Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
1) induce arbitrary electricity demand through supporting inefficient crypto currency.
2) Increases rate of renewable electricity sources build-out
3) transition cryptos to energy-efficient protocols
4) excess supply forces expensive fossil fuel energy sources to close down
5) accelerates transition to renewable energy
Actually, more info about the carbon footprint of various miners Bitcoin can help fund more renewable generation capacity. The next logical step is to blacklist miners that mine during peak periods, shifting crypto mining to periods when there is excess generation capacity. This might be a tall order but I think I know someone who might be able to make it happen. ;)

My napkin math says this might be a bigger benefit to CO2 levels than the benefit of EV growth over the same time period.


I was actually thinking of something like this today in my quest to figure out what the hell Elon is doing with crypto and BTC, and there it is all written out.

Well done @kyzhk and StealthP3D.

If this is the way it plays out, then Elon is indeed a GrandMaster like no other. Is it all planned or developed on the fly with his sixth sense?

I would like to see the rest play out.

Go ahead, Elon. Force all cryptos to go clean and ramp renewables like mad, a ramp that otherwise would not have happened.

Make a monkey out of me. I am game. I mean, monkeys and me, we go way back...
 
1) induce arbitrary electricity demand through supporting inefficient crypto currency.
2) Increases rate of renewable electricity sources build-out
3) transition cryptos to energy-efficient protocols
4) excess supply forces expensive fossil fuel energy sources to close down
5) accelerates transition to renewable energy
Not sure I see the causality of 2) from 1). Crypto miners would somehow have to communicate the need for additional renewable power with some kind of usage guarantee. Power providers would need to view this with high enough confidence that they will invest in additional new wind/solar/storage.

Not sure how that would work.
 
Your comments make me think you don't know what real volatility is. Yes, Tesla is more volatile than your average S&P500 company. But there are a lot of public companies much more volatile. Volatility is not bad and it's not a good measure of long-term risk. In fact, I like volatility, it's no big deal. It's impossible to precisely value a company with as much future potential as Tesla so volatility provides better and more clear places to either take profits or build a bigger position.

I also think you are greatly over-estimating how much of the volatility is due to Tesla's Bitcoin activity. Common sense says it's minimal. Tesla was volatile before Bitcoin and it will continue to be volatile with or without it. First principles thinking says it's no big deal to take 5% of your cash and convert it to Bitcoin. And I don't know what Elon's/Tesla's reasons really are and I don't need to know. Because they have a proven ability to run a very difficult company. Not enough people appreciate this. So, I trust they have good reasons for what they do.

Seriously, we cannot be privy to everything they do. Legally they had to disclose the Bitcoin purchases and sales. If it were not for the legal requirements, they probably wouldn't have reported it. Unless that was a necessary part of why they did it. We can speculate but we can never know.

So, it comes down to, "Do you trust Tesla management or not?". If you do, don't worry about it, if you don't trust management, get out! There is no point in being invested in companies with management you cannot trust to do a good job. It's actually the most important criteria for me before I invest in any company.

Tesla's investment in Bitcoin probably is contributing to the volatility, but I've read that a number of institutional investors are reducing their Tesla holdings to take profits. I think the conventional investment thinking is that Tesla is done with huge growth. It will continue to grow, but the money seeking big, fast gains is seeking the next Tesla now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HankLloydRight
Tesla's investment in Bitcoin probably is contributing to the volatility, but I've read that a number of institutional investors are reducing their Tesla holdings to take profits. I think the conventional investment thinking is that Tesla is done with huge growth. It will continue to grow, but the money seeking big, fast gains is seeking the next Tesla now.

Sigh, the "next Tesla" is TSLA!

Unless they are looking outside the world of EV's. Certainly there is plenty of opportunity in the market but most of these opportunities do not present themselves as cleanly as TSLA did. You can go into the genomics space where there will be a number of 100 and even 1000 baggers. But identifying which companies will take their technology to the next level and be able to mass market it for a huge return is a little more difficult than identifying Tesla and their superior culture of speed and innovation as the leader in the EV space.

I don't see any evidence that Bitcoin contributed more than a small percentage to TSLA's volatility. And, even if it did, how is that relevant to anyone's long-term investment thesis. Tesla is valued on future earnings, not whether they make or lose $50 million on Bitcoin each quarter. It is truly insignificant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: abasile
Not sure I see the causality of 2) from 1). Crypto miners would somehow have to communicate the need for additional renewable power with some kind of usage guarantee. Power providers would need to view this with high enough confidence that they will invest in additional new wind/solar/storage.

Not sure how that would work.

I'm pretty sure that's why you and I are not the one who will be cleaning up crypto. ;) At least not directly.

I'm not clear on how this could best work either. Then again, I'm not the one working on the problem and have barely thought about it.

OK, I've thought about it now for about 30 seconds. When I get my power bill I have the option of paying slightly more for renewable energy. This theoretically stimulates demand for more renewables at the wholesale level which makes renewable energy more valuable. And this stimulates private investment into more renewable generation. It's not a fast feedback loop but I trust it does work that way.

I'm sure Elon knows more about this than I do (a lot more) and I'm sure he knows a number of people who know more about it than he does. He can talk with these people whenever he needs to. That's why I don't worry about it. I trust that he knows what he's doing. He wouldn't be acting on it if he didn't have an "aha" moment.
 
Not sure I see the causality of 2) from 1). Crypto miners would somehow have to communicate the need for additional renewable power with some kind of usage guarantee. Power providers would need to view this with high enough confidence that they will invest in additional new wind/solar/storage.

Not sure how that would work.

Here's another way to look at it.

For solar and wind with battery storage to completely replace dirty energy sources most cost efficiently, there needs to be around 6 times the solar production during peak generation vs. immediate demand. The battery storage is only short-term but this 6X production is the current best estimate of the economic sweet spot. We will ignore wind for simplicity sake, just be aware that the cheapest way to go 90% (or 100%) renewable is to over-install solar. This accounts for cloudy and rainy days without needing excessively large battery banks. The number will vary in different regions and depending upon various assumptions like how good the energy transmission infrastructure is. All of this costs money, the goal is to build a robust renewable grid at a low cost.

When this is done according to current best estimates, there will more solar and wind energy that goes to waste than is sold. I believe only 15%-20% is actually used. This means 80% of the electricity generated is basically free for the taking if you have a productive way to use it. So, it looks like the goal is to apply pressure for big crypto miners to invest in renewables. They can sell the electricity to feed demand, putting coal and gas out of business and use the surplus, when available to balance the load and soak up all that unneeded electricity. Essentially, crypto mining could change the cost calculation between what is a profitable renewable generation project and what is not. Change the formula for the better. This only works if there is pressure to only mine with 100% renewable. And that is the part I can't fully understand how to achieve. But it looks like Elon sees a potential path.

There are also potential synergies with EV charging since most of it is not particularly time sensitive as to when it happens as long as EVSE becomes somewhat ubiquitous at places of work, shopping and homes, wherever cars tend to park a lot.
 
Genuinely asking this. Is it at all possible to control who mines bitcoin and how they do it? I don't know enough about the protocol to answer that, but it strikes me that if you could "control" bitcoin mining in any way, the whole point of a decentralized currency is lost.
I spent 20 years working on documentaries around the world, and one thing I can absolutely guarantee is that if there is money in something, someone, somewhere will do it. I honestly don't see how you'd regulate this. Even if you could identify and force North American and European miners to use only clean "excess" renewable energy (when/if there is ever such a thing), that would merely drive a massive influx of miners from elsewhere who could use the cheapest, dirtiest coal power they could find. The hardware doesn't care what drives the electrons, so as far as I can see it'd have to be a political/regulatory solution, which again, seems to defeat the point of a decentralized currency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aubreymcfato
Genuinely asking this. Is it at all possible to control who mines bitcoin and how they do it? I don't know enough about the protocol to answer that, but it strikes me that if you could "control" bitcoin mining in any way, the whole point of a decentralized currency is lost.
I spent 20 years working on documentaries around the world, and one thing I can absolutely guarantee is that if there is money in something, someone, somewhere will do it. I honestly don't see how you'd regulate this. Even if you could identify and force North American and European miners to use only clean "excess" renewable energy (when/if there is ever such a thing), that would merely drive a massive influx of miners from elsewhere who could use the cheapest, dirtiest coal power they could find. The hardware doesn't care what drives the electrons, so as far as I can see it'd have to be a political/regulatory solution, which again, seems to defeat the point of a decentralized currency.

Judging from what I've seen, it seems like Elon might have a plan for creating "ethical" or "green" Bitcoins (or other cryptocurrency) that is certified with with it's own proof of authenticity. These would naturally be worth more in the crypto markets (my guess is much more) in the same way that diamonds have laser engraving certifying they are ethically sourced and gold bullion coins minted by different countries have different values even though they might be the same amount and the same purity.

As crypto becomes more ubiquitous, it's obvious that companies that accept it will naturally gravitate toward "green" or "ethical" crypto and thus these are the ones people will invest in. The others, the ones that resist, will never be very important and probably become all but worthless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: willow_hiller
Genuinely asking this. Is it at all possible to control who mines bitcoin and how they do it? I don't know enough about the protocol to answer that, but it strikes me that if you could "control" bitcoin mining in any way, the whole point of a decentralized currency is lost.
I spent 20 years working on documentaries around the world, and one thing I can absolutely guarantee is that if there is money in something, someone, somewhere will do it. I honestly don't see how you'd regulate this. Even if you could identify and force North American and European miners to use only clean "excess" renewable energy (when/if there is ever such a thing), that would merely drive a massive influx of miners from elsewhere who could use the cheapest, dirtiest coal power they could find. The hardware doesn't care what drives the electrons, so as far as I can see it'd have to be a political/regulatory solution, which again, seems to defeat the point of a decentralized currency.
Of the many flaws, decentralization is one of the worst.

It is entirely possible to stop mining now, today, this instant. This would solve a serious roadblock to acceptance but it won’t happen.

Decentralization guarantees there are zero controls by design intent. There is no way to turn off the damage. It is part of the attraction to the criminal element it so richly rewards.

It is a Monsters Ball of bad ideas. The amplification of extractive mining of carbon for pure greed is blatant and raw to see and it will continue as intended. There are no controls.

One of the most powerful governments is trying to control it but will likely fail. This is greed on open ugly display.

Can China drive down the global price below the cost of mining?
 
Genuinely asking this. Is it at all possible to control who mines bitcoin and how they do it? I don't know enough about the protocol to answer that, but it strikes me that if you could "control" bitcoin mining in any way, the whole point of a decentralized currency is lost.
I spent 20 years working on documentaries around the world, and one thing I can absolutely guarantee is that if there is money in something, someone, somewhere will do it. I honestly don't see how you'd regulate this. Even if you could identify and force North American and European miners to use only clean "excess" renewable energy (when/if there is ever such a thing), that would merely drive a massive influx of miners from elsewhere who could use the cheapest, dirtiest coal power they could find. The hardware doesn't care what drives the electrons, so as far as I can see it'd have to be a political/regulatory solution, which again, seems to defeat the point of a decentralized currency.
Tax carbon
 
Tax carbon
It would be great but it would have to be global to impact mining IMO and would only work depending on prices.

The design is intended to be impervious so the only non-economic solutions are impolite to discuss IMO.

Driving the price to zero could work but that would require turning off the hype machine and severely punishing the pump and dump, get rich quick ponzi scheme before us. I don't see that happening, billionaires heavily invested in the scheme have legions of lawyers to delay any meaningful chance at turning off the spigot, FOMO drives continued frenzy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blckdmp
Of the many flaws, decentralization is one of the worst.

It is entirely possible to stop mining now, today, this instant. This would solve a serious roadblock to acceptance but it won’t happen.

Decentralization guarantees there are zero controls by design intent. There is no way to turn off the damage. It is part of the attraction to the criminal element it so richly rewards.

Crypto has some seriously unflattering aspects but I don't think rewarding the criminal element is one of them. Cash is the currency of choice for criminals because it is far less traceable than crypto. Crypto leaves it's fingerprint wherever it goes and it is a very public fingerprint that never fades or goes away. It's called a public ledger. Cash changes hands without this tracer and is the currency of choice amongst criminal elements who want to leave no trace.

Given this is well-known, I'm surprised there are still people pushing the false narrative that crypto has a stronger link with criminal behavior than the actual tool of choice and the most widely accepted currency for criminals around the globe, the US greenback.
 
Last edited:
Ok one tweet from Elon and the whole crypto market is all over that place. Now what?
I'd like to know what other cryptos you're holding and investing in lately

I had to disagree since it's not clear who you are replying to or what you are saying.

Congratulations, you are the first TMC member that I've ever seen with a negative rating. Don't take it personally, just try to communicate more clearly in the future.
 
Genuinely asking this. Is it at all possible to control who mines bitcoin and how they do it? I don't know enough about the protocol to answer that, but it strikes me that if you could "control" bitcoin mining in any way, the whole point of a decentralized currency is lost.
I spent 20 years working on documentaries around the world, and one thing I can absolutely guarantee is that if there is money in something, someone, somewhere will do it. I honestly don't see how you'd regulate this. Even if you could identify and force North American and European miners to use only clean "excess" renewable energy (when/if there is ever such a thing), that would merely drive a massive influx of miners from elsewhere who could use the cheapest, dirtiest coal power they could find. The hardware doesn't care what drives the electrons, so as far as I can see it'd have to be a political/regulatory solution, which again, seems to defeat the point of a decentralized currency.

BTC is designed to be unregulated and unregulatable. Once a coin is on the ledger it's worth the same as any other. And since BTC miners are driven by pure greed, they're not going to limit their computers to only mining when excess green energy is available. As long as the payoff is higher than the cost, they'll run.

The whole crypto world is chaotic. Anybody with the programming skills and a computer can start a new crypto, creating illusory value and adding to the chaos. It's useless as currency precisely because lack of regulation precludes a stable value. Companies that accept crypto base their prices on dollars (or other local currency) and convert back to the local currency immediately. For a currency to function as a currency, it must be regulated to maintain a predictable and relatively stable value.

By its very nature crypto may be impossible to stop, but it is also useless for legitimate transactions. It's too unstable, and transaction costs, which were subsidized by the miners when mining was more profitable, skyrocket as fewer and fewer coins remain to be mined. It's a Ponzi scheme with big profits at the start and for early adopters, and big costs for later adopters.

And the more cryptos appear (which they will because it's basically free to start a new one) the situation only becomes more chaotic and less profitable.

Also, since lost coins cannot be recovered, the total supply will diminish, and since there's no way of knowing how many coins on the ledger are lost and unrecoverable, the real "money" supply of crypto is unknown, adding to the uncertainty and the volatility.

Crypto has some seriously unflattering aspects but I don't think rewarding the criminal element is one of them. Cash is the currency of choice for criminals because it is far less traceable than crypto. Crypto leaves it's fingerprint wherever it goes and it is a very public fingerprint that never fades or goes away. It's called a public ledger. Cash changes hands without this tracer and is the currency of choice amongst criminal elements who want to leave no trace.

Given this is well-known, I'm surprised there are still people pushing the false narrative that crypto has a stronger link with criminal behavior than the actual tool of choice and the most widely accepted currency for criminals around the globe, the US greenback.

Felix Salmon of the Slate Money podcast has pointed out that large-scale effective ransomware was made possible by crypto, since it makes untraceable on-line payments possible. Your local corner dope peddler takes cash because that's a face-to-face interaction. Same with your small-time gun dealer. But for extortion and ransom, crypto eliminates the biggest risk point for the criminal: The cash drop. Crypto also makes possible untraceable transactions on the dark web for everything from drugs to sex slaves. In short: Cash is the choice for small-time criminals, crypto for the really big criminals. And crypto is useless for anything else.

If I pay for something with my credit card and the seller fails to deliver, I can file a claim with my bank and get my money back. If I buy a loaf of bread with my credit card the transaction costs pennies. If I did it with crypto the transaction cost ranges from around $5 to $50. For one loaf of bread! If you're extorting $10,000, a $50 transaction cost is worth it for the protection that crypto provides. Nobody uses crypto as currency except criminals. The true believers are not spending it. They're HODLing it, in hopes of making speculative profit.
 
BTC is designed to be unregulated and unregulatable. Once a coin is on the ledger it's worth the same as any other. And since BTC miners are driven by pure greed, they're not going to limit their computers to only mining when excess green energy is available. As long as the payoff is higher than the cost, they'll run.

Almost complete lay-person here, but couldn't this issue be solved at the market-level by introducing some sort of REC (originally Renewable Energy Credit, maybe in this context a RenewableEnergyCoin) that's created when a BTC block is mined using renewables? Could trade separately, be bought by BTC users who want a token representing an offset for any transactions they conduct.

Similar to how Solar Renewable Energy Credits work. My solar panels generate kWh which sell on the open market as normal electricity does, but they also generate SRECs which act as tokens representing the additional value attributed to the fact that the kWh were generated with solar panels. And anyone who has a mandate to use renewable energy can bid to purchase my SRECs, which allow them to claim they're using renewable energy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StealthP3D
Almost complete lay-person here, but couldn't this issue be solved at the market-level by introducing some sort of REC (originally Renewable Energy Credit, maybe in this context a RenewableEnergyCoin) that's created when a BTC block is mined using renewables? Could trade separately, be bought by BTC users who want a token representing an offset for any transactions they conduct.

Similar to how Solar Renewable Energy Credits work. My solar panels generate kWh which sell on the open market as normal electricity does, but they also generate SRECs which act as tokens representing the additional value attributed to the fact that the kWh were generated with solar panels. And anyone who has a mandate to use renewable energy can bid to purchase my SRECs, which allow them to claim they're using renewable energy.

Sounds like a good idea. The narrative that the decentralized nature of Bitcoin and other crypto prevents any kind of energy accountability from being attached is a false narrative designed to make the cleaning up of crypto impossible.