ethereum are the two most highly-used cryptocurrencies, and are both proof-of-work, using an enormous amount of energy,\u201d the proposal says.<\/p>\n

While the proposal mentions the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index it leverages a lot of the research done by the Digiconomist\u2019s Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index. The proposal seems to have a lot of support as voting members left comments signaling affirmation. \u201cLong overdue. Accepting cryptocurrency makes a joke out of the WMF\u2019s commitment to environmental sustainability,\u201d Wikimedia user Gamaliel said. However, not everyone agreed and in fact, there are a great number of people who voiced the opposite opinion. In reply to Gamaliel\u2019s statement, for instance, one person wrote:<\/p>\n

\n

Are you aware that the traditional banking system also uses energy?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Individual Insists \u2018Each Point Is Untrue and\/or Misleading\u2019<\/h2>\n

There is some discussion from a few people\u2019s submitted comments that insists Wikimedia Foundation members should realize the U.S. dollar is backed by significant amounts of carbon energy<\/a> and worst of all, state-enforced violence<\/a>. One person explained that each point that Gorillawarfare brought up in the proposal \u201cis untrue and\/or misleading.\u201d For example, the point about being aligned with the crypto industry\u2019s so-called values. The individual retorted that \u201cthis is not true, any more than accepting USD signals endorsement of the U.S. Dollar or the U.S. Government.\u201d<\/p>\n

In reply to the environmental concerns Gorillawarfare introduced in the proposal, the individual explained that the proposal\u2019s point is conflated. \u201cThe proposal conflates the existence of Bitcoin to merely using it,\u201d the Wikimedia Foundation member Awwright opined. \u201cThe proposal does not demonstrate that dropping acceptance of Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrency) will actually have an effect. As a technical matter, there is no direct relationship between making a Bitcoin transaction and energy usage (that\u2019s significantly more than the domestic banking system).\u201d<\/p>\n

Commenters Highlight Bias Stemming from the Digiconomist<\/h2>\n

Furthermore, there are many complaints about Gorillawarfare citing the Digiconomist, as the researcher\u2019s work has been widely dismissed over inaccuracies and extreme bias. \u201cDigiconomist is a blog run by Alex de Vries, who is an employee<\/a> of De Nederlandsche Bank NV (DNB), the central bank of the Netherlands, which is a direct competitor to Bitcoin,\u201d one of the comments against Gorillawarfare\u2019s proposal notes. Another individual explained that the Digiconomist\u2019s work is inaccurate<\/a>, as many others have discovered, and the Digiconomist\u2019s work is loaded with discrepancies<\/a>. One individual wrote:<\/p>\n

\n

Digiconomist isn\u2019t just biased and conflicted. De Vries is self published, has no editorial review process and he has a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

At the time of writing, there\u2019s a myriad of individuals who are against the proposal submitted by Gorillawarfare, but the lion\u2019s share of the votes and comments support the idea. It seems the crypto community and proponents of proof-of-work (PoW) must work harder to dispel the myths that are circulating from mainstream media pundits, the old financial guard, and \u200b\u200bpaid opposition researchers.<\/p>\n

\n
\nTags in this story
\n<\/h6>\n
Alex de Vries<\/a>, Banking system<\/a>, BitPay<\/a>, Carbon<\/a>, Crypto<\/a>, crypto assets<\/a>, digiconomist<\/a>, donations<\/a>, Energy Use<\/a>, environment<\/a>, extreme bias<\/a>, Gamaliel<\/a>, Gorillawarfare<\/a>, inaccuracies<\/a>, PoW<\/a>, Proof of Work<\/a>, proposal<\/a>, US Dollar<\/a>, violence<\/a>, Wiki<\/a>, WikiMedia<\/a>, Wikimedia Foundation<\/a>, Wikimedia Proposal<\/a>, Wikimedia Vote<\/a>, Wikipedia<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

What do you think about the Wikimedia Foundation proposal that suggests the foundation stop accepting crypto assets over environmental concerns? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below. <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nJamie Redman <\/h6>\n

\nJamie Redman is the News Lead at Bitcoin.com News and a financial tech journalist living in Florida. Redman has been an active member of the cryptocurrency community since 2011. He has a passion for Bitcoin, open-source code, and decentralized applications. Since September 2015, Redman has written more than 5,000 articles for Bitcoin.com News about the disruptive protocols emerging today.

\n
\n
\n<\/a>
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Image Credits<\/b>: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons, Wiki, <\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Disclaimer<\/strong>: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n