#Nft energy consumption pro
For a reasonable pro (Bitcoin) position please see, and a reasonable anti (PoW) position please see. This ‘discussion’ is severely polarized between the pro-crypto who believe “mining is mostly green and without a doubt a net-positive for the climate and the world”, vs anti-(PoW) crypto who believe it to be a waste of resources. There is of course a larger discussion around the ecological impact of PoW blockchains in general (e.g. Please refer to other articles for a broader picture regarding NFTs or CryptoArt. So now I’d like to make it very clear that what follows is not a general “all-sides-of-the-story” article, but focuses only on the CryptoArt / NFT Market from one perspective, which I believe has to be - but yet has not been - included as part of the conversation. My mistake was that I did not make it clear from the beginning that this was my position. The reason for this is that there are already hundreds of articles covering many other aspects of NFTs or CryptoArt, but not a single article or study looking at it from an ecological perspective. This is absolutely true, it is intentionally so. This post has attracted a lot of criticism for being too “one-sided”.
#Nft energy consumption verification
For verification purposes only, details available upon request This means that it’s very probable that the current true figures are considerably higher than those mentioned in this article. In reality, most likely digiconomist is now over-estimating, while Kyle is most likely under-estimating. This is most likely due to the differences in the bottom-up and top-down approaches to handling events such as the rapid increases in the value of ETH leading to miners seeking to use older (and less efficient) GPUs, and the banning of mining in China causing miners to relocate to other countries (such as mostly coal-powered Kazakhstan). It’s worth noting that very recently, digiconomist’s estimates have increased significantly higher than Kyle’s estimates. This is because, (until very recently) digiconomist’s top-down estimates (which is what my calculations are based on) were very close to Kyle’s bottom-up estimates. Note that these figures are very similar to those calculated in the article below. London-Rome) 500+ KgCO2 for more bids and more sales (5+ hour flight, NYC-LA) London-Frankfurt) 200+ KgCO2 for a sale with a few bids (3 hour flight, e.g. Using Kyle’s calculations yields an average carbon footprint for a single-edition NFT averaged across all NFT platforms on Ethereum (rounded to closest 100Kg) as:ġ00 KgCO2 to mint (1–2 hour flight, e.g. Despite these differences in methodology, the carbon footprint of an NFT comes out very similar with both approaches. Kyle also uses a Fee-based accounting model as opposed to the Gas-based accounting model that I use (note that Gas and Fee are highly correlated, and at times NFT-related tx fees are disproportionately higher than the Gas that they use, see links #2 and #3 above).
Kyle has used a completely different approach (bottom-up) compared to the method my calculations are based on (top-down, as used by digiconomist). The above resources currently contain the most up-to-date figures. Per-Transaction footprint / responsibility allocation. NFT platforms on the Ethereum network, and 3. There is now more research on the emissions of 1.
#Nft energy consumption update
The Unreasonable Ecological Cost of #CryptoArt (Part 1) Update - Dec 2021
0 kommentar(er)
