I have praised Nic Carter's pieces in the past, since they are almost the only ones that make some effort to actually use facts and try to rebut crypto-critics, such as myself.

This article is, however, a very acute case of "the lady doth protest too much.". You know a giant nerve has been hit when so much effort and ink is spilled over one article. It is also probably a testament to his high regard for the NYT.

The issue of carbon output from crypto-currency is really a non-issue from two perspectives:

1. Yes, indisputably, for the value it creates it generates a massive amount of carbon. The best proof I've found of this is cited in my first response: research originating at Tsinghua University in China.

2. But carbon output is entirely beside the point. And tied to this is the surprise that the country that entirely controls the fate of PoW crypto permitted a publication of the foregoing.

As I've pointed out in past writings, China is not as monolithic and unfree as many in the West may believe. Having built a DDL platform and participated in the pre-Nov-2019 crypto world there, I can show my bona fides. The problem is not Carbon, the problem is the fact that PoW is a) no longer "decentralized" (for believers) and b) the project of crypto has thereby become part of the project to destabilize western liberal democracy.

As much as you want, 2 people who are much worshipped in the crypto space make clear what is going on:

1. Peter Thiel, the anti-government, self-describe crypto-maximalist has pointed out the foregoing.

2. Elon Musk, with his massive dependency on both supply chain and market share is also an "unrepentant" crypto-maximalist.

I know that most crypto folks are very much in it for the casino aspect or sense of self-regard and therefore I'll not get a real discourse. But, Nic, how about you? What do you say about this?