The only thing that feels odd about the halving, if I’m understanding it all correctly, is -
Wouldn’t halving have a negative impact on miners in disadvantaged populations who currently may have limited access to keep their mining competitive?
I suppose that could be offset by investors but if it is, is there transparency into who’s doing it?
Disadvantaged populations that mine aren’t probably mining for profits. It’s difficult to profitably mine in advantaged populations.
Disadvantaged populations are not necessarily as disadvantaged as white western NeoLib cultists portray them to be (usually to get funding for their skim off the top NGOs.) Cheaper power, cheaper infrastructure, cheaper material costs, no bureaucracy, can all provide advantages to over governed western NeoLib enclaves
It's the miners in developing countries that have the natural advantage: re #Ethiopia and #hydroelectric, and #Bitcoin goes further there than in developed countries (purchasing power parity). The #halving gets rid of inefficient miners. It also raises the exchange rate for #BTC because miners have to make a profit so the exchange rate (when they sell) has to reflect that. So net-net a gain for developing disadvantaged countries. I would add AI and datacentres will also benefit them as Bitcoin is leading in this area.
