• The Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) study on Bitcoin’s environmental impact underestimates the amount of sustainable Bitcoin mining going on.
• ESG investors are likely to trust CCAF over the Bitcoin Mining Council, leading to stalled user adoption and more fuel for environmental groups to lobby governments to regulate Bitcoin mining in a punitive manner.
• For ESG funds, independent empirical data is needed that shows how much the CCAF study underestimated sustainable energy usage, that the macro trend is quantifiably moving toward sustainable energy, and that Bitcoin is quantitatively beneficial for the environment.
Introduction
This article provides an overview of my latest research on why a Cambridge Centre For Alternative Finance’s (CCAF) study underestimates the amount of sustainable Bitcoin mining going on, as well as why we can be confident that actual sustainable energy usage is at least 52.6% of total energy use. It also addresses what it takes for ESG funds to support Bitcoin investments and why this matters today.
ESG Investment Climbing
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investment is soaring, with an estimated $10.5 trillion expected in just the U.S by 2021. This means that comfortable adoption of Bitcoin by these investors is key to user adoption moving forward – however current studies may not provide them with this assurance.
Bitcoin Criticism Debunked
Alex de Vries’ criticism on Bitcoin has been debunked by previous articles from Bitcoin Magazine; however many ESG funds are likely to be more inclined to trust a Cambridge-branded report than an industry body’s report when assessing how environmentally friendly cryptocurrency can be. This presents somewhat of an issue due to a lack of real-time data available from industry bodies such as BMC – making it easier for some investors to disqualify their findings without further analysis or investigation into their accuracy or validity.
What Would It Take To Gain Support?
For ESG funds to invest in cryptocurrency projects they require three things: independent empirical data demonstrating unambiguously how much the CCAF study underestimated sustainable energy usage; that macro trends are quantifiably leaning towards sustainability; and that cryptocurrency projects are quantitatively beneficial for the environment overall. Currently these requirements have not been met, leaving conversation around investing stalling until further evidence can be provided – resulting in more fuel being provided for environmental groups lobbying against crypto mining operations with government regulations designed for their detriment rather than benefit or protection .
Conclusion
In conclusion, further research must be conducted investigating exactly how much the CCAF study underestimated sustainable energy usage within cryptocurrency projects in order to make advancements in gaining support from ESG funds who require independent empirical proof before investing in any project associated with cryptocurrency activities such as mining operations . Without this evidence being provided then conversations around investing cannot move forwards which results in slower user adoption rates and fuel being provided for those arguing against crypto-mining operations through government regulations intended solely for their detriment rather than benefit or protection .