Not sure where you’re getting your number but also confident that no matter how bitcoin is defined it will not qualify for most ESG funds. They’re focused in incremental generation capacity or explicitly focused on development of certain technology (I.e. hydrogen, DAC). Bitcoin mining is coming in behind the bad investments to fix them but more than likely will not qualify for the mandates that the funds have defined in their investment documents.

Also, it’s worth starting to consider the difficulty adjustment, too. Bitcoin mining isn’t profitable in perpetuity…it is the most ruthlessly competitive business out there. With plenty of existing energy sources with a marginal production cost of near zero, there will be no sustained opportunity for incremental build out of new renewables on the back of Bitcoin mining. Money forward economics trump all-in economics every time.

Get that money - good for you.

Btc will be fine without ESG money. ESG self-exclusion from Btc is a darwinian feature, and not a bug.

There is nothing sustainable about any energy gen that requires subsidies, tax incentives, and/or mandates to exist.

You seem like a smart gent.

I am sure you can figure out how to get money, while not compromising on the so-called “sustainable” category.

Why might this matter?

“Sustainable” labeling carries consequences.

See German farmers protests.

This is about the endless taxing, ever increasing energy costs, and regulations based on a false premise that do nothing but make life more expensive, Germany less food secure, and German businesses less competitive.