More than 200 Wikipedia editors have long called on the Wikimedia Foundation to stop accepting cryptocurrency donations. The foundation received crypto offerings worth about $ 130,000 in the most recent fiscal year – less than 0.1 percent of base funds, which exceeded $ 150 million last year.
The controversy over the idea has escalated over the past three months.
“Cryptocurrencies are the most dangerous currencies that have become popular among retailers,” wrote Wikipedia user GorillaWarfare, the original author of the concept, back in January. “I don’t think we should accept the use of it this way.”
GorillaWarfare is Molly White, a Wikipedian who has been a cryptocurrency opponent. They also run a Twitter account “Web3 is running very well“What” shows “many other disasters that occur in crypto, defi, NFTs, and other web3 projects,” the account says.
In a statement to the Wikimedia Foundation, GorillaWarfare added that “Bitcoin and Ethereum are two of the most widely used currencies, and both are proof of performance, using a lot of power.”
According to some of the above-mentioned comparisons, Bitcoin networks use about 200 terrawatt-hours per year. It is as much energy as 70 million Thai people use it. And it works for about 2,000 kilowatt hours on Bitcoin transactions.
Opponents of Bitcoin have argued that the use of the currency is driven by its mining strategy, which consumes almost the same energy regardless of the volume of transactions. Hence the acceptance of the bitcoin offer does not only increase air emissions.
But critics have argued that Wikimedia’s approval of cryptocurrencies could help increase their value. And the higher the price, the more miners are willing to make new money.
Crypto skeptics have said that people can turn their bitcoins into dollars before paying. But U.S. tax laws provide benefits for those who supply goods directly to a charitable organization.
Critics of Cryptocurrency also argued that some people could not easily access banking services easily.
“Transfers to banks, credit cards, and PayPal are difficult for millions of people who do not have a government ID and therefore cannot access an account,” wrote Wikipedia author AnarkioC. “They do not allow anonymous donations to be named or referred to (it can be dangerous depending on your circumstances); and they can easily and easily be explored. ”
Growing Conflict on Cryptocurrency
In the end, 232 long-time editors of Wikipedia called for an end to cryptocurrency offerings, while 94 opposed the move.
Such votes are not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. Legally, the foundations are independent of the Wikipedia group and do not have to do what they want.
In a January statement, foundation spokesman Greg Varnum said, “Our teams will continue to follow these discussions and listen to what has been presented; we are already considering what has come here as we realize our way forward.”
We have asked the Wikimedia Foundation to comment on the vote and to change the subject as soon as we receive a reply.
If the foundation is in line with the request of the community, it may not be the first organization to stop using cryptocurrencies due to environmental concerns. Earlier this month, the Mozilla Foundation announced it would no longer accept cryptocurrencies that use the power to add evidence of affiliate activity. This includes bitcoin and ether — although the latter is expected to be converted into a model of valuable evidence in the future.
Last year, Elon Musk announced that Tesla would no longer accept bitcoin payments to buy Tesla cars. The announcement came just two months after Tesla began accepting Teslas bitcoins.
Sports company Steam stopped accepting bitcoin in 2017, citing fines for network operations, which then were close to record highs.
The story first appeared Ars Technica.
Some of the Best WIRED Stories