Wikimedia Foundation Debates Acceptance of Cryptocurrency Donations Over Environmental Concerns – Bitcoin News

Following Mozilla’s decision to temporarily halt cryptocurrency donations due to environmental concerns, several members of the Wikimedia Foundation community have submitted a proposal asking the foundation to stop accepting digital currency donations. The proposal states that cryptocurrency donations are “signals.” [an] Endorsement in the cryptocurrency space,” and also says that “cryptocurrencies may not be in line with the Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment to environmental sustainability.” “

Proposal Claims Cryptocurrency May Not Be Compliant With Wikimedia Foundation

Wikimedia Foundation members are voting on a motion that could prevent the foundation from accepting digital currencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. The US non-profit organization began accepting crypto assets in 2019 via Bitpay. “We accept donations globally, and strive to provide a large variety of donation options. It is very important that we can process international donations in ways that are efficient and effective in terms of the the cost”.

Wikimedia Foundation Discusses Accepting Cryptocurrency Donations Over Environmental Concerns
Wikimedia Foundation proposal submitted by Gorillawarfare.

However, there is a user-submitted suggestion called “Gorillawarfare” that claims that accepting crypto donations goes against the specific principles of the Wikimedia Foundation. “Cryptocurrencies may not be in line with the Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment to environmental sustainability. Bitcoin and Ethereum are two of the most widely used cryptocurrencies, and both are proof-of-work, using a massive amount of energy,” says the proposal.

While the proposal refers to the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, it benefits from a lot of research by the Digiconomist’s Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index. The proposal seemed to have a lot of support as voting members left comments indicating confirmation. “Too late. Accepting cryptocurrency is a joke about the WMF’s commitment to environmental sustainability,” said Wikimedia user Gamaliel. However, not everyone agreed, and in fact, a large number of people expressed the opposite opinion in response to Gamaliel’s statement. For example, someone wrote:

Did you know that the traditional banking system also uses energy?

The individual insists that “every point is incorrect and/or misleading”

There is some discussion from some of the comments made by people who insist that members of the Wikimedia Foundation should be aware that the US dollar is backed by large amounts of carbon energy and worst of all, state-imposed violence. One person explained that every point Gorillawarfare made in the proposal was “incorrect and/or misleading.” For example, the point about compatibility with the so-called crypto-industry values. The individual responded, “This is not true, more than accepting the US dollar indicates endorsing the US dollar or the US government.”

In response to the environmental concerns that Gorillawarfare made in the proposal, the individual explained that the point of the proposal was conflicting. “The proposal combines the existence of bitcoin with only its use,” said Orright, a member of the Wikimedia Foundation. “The proposal does not show that dropping acceptance of Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrencies) will have an actual impact. Technically, there is no direct relationship between conducting a Bitcoin transaction and energy use (this is much more than the local banking system).

Commentators highlight biases arising from the world of the digital economy

Furthermore, there are many complaints about Gorillawarfare citing the Digiconomist, as the researcher’s work has been widely dismissed due to inaccuracy and extreme bias. “Digiconomist is a blog run by Alex de Vries, an employee of De Nederlandsche Bank NV (DNB), the Dutch central bank, which is a direct competitor to Bitcoin,” one of the comments against Gorillawarfare’s proposal. Another person explained that the work of the Digiconomist is inaccurate, as many others have discovered, and that the work of the Digiconomist is full of contradictions. One individual wrote:

The world of the digital economy is not only biased and conflicting. De Vries is self-published, has no editorial review process and has a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

At the time of writing, there are countless individuals who are against Gorillawarfare’s proposal, but the lion’s share of votes and comments support the idea. It appears that the crypto community and Proof of Work (PoW) proponents should do more to dispel the myths circulating from mainstream media critics, old financial vigilantes, and paid opposition researchers.

Tags in this story

Alex de Vries, Banking System, BitPay, Carbon, Crypto, Crypto Assets, Digital World, Donations, Energy Use, Environment, Extreme Bias, Gamaliel, Gorillawarfare, Inaccurate Information, PoW, Proof of Work, Proposal, USD, Violence, Wiki , WikiMedia, Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia suggestion, Wikimedia vote, Wikipedia

What do you think of the Wikimedia Foundation’s proposal that the Foundation stop accepting crypto assets due to environmental concerns? Tell us what you think about it in the comments section below.

Jimmy Redman

Jamie Redman is the head of news at News and a technology financial journalist based in Florida. Redman has been an active member of the cryptocurrency community since 2011. He has a passion for Bitcoin, open source code, and decentralized applications. Since September 2015, Redman has written more than 5,000 articles for News about the disruptive protocols emerging today.

photo credits: shutterstock, pixabay, wiki commons, wiki,

disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services or companies. does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Neither the Company nor the author shall be liable, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

Leave a Comment