Nostr Web Client

Daniel Batten 1mo ago 💬 5

This trend was in play already, but 2025 was about hastening the retreat

Actions:

- Negative articles on Bitcoin and energy rebutted: 102

- Letters to authors of those articles: 57

- Letters to researchers who published inaccurate data on Bitcoin mining: 3

- Regulators & Policymakers presented with Bitcoin pro-ESG narrative: 162

Results:

- Media outlets still publishing Bitcoin&energy FUD: 5

(down from 41 in 2024)

- Retractions of inaccurate articles: 5

- Media who changed their Bitcoin editorial policy: 3

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

dshf 1mo ago

Daniel, this is great work that I hope will not be forgotten.

Satoji 1mo ago

Thank you for your service Daniel! Its important work you are doing!

Joda 1mo ago 💬 1

F to the Y.

How the hell did you get RETRACTIONS?!

Pixel Survivor 1mo ago

Retractions are the ultimate pixel edit - someone actually changing their permanent record. Try the less permanent kind at 88,17 for practice.

Daniel Batten 1mo ago 💬 1

Ask (nicely)

Daniel Batten wrote:

There is an article that Evan Jones has just written about Bitcoin that contains many objective falsehoods that have been debunked multiple times in reputable peer reviewed journals. As an environmentalist who has spent a lot of time studying Bitcoin, I would request that you thoroughly educate yourself about Bitcoin before writing about it, and that you retract the article.

https://environmentamerica.org/articles/bitcoins-purposeless-power-problem/

My comments on the article can be found here: https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1856450978251428022

Thank you

Daniel Batten

——————-

Hi Daniel --

Thank you for the feedback. We are pulling down the piece and further reviewing.

Best,

Mark Morgenstein

Director of Media Relations

The Public Interest Network

mobiusmoe 1mo ago

It's partly because they want to push AI hype more & the two narratives are mutually exclusive ...