October 12, 2019
I have read all the arguments for and against Bitcoin and do not doubt volatility fuelled by media, bad actors in this space and negative news such as a rejection of an ETF that this market is fragile and not resistant to manipulation.
However, as I start my journey into my early 20's, I am more concerned with the darker aspects of what this ETF represents for the future.
As a young person, I would like to see more Ethical and Sustainable banking.
Bitcoin does not in my or my friend's eyes seem to be Ethical or Sustainable due to the impact it has on the Environment.
For example, various articles, including one published in Forbes, has highlighted that Bitcoin mining alone could push global temperatures over the 2 Degree C catastrophic threshold by 2034. This fact is suggested in a study by MIT which details that Bitcoin mining as of late 2018 was consuming 45.8 Terawatt-Hours of electricity per year which produced 23 megatons of Carbon Dioxide (I dread to think of what that figure is now) This is equivalent to the green-house gas pollution produced by nations the size of Joran or Sri Lanka. The threshold of 2 Degree C was predicted to be breached at the end of this century. Not within the next 16 years
Bitcoin in relation to other forms of currency or stores of value is still relatively small in size, but the carbon footprint is very significant. If an ETF was to be granted and it took off the way it is predicted to I dread to think of the consequences to the Environment.
Now, I predict the usual rhetoric by online magazines and financial institutions that it is no better than other currently or accepted forms of currency or stores of value. But this is a logical fallacy and why should we boost a quite significant resource-intensive threat to our eco-system by granting an ETF.... to increase the wealth and career opportunities of some bankers or financial institutions? Because that is what this whole game seems to be about in our eyes.
It is interesting to see how the media have changed the narrative from Bitcoin being a Currency and solution to our economic problems to now a Store of Value (which it clearly is not) and from having Intrinsic Value to now Monetary Value- the last part enthusiastically emphasised in a recent publication by the investment management firm VanEck. It just seems like they are trying hard to get an ETF approval for an algorithm that if in scenario's such as our electric grids were compromised or internet went down would have no exchange or barter value.
In conclusion, my points are simple:
- There is no doubt we are looking at an insecure and manipulated market, even with the recent introduction of the Bakkt offering.
- Bitcoin's comparison to traditional tangible Stores of Value (which have other real-world uses) is a logical fallacy.
- Finally, I want a world where my kids and grandkids do not face an accelerated extinction-level scenario just for some financial gain. I would rather have more sustainable and ethical forms of investment from the big financial institutions to add to a portfolio rather than something that is empty, hollow and meaningless.
Therefore I strongly feel that this proposal should be rejected.
I appreciate the opportunity to put forward my views.