> !['The Lightning Network' Does Not Exist](https://www.discreetlog.com/content/images/2023/03/lightningnetwork.webp)
>
> The former seems to have found solid product market fit. Expect significant volume, adoption, and usage going forward.
>
> The latter's future remains to be seen. Dependence on Tor, which has had massive reliability issues, and lack of strong privacy guarantees put it at risk.
>
> — ODELL (@ODELL) [October 27, 2022](https://twitter.com/ODELL/status/1585633149815377922?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref=discreetlog.com)

**The Basics**

*   Lightning is a protocol that enables cheap and fast native bitcoin transactions.
*   At the core of the protocol is the ability for bitcoin users to create a payment channel with another user.
*   These payment channels enable users to make many bitcoin transactions between each other with only two on-chain bitcoin transactions: the channel open transaction and the channel close transaction.
*   Essentially lightning is a protocol for interoperable batched bitcoin transactions.
*   It is expected that on chain [bitcoin transaction fees will increase](https://www.discreetlog.com/utxos/) with adoption and the ability to easily batch transactions will save users significant money.
*   As these lightning transactions are processed, liquidity flows from one side of a channel to the other side, on chain transactions are signed by both parties but not broadcasted to update this balance.
*   Lightning is designed to be trust minimized, either party in a payment channel can close the channel at any time and their bitcoin will be settled on chain without trusting the other party.

**There is no 'Lightning Network'**

*   Many people refer to the aggregate of all lightning channels as 'The Lightning Network' but this is a false premise.
*   There are many lightning channels between many different users and funds can flow across interconnected channels as long as there is a route through peers.
*   If a lightning transaction requires multiple hops it will flow through multiple interconnected channels, adjusting the balance of all channels along the route, and paying lightning transaction fees that are set by each node on the route.

**Example:** You have a channel with Bob. Bob has a channel with Charlie. You can pay Charlie through your channel with Bob and Bob's channel with User C.

*   As a result, it is not guaranteed that every lightning user can pay every other lightning user, they must have a route of interconnected channels between sender and receiver.

**Lightning in Practice**

*   Lightning has already found product market fit and usage as an interconnected payment protocol between large professional custodians.
*   They are able to easily manage channels and liquidity between each other without trust using this interoperable protocol.
*   Lightning payments between large custodians are fast and easy. End users do not have to run their own node or manage their channels and liquidity. These payments rarely fail due to professional management of custodial nodes.
*   The tradeoff is one inherent to custodians and other trusted third parties. Custodial wallets can steal funds and compromise user privacy.

**Sovereign Lightning**

*   Trusted third parties are [security holes](https://nakamotoinstitute.org/trusted-third-parties/?ref=discreetlog.com).
*   Users must run their own node and manage their own channels in order to use lightning without trusting a third party. This remains the single largest friction point for sovereign lightning usage: the mental burden of actively running a lightning node and associated liquidity management.
*   Bitcoin development prioritizes node accessibility so cost to self host your own node is low but if a node is run at home or office, Tor or a VPN is recommended to mask your IP address: otherwise it is visible to the entire network and represents a privacy risk.
*   This privacy risk is heightened due to the potential for certain governments to go after sovereign lightning users and compel them to shutdown their nodes. If their IP Address is exposed they are easier to target.
*   Fortunately the tools to run and manage nodes continue to get easier but it is important to understand that this will always be a friction point when compared to custodial services.

**The Potential Fracture of Lightning**

*   Any lightning user can choose which users are allowed to open channels with them.
*   One potential is that professional custodians only peer with other professional custodians.
*   We already see nodes like those run by CashApp only have channels open with other regulated counterparties. This could be due to performance goals, liability reduction, or regulatory pressure.

[!['The Lightning Network' Does Not Exist](https://www.discreetlog.com/content/images/2023/03/cashapp-2.webp)](https://mempool.space/lightning/node/02e1221434a21b8ce5818e92c6ec76301824dc87ed94b4628242e4b1f4a6ff445f?ref=discreetlog.com)

*   Fortunately some of their peers are connected to non-regulated parties so payments to and from sovereign lightning users are still successfully processed by CashApp but this may not always be the case going forward.

**Summary**

*   Many people refer to the aggregate of all lightning channels as 'The Lightning Network' but this is a false premise. There is no singular 'Lightning Network' but rather many payment channels between distinct peers, some connected with each other and some not.
*   Lightning as an interoperable payment protocol between professional custodians seems to have found solid product market fit. Expect significant volume, adoption, and usage going forward.
*   Lightning as a robust sovereign payment protocol has yet to be battle tested. Heavy reliance on Tor, which has had massive reliability issues, the friction of active liquidity management, significant on chain fee burden for small amounts, interactivity constraints on mobile, and lack of strong privacy guarantees put it at risk.

* * *

_If you have never used lightning before, use_ [_this guide_](https://werunbtc.com/phoenix?ref=discreetlog.com) _to get started on your phone._

* * *

**_If you found this post helpful support my work with_** [**_bitcoin_**](https://geyser.fund/project/citadel?ref=discreetlog.com)**_._**

!['The Lightning Network' Does Not Exist](https://werunbtc.com/donate.png)


![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Screen-Shot-2024-11-19-at-2.17.17-PM-1024x906.png)

The English word “measure” comes from the Sanskrit word “maya”. Maya refers to illusion, but also the measurable world. Bitcoin is perhaps the most important freedom technology in Maya, but it is still therefore part of the matrix, the world of things, of the measurable. While we talk of “escaping the matrix” in Bitcoin, and this is true that a relative escape is achieved by learning about how a fiat monetary system inhibits freedom across a range of measures, these are not the highest freedoms, because they are still relative freedoms within Maya,

To put it another way, Bitcoin can give many freedoms. And …the highest freedoms, Bitcoin cannot give you.

No asset or technology can.

You can have all the self-custodied Bitcoin, but …

If your mind continually moves from past events, to future plans, and you are unable to have it stay anchored in the present, then you are not free.

If you get triggered, and your emotions are decided by the words of others, then you are not free.

If you get irate and frustrated whenever someone criticises bitcoin then you are not free.

If you have many unrealised desires and ambitions that you believe you need to be fulfilled before you can be content, then you are not free.

If your mind gets unsettled when events do not go the way you want without delays or imperfections etc, then you are not free.

If while maintaining money, you fear losing it in the future, then you are not free.

If you feel fear when you lose some money or resources from your life, then you are not free.

If after realising one financial goal you feel compelled to quickly set a bigger one, then you are not free.

Bitcoin contributes to freedom. But it doesn’t cause freedom Freedom over your own mind is the ultimate self-sovereignty.


#Bitcoin is the eruption of financial truth.  http://res.cloudinary.com/df3bvpu0s/image/upload/v1754755270/ykpjtjun1ycjeatlkbik.jpg


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


> ![Money Without Trust](https://www.discreetlog.com/content/images/2023/03/rdogs.webp)
>
> Bank run on every crypto bank then bank run on every "real" bank.
>
> — ODELL (@ODELL) [December 14, 2022](https://twitter.com/ODELL/status/1602838429447999491?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref=discreetlog.com)

The four main banks of bitcoin and “crypto” are Signature, Prime Trust, Silvergate, and Silicon Valley Bank. Prime Trust does not custody funds themselves but rather maintains deposit accounts at BMO Harris Bank, Cross River, Lexicon Bank, MVB Bank, and Signature Bank. Silvergate and Silicon Valley Bank have already stopped withdrawals. **More banks will go down before the chaos stops. None of them have sufficient reserves to meet withdrawals.**

Bitcoin gives us all the ability to opt out of a system that has massive layers of counterparty risk built in, years of cheap money and broken incentives have layered risk on top of risk throughout the entire global economy. If you thought the FTX bank run was painful to watch, I have bad news for you: every major bank in the world is fractional reserve. **Bitcoin held in self custody is unique in its lack of counterparty risk, as global market chaos unwinds this will become much more obvious.**

The rules of bitcoin are extremely hard to change by design. Anyone can access the network directly without a trusted third party by using their own node. Owning more bitcoin does not give you more control over the network with all participants on equal footing.

> _Bitcoin is:
> \- money that is not controlled by a company or government
> \- money that can be spent or saved without permission
> \- money that is provably scarce and should increase in purchasing power with adoption_

**Bitcoin is money without trust.** Whether you are a nation state, corporation, or an individual, you can use bitcoin to spend or save without permission. Social media will accelerate the already deteriorating trust in our institutions and as this trust continues to crumble the value of trust minimized money will become obvious. **As adoption increases so should the purchasing power of bitcoin.**

> _A quick note on "stablecoins," such as USDC - it is important to remember that they rely on trusted custodians. They have the same risk as funds held directly in bank accounts with additional counterparty risk on top. The trusted custodians can be pressured by gov, exit scam, or caught up in fraud. Funds can and will be frozen at will. **This is a distinctly different trust model than bitcoin, which is a native bearer token that does not rely on any centralized entity or custodian.**_

Most bitcoin exchanges have exposure to these failing banks. Expect more chaos and confusion as this all unwinds. Withdraw any bitcoin to your own wallet ASAP.

Simple Self Custody Guide: [https://werunbtc.com/muun](https://t.co/J61rFmeovE?ref=discreetlog.com)
More Secure Cold Storage Guide: [https://werunbtc.com/coldcard](https://t.co/LMTDzJ86Ec?ref=discreetlog.com)

* * *

_**If you found this post helpful support my work with [bitcoin](https://geyser.fund/project/citadel?ref=discreetlog.com).**_

![Money Without Trust](https://werunbtc.com/donate.png)


tags: A detailed guide I believe that the most important action that Bitcoiners can take, which is not currently being taken with enough focus/skill, is to improve the way we communicate the value of Bitcoin to the next wave of Bitcoin adopters. These people are the “early majority”. They care about different things to the early adopters. If we fail to do this, Bitcoin adoption will be top heavy insofar as Corporates and Nation States start building their Bitcoin reserve, but the everyday people are left behind, not seeing the value-alignment of Bitcoin with their own value-set. There’s also a risk that even institutional adoption will be slow across many nations, where the values of the investment fund are in apparent but not actual conflict with Bitcoin. This paper lays out my first attempt at a remedy to address this. Introduction What are the blockers that could stop us moving from the early adopters into the early majority of Bitcoin adopters? There are many factors, and the answer often depends on the audience. For example, for pension funds the blockers have been “the fact that none of my peers are doing it” and ESG. For the general population, it’s often “I don’t know where to start”, or “It’s not straightforward to get Bitcoin in the first place, and how do I get it to and from my bank?” For liberals it is almost always, “It’s bad for the environment and/or it does nothing useful”. Today I’m going to take a step back and look at an element of adoption that is critically important, yet not widely understood: how we pitch Bitcoin to a community of people. Yes, what we say, and having the charts, data, information and education is important. But even more important is knowing how to present this information to skeptics. My intention is that this document serves as a resource for others to help you orangepill more regulators, policymakers, boards, fund managers and, most importantly, retail investors to adopt Bitcoin, or at least adopt a friendly stance towards Bitcoin. Why this; why now? This document open sources a lot of the strategies that I’ve used to orangepill skeptics to Bitcoin. While this post focuses mostly on the environmental and humanitarian benefits to Bitcoin, the principles can be applied to any Bitcoin topic where you’re seeking to orangepill someone. When I look at the disparity between how the early adopters were convinced to embrace Bitcoin, and how the early majority need to be spoken to in order to come to Bitcoin, I see a danger that we will ostracize many potential future advocates through sloppy attempts at orangepilling that are not just ineffective but in many cases counter-productive. I believe that ending orangepilling naivety will be critical as ending regulatory hostility when it comes to the next wave of Bitcoin adoption. While some have said that I have changed the narrative on Bitcoin and energy, I am most definitely not the only person who has shifted the narrative, nor am I the most important person. There is at least one person who has objectively done more than me to orangepill key globally recognized figures on the ESG merits of Bitcoin (in many cases ESG was the blocker for them embracing Bitcoin). This person wishes to remain anonymous. In this post, I cite numerous examples of where people have gotten a positive outcome through adopted my orange-pilling techniques. My intention in sharing this is not to glorify anything I have done, but to evidence the effectiveness of certain ways of communicating that over time, and through the help of some great mentors, I have found to be effective. While in a tech-centric industry such as Bitcoin, it is easy to think this is because of the BEEST data model of sustainable energy usage and other long form research I conducted, I would say that the data model was 30% of what mattered, but the other 70% was how I put together messages differently using other people’s research. This is something that can be learnt and replicated using many of the seven principals of effective orangepilling described below. Finally, to those who wonder “Isn’t there a chance that by open-sourcing these strategies, these can be weaponized against Bitcoin?” No. Because everything I describe here only works if you have truth and fact on your side, have domain knowledge in the area you are speaking, and are communicating as an act of service to others without agenda or attachment. Why am I qualified to write about this? Results are the only qualification. But in case you are interested, it’s an area I did some work in before in my pre-Bitcoin days. Orangepilling is a truncated way of saying “successfully pitching Bitcoin” and pitching is something a little bit about having written a book on it. Before that, I coached tech entrepreneurs in pitching. Before that, I also led a technology company through three cap raises, where I had to learn a lot about pitching in a hurry! Those pre-Bitcoin experiences gave me a sense of what needed to be done between 2022-2023 to start to change the mainstream narrative around Bitcoin & Energy. This post looks at lessons we can all pull from what worked, when it comes to orangepilling the next wave of Bitcoin adopters. Your lived experience makes you uniquely qualified to talk to your tribe I first became aware of this watching Michael Saylor talk about the energy consumption of Bitcoin during a quarterly Bitcoin Mining Council update. Michael Saylor is one of Bitcoin’s most gifted communicators. He inspires me to improve my own communication. He is inspiring, lucid, visionary, yet at the same time able to back up his statements with solid data and examples. I will never forget the brilliant way he cut across a podcaster who suggested that it was risky being “all in on Bitcoin”, with the question “Are you all in on the chair you’re sitting on?” So it was with intrigue that on the question of why Bitcoin is a strong ESG asset, he was the least compelling I’d seen him. The reason was simple: the environment is “not his thing”. He is absolutely the right person to convince billionaires, millionaires, boards of corporations, and a large number of early adopters to get into Bitcoin. He is not the right person to convince the early majority of liberal retail investors, ESG investment committees at Sovereign Funds and Pension Funds why Bitcoin is a great ESG asset. This is true for the simple reason that this isn’t who he is. Each of us have a community of people we will vibe with, who we understand deeply. This gives us a special and unique responsibility to orange-pill this community of people. It is quite probable that there are certain people who can only come to understand and use Bitcoin through you. That said, there are some universal principles we can apply that will make us more effective at orange-pilling people who are adjacent to our community, even if they are not exactly “our tribe”. Seven principles of effective orange-pilling 1. Meet people where they are This sounds simple, so simple that it is often skipped over. Yet it is 50% of how influence occurs. Let’s look at a real example. How do you feel as a Bitcoin supporter when you read this tweet? My bet it is is some combination of frustrated, exasperated or bored and irate. Yes, the comment is ignorant. Yes, the comment is also arguably arrogant, because the writer has assumed that s/he knows Bitcoin’s utility without having investigated bitcoin’s utility. It is also flawed, because the vast majority of contemporary research on Bitcoin mining shows that Bitcoin is an important part of climate action. However, neither the emotions you feel, nor the facts you know have any relevance to the other person, if your intention is to help them look at other perspectives. What it comes down to is the question “what do I want?” If what you want is a chance to offload and give this person a piece of your mind, then you will respond the way that most people do on Twitter, get a quick endorphin hit of saying your piece. But what did you achieve? Very little. If anything, all you’ve done is help calcify a belief in the other party that Bitcoiners are obnoxious. But what if your intention was different. What if your intention was to plant a seed that blows the person’s mind, that speaks to their latent intellectual curiosity. What if your intention was to invite dialog, or even to invite them in a non-confronting way to help them see the gaps in their knowledge? Then you’d choose a different response. I optimize for “what response is most likely to orange-pill them?” There is no spin, no manipulation at play. My intention is to help the person learn, but only if they are curious. If they are not, then I respect that too. For that reason, I also test whether they are open to learning, and if not to politely move on. That’s more efficient with my time, it avoids squandering my emotional energy, and it’s more respectful of the other person. How I responded on that occasion was like this. Why is this an effective response? Because I had no attachment to how or whether s/he responded. Everything I said was true. I’m meeting the person where they are at. I’m not making them wrong for holding their beliefs. I’m suggesting, without accusing, that their beliefs may be held in ignorance (as mine were), I’m not assuming interest in taking the conversation further, and I’m placing a fork in the road which implicitly says “If you want to continue the conversation, it’s to learn, not to debate.” It’s also effective because it challenges a probable belief the person has (judging from their tweet) which is: “It’s not possible to be both an environmentalist and a bitcoin supporter.” So while it was a spontaneous response that I took perhaps 30 seconds to type, there is a lot going on “under the hood”. Meeting people where they are at is not an “optional extra” to orange pilling the skeptical, but an essential stage. To understand the essential nature of this is not just my opinion, but something with a scientific basis, lets go into the weeds briefly on what is happening neurobiologically which makes this stage essential. Neuropsychology research suggests that responding in a way that shows empathy and understanding of the other person’s position, even if we do not agree with it, aids Emotional Regulation, Social Cohesion, Cognitive Flexibility, Diminishing Threat Response, and even the Mirror Neuron System between two individuals. This response also stops the negative neurobiological chain reaction that occurs when a person is faced with disagreement, or the threat of disagreement. Disagreement, or even the threat of disagreement, causes fight of flight hormones to be released, as the other party is preparing for a fight, albeit a verbal one. This triggers the release of cortisol which increases the blood flow to the extremities ready to take evasive action (either aggressive or defensive), at the cost of where it is deemed less necessary; the cerebral cortex. Even though the threat is a verbal fight, not a physical one, our internal neurobiology is not sophisticated enough to know the difference: it perceives a threat and so responds to that threat with the hormones necessary to preserve life, cortisol, so we can “run faster”. What is the cerebral cortex responsible for? Reasoning and logic, as well as creative thinking. What faculties need to be receptive in order for your logic to be received? Reasoning and logic, and creative thinking. By identifying with the person’s right to hold their view, and empathy for why they would have come to that conclusion, we are sending a verbal signal to their fight or flight response “hey, it’s OK, I’m not here to fight.” The other person takes a deep breath and relaxes, the stress response eases, and the cerebral cortex becomes capable of hearing your logic, and thinking creatively again. Now, your logic stands a chance of being heard. But until then, you have as much chance of having your thought-seeds germinate as you do of getting literal seeds to germinate by scattering them on barren soil. Empathy waters the soil of consciousness in which thought seeds can germinate. Interestingly, it is not agreement the other person is looking for but understanding of their position. This is how leaders are able to challenge people while remaining in empathy. A weak leader will capitulate, or partially capitulate, to the demands or perspective of the other in an attempt to maintain rapport. A tough leader will stand firm, at the cost of rapport. A strong leader will stand strong in their conviction and in their rapport with the other person. This is not just theory, this is something I put to practice on a regular basis. As well as meaning I can be more influential, it also makes life less stressful. Another time I used this approach was when I was meeting with one of our wholesale investors into my second climatetech fund. He started the conversation by asking what I’d been up to in the months since we last met. I responded “I’ve been researching bitcoin mining.” His entire body language stiffened. “I thought you were a climatetech investor” he said as he unconsciously crossed his arms without any softening hint of irony or tease in his tone. I paused, looked him in the eye, and smiled. “Well, I can understand why you would respond like that” I offered. “That was what I thought when I first looked at it.” He softened his stance a little. I continued. “And this is an area I’ve spent some time researching now. It sounds as though you have some perspectives on mining yourself. If you’d like to, you can share them and I can shed light on them if I’m able.” He completely changed his demeanour and started speaking in a calm voice again, mentioning three fundamental reasons why he felt bitcoin mining was bad for the environment. I checked I’d heard correctly, then said “Well, these are areas I have looked in to, would you like me to share what I’ve found out?” “Go ahead” he replied with more curiosity than skepticism now in his voice. I responded to each of the points in turn. He asked one clarifying question about one of the areas. Then there was silence. It was the silence of someone who is rewiring their neurons for a completely different belief system, and almost perplexed that it could have happened so fast, especially when they were half-expecting a fight. “Well, have you thought about making your third climatetech fund a Bitcoin mining fund?” He asked, again without a hint of tease or irony. The conversation isn’t always as immediately transformative as that, but that serves as an example of what is possible through empathy, and understanding. Equally, if I didn’t have the domain knowledge to answer his specific objections, I could not have completed the orangepilling. 2. Mindset matters Particularly, your intention matters. The second and equally important part of the initial response is “mindset”. If you are still feeling any residual emotions of frustration, anger or exasperation when you speak, or even write, this is a virtual guarantee that your message will betray those emotions. In betraying those emotions, you have again made your communication about yourself, not the other person: ie. what you want to say, not what the other person is in a position to receive from you. Information is like water. You can hand someone a glass of water, or you can throw the contents of the glass over them. Same water (information), but different manner of delivery. Adjusting the mindset is akin to adjusting the angle you hold the glass at, so that it is balanced and that they can benefit from the content, not tilted so that it spills over them and they are aggrieved. Notice that in talking about the most important aspects of orange-pilling people, I haven’t even mentioned Bitcoin other than to use examples, which could have been non-Bitcoin examples, to illustrate a Bitcoin-independent point. Read that last sentence again slowly. That means that influence has more to do with how you communicate than what you actually say. Yep. As I say, a great delivery, framing and mindset without domain knowledge wont work either. But it is often better than intimate domain knowledge with a rough delivery and aggrieved mindset, which is often counter-productive and only serves to entrench a person’s original position. 3. Quantify, quantify, quantify When you are pitching an idea, you are telling a story. What do all stories have in common? A narrative arc, and … details. We tend to forget the second part. Stories paint a detailed picture with sharp edges that we can visualize. JK Rowling didn’t say “Harry Potter lived in a house in England”, she painted the visual picture of the details of Number 4 Privet Drive and the suburban surrounds, so we can picture it. When we are pitching an idea, these details matter more, not less. Why? Neurobiological facts about all humans Negativity bias Humans, in the presence of a lack of clarity, must assume in the negative. Early in our evolution if you saw a large animal on the horizon, and it was unclear whether it was your food or you were its food, negativity bias dictates that you run away from it, not towards it because the negative consequence if you are wrong is that you go hungry, whereas if you assume in the positive and you are wrong, you get eaten. Humans therefore are hardwired neurobiologically to take evasive action in the presence of unclear data. So when you say “Bitcoin is using more sustainable energy now”, or “Bitcoin helps refugees migrate with their life savings intact”, or “even “there are a number of peer reviewed articles on Bitcoin that say it has positive environmental benefits” – you have not given the other person clear data. These are examples of the statements I used to hear a lot in 2022 when I was first trying to understand whether Bitcoin was net-positive or net-negative to the environment. The problem is, without quantified details, the other person will interpret the first statement as “According to you, Bitcoin uses marginally more sustainable energy, but it’s still less than other industries and is still mostly fossil fuel based”. They will interpret the second statement as “There has been the odd isolated case of refugees taking Bitcoin across the border and using it in a new country, but it could have been any type of digital currency”. They will read the third statement as “The vast bulk of peer reviewed articles say Bitcoin is an environmental disaster, but this pro-Bitcoiner standing in front of me has cherrypicked two counter-examples, probably written by bag-holders.” Sharp details bring the big animal into focus. Instead say “We now have four years of data showing that Bitcoin has reached 56.7% sustainable energy use, more than any other industry.” Say “It is estimated that Bitcoin has already helped 329,000 refugees set up financially and preserved their wealth in a new country.” For good measure you could add “over the next ten years, there will be an estimated 9.2 Million refugees who use Bitcoin to help re-establish themselves financially in their new country” Say “The majority of contemporary academic research on Bitcoin and energy show, 12 of the last 14 peer reviewed papers, show that Bitcoin has strong, quantifiable environmental benefits that can help counteract climate change and decarbonize the grid.” In 2022, a lot of the sustainability data I needed to orangepill people who had ESG objections to Bitcoin didn’t exist, so I set about building a model to measure Bitcoin’s sustainable energy use. That took a long time, and I don’t recommend that as a strategy unless you have a lot of time, a strong calling, and really like building data models! But definitely use the data that other people have created, just use it in a well quantified form so you do not squander the effectiveness of their proof of work through a hazily quantified delivery. Based on the results, which included the Financial times picking up a number of my quantified messages, this seems to work. Many plebs and mining companies over the past two years thanked me for my work, but I didn’t create most of the data apart from the BEEST model. The bulk of my work involved creating better qualified messages that reflected existing work. For example, apart from a co-author role on one paper, I didn’t write any of the peer reviewed research on Bitcoin, I was simply the first one to add up how many recent papers described environmental benefits. The “majority of contemporary research on Bitcoin and energy cites environmental benefits”, and “10 of the last 11 papers on Bitcoin and energy shows strong environmental benefits” soundbite are simple, powerful, and easy for other people to share with others. It stops critics in their tracks because they probably didn’t know that, and it’s hard to argue with. The other thing I did was summarize a one-two sentence synopsis of the key findings of each paper, with references to the original paper. This I have found stops critics in their tracks. Such is the power of quantifying a message. At a Bitcoin mining conference in Australia I got this feedback from the CEO of a Bitcoin mining company, not for the first time. Other tactics I employed In sport, offensive strength draws the adulation of the crowd, but defence often wins the game, especially at the highest level. For this reason, I decided to find and rebut FUD articles, sometimes on a daily basis. I believe this has made it increasingly uncomfortable for journalists to write misinformation about Bitcoin and energy. I’ve called out Bitcoin misinformation repeat-offenders, but only ever criticising their work, never them as people (mindset matters). 80% of these journalists are no longer writing about Bitcoin and energy at all. When a new journalist writes some nonsense, I make sure that on every social media platform possible their errors are called out, with supporting evidence. I also spoke to journalists as they started to show cautious interest in the emerging truth. My intention was to arm many Bitcoiners with as many well quantified facts as possible. Knowing that we lacked the resources, the reach and the megphone of mainstream media and GreenpeaceUSA’s $5M of funding, we had one thing going for us: truth. But truth is not enough, we had to win by being more sharp and more clear with the conveyance of this truth. Consistent, repeatable, quantified messages started to pay off as other Bitcoiners recycled these messages and used them to overwhelm misinformation with facts. You can do this too. Many of you already are. We’ve made outstanding progress on changing the Bitcoin & Energy narrative as we can see from this chart. source: Bitcoin Perceptions However, there is still a plethora of “it’s a ponzi”, “no inherent value”, “not scaleable” misinformation that persists. If you take these same principals and tactics I’ve applied to Bitcoin & energy FUD and apply them to countering other types of Bitcoin misinformation, we will start to see Bitcoin misinformation atrophy across the board. 3. Avoid blindfolded archer syndrome Today, someone messaged me, excited that they had secured a meeting with the CEO of an energy company to discuss Bitcoin mining, and asking me for advice on how to orangepill him. Here’s how I responded. We can apply this numerous ways. For example, when someone approaches me and says “I’m thinking about getting into Bitcoin, but I want to know a bit more. Can we chat?” my answer is generally “Sure. There’s a lot I could say, so I want to make sure I do not overwhelm you. Tell me what’s important to you?” I might follow up with a couple more questions first to understand the person’s values. How? Let’s not overcomplicate this: I ask “Tell me a bit about your values.” What I will say to a liberal, environmentally minded person who values social justice is very different from what I’ll highlight to an economics student trained in Keynesian economics. Both replies will be true, but only one will be relevant to each person. It’s also worth digging into the nuances. I would follow up the former person by asking “what forms of social justice do you care about most in the world?” Again, “Children working on open dumps in Cambodia” means a different response to “reducing income inequality in my home city”. And yes, Bitcoin can help both communities. The big idea is this: most of the successful strategies we can use to influence other people are not some complex super-move, they come down to consistent execution of the basics. Asking, framed well, is often the most important conversation you can have. Get used to discussing what they need to hear, not what you like to say. 4. Questions > statements If someone quotes energy consumption and/or emission numbers at you that are out of date, pause and respond “Yes I am aware of those numbers. <Pause>. Are you aware that those are old numbers and that Bitcoin’s energy consumption figures and emission numbers have now been revised down?” If someone says “Bitcoin uses too much energy”, do not say “But have you looked at other industries? Bitcoin’s energy is just a rounding error (what Michael Saylor said). Instead say “You are right. Bitcoin mining uses a huge amount of energy. Are you aware that most environmentalists say that we need more of the right type of energy consumption at least in the short term to achieve net zero emissions? <pause> And it turns out Bitcoin is the right type of energy we need more of, for five reasons. Would you like me to take you through them?” Alternatively you could say. “Yes, Bitcoin uses a huge amount of energy. Are you aware that prominent environmentalists such as Saul Griffiths in his book Electrify have argued that a base condition for the renewable transition occurring is that we need more energy demand? <pause> And did you know that the type of energy demand most needed is flexible demand, which is exactly what bitcoin mining provides?” Did you know that bitcoin mining is the only industry in the world that mitigates 7% of its entire emissions without offsets? If someone says “Well, even if it’s using more sustainable energy and creating fewer emissions, that only proves that it’s less bad for the environment.” Say “You are right. The fact that it generates fewer emissions does not in itself mean it’s good for the environment. <pause> Equally, we’ve only looked at negative environmental externalities so far. Do you think as a principle that when evaluating any new technology we should consider both its drawbacks and its potential benefits, or do you think we should only look at its drawbacks? They will respond words to the effect “Well of course we should look at both?” or “Well of course both, but there are no positive benefits” in which case you could simply ask “How do you know?” Whatever they respond, you could continue, did you know that out of the last 11 peer reviewed papers on Bitcoin and energy, 10 of them discovered environmental benefits? Not theoretical benefits, but actual measurable benefits that are helping decarbonization goals today? Alternatively you could say “Are you aware of the benefits of bitcoin?” then “Would you like to know? then “Did you know that there are 21 environmental benefits from bitcoin?” If someone quotes the Whitehouse’s 2022 report on cryptomining, don’t reply “That’s propoganda, put out as part of Operation Chokepoint 2.0” (while probably true, its also likely to be dismissed as your non-evidence based opinion by the person you’re speaking to. Similarly, if someone quotes some mainstream media article who has reference an Alex de Vries article, don’t say “He’s a central bank employee who’s got a vested interest in attacking Bitcoin.” Instead, respond by asking “Yes they did say that. <pause>. Do you know who was the major source used for that report?” And you know that the models he used have now been debunked on 4 separate occasions in academic journals? Don’t quote them, it’ll make you look like your intention is to be right, not to help the other person close a knowledge-gap, but for your reference they are (Masanet et al. 2019, Dittmar et al. 2019, Sedlmeir et al. 2020 Sai & Vranken 2023) Case Study: orange-pilling a pension fund Firstly, I would recommend that you find someone highly knowledgeable about dealing with pension funds, to accompany you. Once you’ve done that, be curious and ask a lot of questions about what they are seeking to achieve on behalf of their investors into the fund. Don’t presuppose Bitcoin is right for them. It might not be. State this, so they can see you are there to educate not evalgenize. One of the key questions is the time horizon. At some point you pass the whole fund over to the insurer. How long does the fund have to run? If it is one year or less, that’s too short a timeframe for Bitcoin to be the right solution for them given its volatility. But if it’s closer to ten years, it would be risky not to hold Bitcoin. Model different percentage allocations to Bitcoin including 3% allocation and see how it met their overall fund objectives. What this will show is that in the Worst case (Bitcoin goes to zero), it will take an extra 3 months to reach their investment return objectives over a 10 year period. But in the best case it will take 8 years, rather than 10 years. So it will either go Really well or a bit bad. Remind them that you’re helping them shortcut their learning curve, because a private individual will take longer. They will make mistakes, buy NFTs and alt coins and trade them and Bitcoin using leverage, get rekt, and then return to what they were told to do in the first place: Hold and don’t sell. Part of what gives them comfort is that others are doing it, so let them know which peers are doing it. Show them how increasingly for institutional investors including Blackrock, this is considered part of normal portfolio allocation “In five years it will be normal. So very exciting to be at the front of this” Because they care about risk, show them how it is risky not to hold Bitcoin, because, if money premium comes out of other assets which the pension fund is holding (real estate and equities) they are essentially unhedged in the event that Bitcoin moons. This means that not only do they miss out on Bitcoin, but they see the value of their other assets reduce, because the investment into Bitcoin will directly come out of other asset classes they hold (black hole theory). Therefore having 0 bitcoin is the riskiest position, and the question becomes not “should you hold Bitcoin” but “how much bitcoin do you have.” One of the biggest challenges is “how do you custody?” Show them how the ability to hold an asset outside the current financial system and without counterparty risk is therefore diversification of risk that may happen in the world in the next 10 years (war, unwinding of US dollar dominance, rising fear of US debt levels, money printing). If they want to allocate to Bitcoin through an ETF, point out “Given that this is one of the few bearer assets that you can hold, why would you not want to reduce your counterparty risk by doing it?” If you are thinking, “Daniel knows a lot about pension funds, I don’t have the domain knowledge to even know where to start” – not so. Yes I know a reasonable amount about sovereign wealth funds, a little more about family offices, and a more again about impact investment and ESG funds. But I know perhaps 45 minutes more than you about pension funds, because I spent 45 minutes listening to the right podcast, which was by Jordan Walker, interviewing Sam Roberts, director of Cartwright, who orange-pilled UK’s first Pension Fund. 5. Highest probability of deepest impact Once I asked my coach what means of communication I should use, when I was seeking to change the mind and heart of someone in the technology industry. His reply has stayed with me to this day “What form of communication has the highest probability of the deepest impact?” It was clear that I had to talk to this person, not email him. Often we use the weakest medium of communication when seeking to influence someone, public online exchange. Why do we do this? Because it is convenient. I’ve fallen into this trap of convenience myself, despite the fact I know better. Asking the question “what has the highest probability of the deepest impact” makes doing what’s comfortable and convenient, uncomfortable. Private text message is more powerful than public online exchange. Spoken one-on-one is more powerful than text one-on-one. One-to-many is more powerful than one-to-one (generally). That’s one of the reasons I speak at a lot of events. There are upwards of several hundred people, in an undistracted setting, who for 20 minutes get to hear me speak on a topic I’ve been working hard to present as effectively as I can, after some person has introduced me as having expertise in the domain I’m talking about. Not only is this more efficient, it creates a vibe in the room that is hard to create one-on-one. That vibe, that energy, is part of what influences people. Recently, someone messaged me who had used this approach himself. He reflected on exactly the same phenomenon. 6. Framing is everything My coach also once told me “There is no conversation you cannot have, as long as you frame it right.” This one truth caused me to lean into many courageous conversations I otherwise would have avoided. It’s why I had multiple conversations with Josh Archer, who at the time was head of GreenpeaceUSA’s Change the Code campaign. It helped me to stay in rapport with him while pointing out numerous factual errors in the campaign. It’s why I felt able to suggest they drop the campaign. Josh ended up leaving the campaign shortly after our second meeting, and GreenpeaceUSA suspended the entire campaign (from what I can see) on 14 June 2024. The framing I now use when talking about the ESG merits of Bitcoin to skeptics is to show them the non-obvious truth: that New technology negativity bias is a rite of passage On a recent podcast, I joked “It took me two months to work out that Bitcoin was net positive for the environment, two years to work out how to explain that to others. This was somewhat true. While I’d had some successes orange-pilling people, it wasn’t happening at the speed or the volume I knew was possible. I saw others having the same struggles. When I asked those who had given talks to groups of non-Bitcoins about Bitcoin and ESG for example, the typical answer was “It went well. People were open to what we had to say, and we’ve opened up a good dialog. It will take time to change minds, but the work has started on a good footing.” Let’s be clear: this is a very bad outcome. Of course, while you have an hour of people’s time, you can expect a temporary softening of their position. However, history tells us that if the response is this lukewarm, there is a high likelihood they will quickly revert to their original position once surrounded by their tribe, their old information sources. Coming back to intention, what if we set a bolder intention? What if we set the intention that skeptics were not just “more open” at the end of our talk, but had fundamentally and permanently flipped their position? Why should this be an unreasonable goal to have? In my book “on pitching”One Pitch“, I write about the importance of setting a bold intention, giving the example of when in my third capital raise for my first technology company, I had the intention not only to gain investment but to inspire the audience, and how this intention caused me to do deliver my pitch in a way that was well outside my comfort zone. At the end of the talk, the most frequently occurring piece of feedback was “inspiring”. So when I was invited to pitch Bitcoin to a group consisting of the principals of Family Offices in EU recently, I set this intention in mind that they would flip completely and permanently by the end of the meeting. The brief I was given was a typical brief I hear from institutional investors and Impact Funds, “They all want to invest in Bitcoin. They all believe they can’t because of the ESG story.” I decided that I had to use a new approach. There had been so much misinformation about Bitcoin and energy, that tackling it point by point would take too long. I know, I’ve tried, here. My document is informative, but it is not persuasive. It serves only as a follow-on to answer specific objections, once someone already believes that Bitcoin is net positive for the environment, but it cannot flip their belief-system. A new approach was called for. So I went back to an intuition I had way back in 2022 which I hadn’t explored because I knew it would take a lot of time and research. I went back to researching the history of how all disruptive technologies are appraised by experts and the media during the first 10-20 years of their emergence. This approach proved to be the game-changer. You can see the framing at the start of this keynote I gave in Frankfurt and Amsterdam. Now, rather than combat media misinformation from the media article by article, I had a truth-hammer that could show why even someone who generally had high trust in mainstream media should disregard everything the media had ever written about Bitcoin & Energy. You can tell how well a pitch has gone from the quality of the questions afterwards. “So, what was the point about Bitcoin being able to obviate gas peaker plants, sorry I don’t know much about grids so I didn’t quite get that, could you explain” is a very bad question to get. It says you haven’t succeeded in explaining ideas in language that laypeople can understand, let alone influence them of their value. “How do we know that it was Bitcoin that was responsible for Texas not needing gas peaker plants?” is a better question, but still bad, because it means you did not show the evidence why it is certain that Bitcoin mining was the reason for this pivot in strategy from the grid operator. “You make the point about gas peaker plants, but I’m wondering “Can this work on every grid, or is it only a solution for Texas’ grid?” is better again, but still bad, because it means you failed to say “this is not just a solution for Texas, but every grid in the world. In fact, here’s how Bitcoin mining could obviate the need for gas peaker plants worldwide.” “It sounds so good. Are there any problems with Bitcoin mining”, “So what’s the best way to invest?”, and “Can you tell us more about Microstrategy’s corporate playbook?” are the right type of question, because it means they have fully accepted your information as fact, modified their belief system completely on the basis of the new information, and are now looking to build upon this understanding by taking actions that align with their new world-view. When I heard those questions, I knew that finally after two years I had found the way to orange-pill people, particularly ESG-skeptics, in a way that had the highest probability of the deepest impact. Happily, its also proven reproducable, with two people writing back that they have used this specific framing to excellent effect. As we speak, the originator of the message above is talking to the ministers of a mid-large sized nation-state about a Bitcoin strategic reserve, and nation-state bitcoin mining to stabilize their grid / monetize stranded renewable energy. We’ve also heard that one of the Family Office principals who sits on the board of a major airline is now proposing to her board why they should adopt MSTR’s Bitcoin treasury strategy. 7. Apply feedback and iterations, calmly Orange-pilling is not something you are either good at or not. It is like playing tennis. You get better at it if you play the game more. You get better faster if you not only play the game, but review your performance. So review your own game footage, whether that’s a talk, a podcast, or a zoom session. If you’re not sure it’ll be recorded, ask. If you’re not sure how to ask, frame it. For example, you could say “I’m wanting to make sure that each time I explain Bitcoin to people I improve, so would it be OK if I record this, for my own learning?” When reviewing, I ask myself two very simple questions What went well (things I can re-use, that I otherwise might have not re-used) What would I do differently next time? When I look back on how I used to explain the benefits of bitcoin, to how I do it now, I’ve improved a lot over the last two years, and that is in part due to going through my game footage with these two questions in mind. All of this could fail however, if you don’t remain in a calm state-of-mind while doing this and applying the other points above. You’ve proabably notice that the people whose voices you trust are capable of discussing ideas while maintaining respect for the other person’s position. This is easy to say, but hard to do! It’s particularly hard to do when it’s a subject you care about passionately. Toxic maximalism may help existing bitcoin Hodlers to keep the faith during a bearmarket, or help others steer clear of an altcoin scam, but it’s not the vibe that will enamor the early majority to Bitcoin. The single best way to keep the state of mind necessary to remain objective, respectful and focused is meditation. It’s the one thing that has enabled me to remain resilient when my own work and motives have been questioned in some pretty ad ad hominem way, and its as legitimate a tool of your orangepilling toolkit as any in this post. (More on that here). Appendix: Additional resources To find out more about pitching… Grab the book —> How to change the world with one pitch Resources to help orangepill people Keynote talk in Amsterdam, Frankfurt in video form, and in written form. This contains the latest and best version of my energy FUD busting. It is a close variant of the talk that turned around the perspectives of 21 impact investors in an evening. How to handle common ESG objections to Bitcoin, with evidence and supporting data. List of all articles I’ve published in Bitcoin magazine, many of which have background references and examples of how to orangepill people. Sustainable energy charts on Bitcoin (5 charts, co-developed with Willy Woo. 1-4 minute sound bites – handling common questions about Bitcoin (taken from panel discussion, main stage, Bitcoin Amsterdam. link to video (1.52 mins) link to video (1.40mins) link to video (3.51mins)

content:
A detailed guide
----------------

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Screen-Shot-2024-11-21-at-3.52.14-PM-1024x533.png)

I believe that the most important action that Bitcoiners can take, which is not currently being taken with enough focus/skill, is to improve the way we communicate the value of Bitcoin to the next wave of Bitcoin adopters. These people are the “early majority”. They care about different things to the early adopters. If we fail to do this, Bitcoin adoption will be top heavy insofar as Corporates and Nation States start building their Bitcoin reserve, but the everyday people are left behind, not seeing the value-alignment of Bitcoin with their own value-set. There’s also a risk that even institutional adoption will be slow across many nations, where the values of the investment fund are in apparent but not actual conflict with Bitcoin.

This paper lays out my first attempt at a remedy to address this.

Introduction
------------

What are the blockers that could stop us moving from the early adopters into the early majority of Bitcoin adopters? There are many factors, and the answer often depends on the audience. For example, for pension funds the blockers have been “the fact that none of my peers are doing it” and ESG. For the general population, it’s often “I don’t know where to start”, or “It’s not straightforward to get Bitcoin in the first place, and how do I get it to and from my bank?” For liberals it is almost always, “It’s bad for the environment and/or it does nothing useful”.

Today I’m going to take a step back and look at an element of adoption that is critically important, yet not widely understood: how we pitch Bitcoin to a community of people.

Yes, what we say, and having the charts, data, information and education is important. But even more important is knowing how to present this information to skeptics.

My intention is that this document serves as a resource for others to help you orangepill more regulators, policymakers, boards, fund managers and, most importantly, retail investors to adopt Bitcoin, or at least adopt a friendly stance towards Bitcoin.

### Why this; why now?

This document open sources a lot of the strategies that I’ve used to orangepill skeptics to Bitcoin. While this post focuses mostly on the environmental and humanitarian benefits to Bitcoin, the principles can be applied to any Bitcoin topic where you’re seeking to orangepill someone. When I look at the disparity between how the early adopters were convinced to embrace Bitcoin, and how the early majority need to be spoken to in order to come to Bitcoin, I see a danger that we will ostracize many potential future advocates through sloppy attempts at orangepilling that are not just ineffective but in many cases counter-productive. I believe that ending orangepilling naivety will be critical as ending regulatory hostility when it comes to the next wave of Bitcoin adoption.

While some have said that I have changed the narrative on Bitcoin and energy, I am most definitely not the only person who has shifted the narrative, nor am I the most important person. There is at least one person who has objectively done more than me to orangepill key globally recognized figures on the ESG merits of Bitcoin (in many cases ESG was the blocker for them embracing Bitcoin). This person wishes to remain anonymous. In this post, I cite numerous examples of where people have gotten a positive outcome through adopted my orange-pilling techniques. My intention in sharing this is not to glorify anything I have done, but to evidence the effectiveness of certain ways of communicating that over time, and through the help of some great mentors, I have found to be effective.

While in a tech-centric industry such as Bitcoin, it is easy to think this is because of the [BEEST data model](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YSsIk2ghvPDHTcfUKkKo9cqg0XI_gSGh/edit?gid=2041929466#gid=2041929466) of sustainable energy usage and other [long form research](https://batcoinz.com/quantifying-the-potential-impact-of-bitcoin-mining-on-global-methane-emissions-4/) I conducted, I would say that the data model was 30% of what mattered, but the other 70% was how I put together messages differently using other people’s research. This is something that can be learnt and replicated using many of the seven principals of effective orangepilling described below.

Finally, to those who wonder “Isn’t there a chance that by open-sourcing these strategies, these can be weaponized against Bitcoin?” No. Because everything I describe here only works if you have truth and fact on your side, have domain knowledge in the area you are speaking, and are communicating as an act of service to others without agenda or attachment. Why am I qualified to write about this? Results are the only qualification. But in case you are interested, it’s an area I did some work in before in my pre-Bitcoin days. Orangepilling is a truncated way of saying “successfully pitching Bitcoin” and pitching is something a little bit about having [written a book on it](https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/0473392135?ref_=mr_referred_us_au_nz). Before that, I coached tech entrepreneurs in pitching. Before that, I also led a [technology company](https://www.geneious.com/) through three cap raises, where
I had to learn a lot about pitching in a hurry! Those pre-Bitcoin experiences gave me a sense of what needed to be done between 2022-2023 to start to change the mainstream narrative around Bitcoin & Energy. This post looks at lessons we can all pull from what worked, when it comes to orangepilling the next wave of Bitcoin adopters.

### Your lived experience makes you uniquely qualified to talk to your tribe

I first became aware of this watching Michael Saylor talk about the energy consumption of Bitcoin during a quarterly [Bitcoin Mining Council update](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYoHCs_jDcM). Michael Saylor is one of Bitcoin’s most gifted communicators. He inspires me to improve my own communication. He is inspiring, lucid, visionary, yet at the same time able to back up his statements with solid data and examples. I will never forget the brilliant way he cut across a podcaster who suggested that it was risky being “all in on Bitcoin”, with the question “Are you all in on the chair you’re sitting on?”

So it was with intrigue that on the question of why Bitcoin is a strong ESG asset, he was the least compelling I’d seen him. The reason was simple: the environment is “not his thing”. He is absolutely the right person to convince billionaires, millionaires, boards of corporations, and a large number of early adopters to get into Bitcoin. He is not the right person to convince the early majority of liberal retail investors, ESG investment committees at Sovereign Funds and Pension Funds why Bitcoin is a great ESG asset. This is true for the simple reason that this isn’t who he is. Each of us have a community of people we will vibe with, who we understand deeply. This gives us a special and unique responsibility to orange-pill this community of people. It is quite probable that there are certain people who can only come to understand and use Bitcoin through you.

That said, there are some universal principles we can apply that will make us more effective at orange-pilling people who are adjacent to our community, even if they are not exactly “our tribe”.

Seven principles of effective orange-pilling
--------------------------------------------

### 1\. Meet people where they are

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Screen-Shot-2024-11-21-at-3.47.15-PM-1024x513.png)

This sounds simple, so simple that it is often skipped over. Yet it is 50% of how influence occurs.

Let’s look at a real example. How do you feel as a Bitcoin supporter when you read this tweet?

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Screen-Shot-2024-11-20-at-11.26.13-AM-1024x176.png)

My bet it is is some combination of frustrated, exasperated or bored and irate.

Yes, the comment is ignorant. Yes, the comment is also arguably arrogant, because the writer has assumed that s/he knows Bitcoin’s utility without having investigated bitcoin’s utility. It is also flawed, because the [vast majority of contemporary research](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielsbatten_from-mining-to-mitigation-how-bitcoin-can-activity-7255865336925716480-SxQx?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop) on Bitcoin mining shows that Bitcoin is an important part of climate action. However, neither the emotions you feel, nor the facts you know have any relevance to the other person, if your intention is to help them look at other perspectives.

What it comes down to is the question “what do I want?” If what you want is a chance to offload and give this person a piece of your mind, then you will respond the way that most people do on Twitter, get a quick endorphin hit of saying your piece. But what did you achieve? Very little. If anything, all you’ve done is help calcify a belief in the other party that Bitcoiners are obnoxious.

But what if your intention was different. What if your intention was to plant a seed that blows the person’s mind, that speaks to their latent intellectual curiosity. What if your intention was to invite dialog, or even to invite them in a non-confronting way to help them see the gaps in their knowledge? Then you’d choose a different response.

I optimize for “what response is most likely to orange-pill them?” There is no spin, no manipulation at play. My intention is to help the person learn, but only if they are curious. If they are not, then I respect that too. For that reason, I also test whether they are open to learning, and if not to politely move on. That’s more efficient with my time, it avoids squandering my emotional energy, and it’s more respectful of the other person.

How I responded on that occasion was like this.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/S


content: e

content: 4e3a7238d5e5b46bb312bf58bdf200a50ff3c5710642934baba313be2f3a137e

content: e

content: 35466181468595f74b5e8fb515a1e2e457676117b9fd58eae2b2c04d8d5e52de

content: e

content: bac304e06b2965562891b694b959c23cc238b9bdcdbd08b15404518f63734414

content: e

content: f14eddbfe11d346d466870d67128c6245b20c07aa75cfe582c5a0b7603f9e240

content: e

content: 0ffc38097ac04995ccd0acbc1b151ca41d31f8758f27b1c540623da4a7075793

content: e

content: 5219b5e0a6eb375b79cdd1fffdb9cfadd209146710c42f5a413af0d58d314bae

content: e

content: e6bc10692c7e9730ca946550c016c83121d3a8b2698d5dcaba4e0e30b34f804b

content: e

content: 9ff1c6f50d3b7c4ac008ed76d65742bd9f2c7b37192ec5811701d27a069a5e62

content: e

content: 238c09d026277c258f8d25750699ad13a482ab36bbb1c45b65f30de2ab61bf93

content: e

content: 742a9ffe18d6f158ee208fe2c6b415d493aac2bc15e91102623bd07bec73dc5e

content: e

content: f59eeb7d32ae641e164aa7099db2fd8c97574730d9e093ac26fa6192b5b347de

content: e

content: c96b437f310e4e66c566de2eb53a8a2f235b12267b68b6371ef0392c896dcc4f

content: e

content: 977079f48e597cd16f2b387a5b1bba5e4f06be3bf2b09a2af766e0a0e1acdd57

content: e

content: f44ef277055c8bc6ed7e64e797691ef7b39d671f3bf75bbe813b310b1fd7c6a6

content: e

content: ed9ab8fdbc72f77a1e2152927e97eac306757318766c996698fd4e11ac754c4b

content: e

content: 5c979cb7399b5adf3d1c9cbc15a971daa1de7c3881e69f7f8a1a5298fab1b2aa

content: e

content: fec62c80e83325f04d63642aa740812280a73b22ef6f207875b045876c3e9b9a

content: e

content: a3427e65ee1cb034187442ab20ee2e26acb38e058882e02f4999588a33881cad

content: e

content: 90fe0270ba048d9135646f6113fd70e54a5e39583c39c831356b268a34a2a3c8

content: e

content: b077c8e98459fe16234b9dba954f31db90d04cae7e973c6e1dbe06dbd47515d2

content: e

content: 90143a99ab5cf6175c81c7d81641509b8b156bff210b7826f978087e12075f9f

content: e

content: 30875a4afd4220acb24d7f60eeddf49ca953643ffde49e0ae6a124fa34701e75

content: e

content: a9454c74d66ab37a9ebba9d13bcd382fdee0587a7b1965b3967cdc3d41291313

content: e

content: ba6c8ba5249c2256c6f512d0eed874d525cf3a25162376753b1fcb9ceeb4ea23

content: e

content: 0552c76d3356c42b45f6004cc054ec281630a14220ffca464c424dd23191f1af

content: e

content: 2f24fdedfd889b44c437576dfaeb3235ba34555b0ec3f686de156d03cf5d13f4

content: e

content: 76846cb69afa3bf5e753652961ecfa513229698d90930a4e7ede9f5b0f0c2a05

content: e

content: 28ac046c08a1892a655ba4fc7802e6cd78ae20b2efbbaa7b41c83264f1222059

content: e

content: 131775b89c8bbfb83daa343d55fb71ed96a4716245b6f97c6c75b803f315d1a1

content: e

content: 97720708017478230e161d304bfd472ddb36e1de3718e57bd69f92a0ba996239

content: e

content: 7bb47e45d5cfb0541dc177fa09e78ca8903849693a6d9d1a5cecaec645cc7509

content: e

content: e791538ca779b041cae42736acc65089245f64371afb1e32478e6b6bcba8dbce

content: e

content: 38c31b21c25a9c0966b9af26227f80908dd4c7a150524080ff899d42e7129271

content: e

content: 646e39266a96ce8d01cef604fbea820c73b838e3fc575f45a17f0ec8e54f49f7

content: e

content: e619d8316fd93e0a41f62089e9409f6467712329e052f8f324fd2a72187d1f04

content: e

content: a7ce7dea42e6fdc0b68ea43b44b00219974d83aa1d3388a226424503604fb2d4


XlZzueb1gsZTVXlYE8b1Zq5bURqp563z9oEQ2sDUTfSB/qUWae62huP0XBxNHN6a5ClMKXeqdsCBFdwStrtPKg==?iv=c2yOiXXmA1W0aMlD58H4zg==


tags: Bitcoin coverage as a litmus test for media reliability

tags: Overview Bitcoin coverage is a strong gauge of media integrity because it exposes outlets that prioritize sensationalism over facts, lack technical understanding, or succumb to ideological/industry bias. It is also an effective gauge of a media outlet’s neutrality, investigative rigor, and thorough fact-checking because it is a complex, polarizing topic that demands unbiased analysis and meticulous research to navigate its technical, economic, and environmental dimensions accurately. Outlets that excel, such as Forbes with its detailed reports integrating peer-reviewed research on Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits, demonstrate a commitment to neutral appraisal and depth, suggesting broader journalistic integrity. Conversely, outlets like The New York Times show clear evidence of employing a morality play framing with heroes and villains, which tends to work against nuance and leads to looking for data to support the narrative, rather than the other way around. The Economist, marked by persistent falsehoods, reveals biases and lapses in fact-checking that likely extend to other subjects. The topic’s technical nature and the diversity of stakeholder interests—ranging from environmentalists to financial innovators—require outlets to conduct independent and critical analysis, and verify claims rigorously, making their Bitcoin reporting a good litmus test for overall reliability. Methodology This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the media reliability index for major outlets’ coverage of Bitcoin, as of June 11, 2025. The index evaluates five sub-measures: 1. Ability to Conduct Novel Research (vs. relying on cut-and-paste reporting), 2. Depth of Thinking (over sensationalist headlines), 3. Neutral Appraisal (presenting a balanced view), 4. Avoidance of Groupthink (challenging prevailing narratives), 5. Speed in Overcoming Negativity Bias (moving past initial bias toward an evidence-based assessment). Coverage of any novel technology is generally a good way to stress-test reliability of media, being the area where faults in fact checking are most likely to be revealed. We can see this in media coverage across time of novel technologies including the bicycle, the radio and the Internet, all of which revealed where media outlets were more likely to favor recycling of other journalists’ work, sensational headlines and non-neutral appraisals with a general disinclination to challenge prevailing narratives for some time. Each was scored on a 0-10 scale. The following sections detail the methodology, findings, and commentary, ensuring a thorough understanding of the results, with specific recalibrations for BBC and New York Times Survey Scope The analysis began by collecting posts from July 2022- June 2025 for a range of mainstream media outlets that regularly comment on Bitcoin: Verge, WIRED, The Guardian, New York Times, The Economist, The Financial Times, Bloomberg, BBC, Forbes, Reuters, CNBC, and The Street. The posts were analyzed for sentiments—criticisms, praises, or neutral mentions—related to each outlet’s Bitcoin coverage. Next, scores were inferred based on the content of each article from each media outlet. Detailed Findings The resulting media reliability index is presented in the table below, ranked from best to worst based on average scores. Media OutletNovel ResearchDepth of ThinkingNeutral AppraisalAvoidance of GroupthinkOvercoming Negativity BiasAverage Score Forbes889988.4 The Street778887.6 Bloomberg778877.4 Reuters778877.4 CNBC667766.4 BBC454564.8 The Financial Times543454.2 The Guardian342322.8 WIRED342232.8 New York Times351222.6 The Verge232122.0 The Economist231211.8 Individual Outlet Analysis Below is a detailed commentary for each outlet The Street: The coverage marks a significant evolution in perspective, highlighted by an article asserting Bitcoin’s role in the future of finance and renewable energy, with Overcoming Negativity Bias (8/10) as the key factor, averaging 7.6. Bloomberg: The coverage stands out for recognizing Bitcoin’s environmental advantages, such as reporting on miners utilizing Iceland’s renewable energy surplus, with Neutral Appraisal (8/10) as the most salient, averaging 7.4. Reuters: The coverage mirrors Bloomberg’s nuanced framing of Bitcoin mining, exemplified by reporting on MARA’s methane emission reduction efforts, and use of stranded energy in Iceland, with Neutral Appraisal (8/10) driving the average of 7.4. CNBC: The coverage offers a balanced perspective, notably acknowledging Bitcoin’s contribution to African renewables, with Overcoming Negativity Bias (6/10) as the most relevant, averaging 6.4. BBC: The coverage features a positive report on Bitcoin mining’s role in rural electrification, with Overcoming Negativity Bias (6/10) as the key improvement. The history of non-nuanced framing, including use of non-peer reviewed science for sensationalist headlines dragged down the score, averaging 4.8. The Financial Times: The coverage reflects a mixed track record, with a pro-Bitcoin ESG article in December 2023 undermined by later critiques, with Neutral Appraisal (3/10) highlighting the inconsistency, averaging 4.2. The Guardian: The coverage is marred by significant errors, and lack of fact checking such as mislabeling gas plant noise as cryptocurrency mining sound, with Neutral Appraisal (2/10) as the most critical weakness, averaging 2.8. WIRED: The coverage includes instances of many misleading and factually incorrect claims. For example, WIRED claimed that Bitcoin mining destabilizes grids, despite the fact this has been debunked in peer reviewed research (their article was also community noted). Neutral Appraisal (2/10) was their lowest rating, averaging 2.8. New York Times: The coverage reveals a consistent framing of Bitcoin mining as a villain in a morality play. Of particular note was a 2023 article which selectively used data, and misusing marginal emissions accounting to create a heavily distorted view of Bitcoin mining. Neutral Appraisal (1/10) as the most glaring deficiency, averaging 2.6. The Verge: The coverage exhibits severe factual errors, such as unsupported claims about IMF paper momentum, with Avoidance of Groupthink (1/10) as the most prominent failing, averaging 2.0. The Economist: The coverage reflects the most pronounced falsehoods about Bitcoin, with Overcoming Negativity Bias (1/10) as the most critical shortcoming, averaging 1.8. Implications and Use as a Reliability Tool This index reflects how each outlet handles Bitcoin coverage, providing insight into their broader journalistic reliability. Higher-scoring outlets like Forbes and The Street demonstrate a commitment to balanced, informed reporting and re-evaluation of previous articles based on new evidence. Less reliable outlets like The Economist and The Verge show persistent issues with bias and accuracy. The BBC’s rating of 4.8 acknowledges its recent positive article on Bitcoin Mining but notes that this is an outlier in an overall trend of inaccuracies and non-objective appraisal. The NYTimes’ score of 2.6 highlights its lack of nuance in appraising Bitcoin, and evidence of using data selectively to suit a narrative, plus the impact of its much criticized article on Bitcoin mining in 2023.

content:
![](https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXdlrTKx-ioau_IUyzqhEput4DcSRpyx45LHb2nqI9RzJUOSLjytoaKtXE88vY_ZNE-XyXK6Tg4CJhkScjtXAYV75knzrXVbQmdRQAvRzUPxoKJziPGr4yIoq09fsAW7g6lYU-SZ_w?key=rR-xu87mGFzliWEIzUWVOw)

### Overview

Bitcoin coverage is a strong gauge of media integrity because it exposes outlets that prioritize sensationalism over facts, lack technical understanding, or succumb to ideological/industry bias.

It is also an effective gauge of a media outlet’s neutrality, investigative rigor, and thorough fact-checking because it is a complex, polarizing topic that demands unbiased analysis and meticulous research to navigate its technical, economic, and environmental dimensions accurately.

Outlets that excel, such as Forbes with its detailed reports integrating peer-reviewed research on Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits, demonstrate a commitment to neutral appraisal and depth, suggesting broader journalistic integrity. Conversely, outlets like The New York Times show clear evidence of employing a morality play framing with heroes and villains, which tends to work against nuance and leads to looking for data to support the narrative, rather than the other way around. The Economist, marked by persistent falsehoods, reveals biases and lapses in fact-checking that likely extend to other subjects.

The topic’s technical nature and the diversity of stakeholder interests—ranging from environmentalists to financial innovators—require outlets to conduct independent and critical analysis, and verify claims rigorously, making their Bitcoin reporting a good litmus test for overall reliability.

### Methodology

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the media reliability index for major outlets’ coverage of Bitcoin, as of June 11, 2025.

The index evaluates five sub-measures:

1\. Ability to Conduct Novel Research (vs. relying on cut-and-paste reporting),

2\. Depth of Thinking (over sensationalist headlines),

3\. Neutral Appraisal (presenting a balanced view),

4\. Avoidance of Groupthink (challenging prevailing narratives),

5\. Speed in Overcoming Negativity Bias (moving past initial bias toward an evidence-based assessment).

Coverage of any novel technology is generally a good way to stress-test reliability of media, being the area where faults in fact checking are most likely to be revealed. We can see this in media coverage across time of novel technologies including the bicycle, the radio and the Internet, all of which revealed where media outlets were more likely to favor recycling of other journalists’ work, sensational headlines and non-neutral appraisals with a general disinclination to challenge prevailing narratives for some time.

![](https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXfuznJNeVqB8Wz1TpkQTqfgOGbUGnfUDeR9asy-YF858x5SphH13eJN8hwcCcQuPnpi7jXhtNnQl3kiQljosiWRf4YjGKKlNoqkfsxGZ0ga_u-zaNEKM0NN5iDBbedpvC1Wz9UAPQ?key=rR-xu87mGFzliWEIzUWVOw)

Each was scored on a 0-10 scale. The following sections detail the methodology, findings, and commentary, ensuring a thorough understanding of the results, with specific recalibrations for BBC and New York Times

### Survey Scope

The analysis began by collecting posts from July 2022- June 2025 for a range of mainstream media outlets that regularly comment on Bitcoin: Verge, WIRED, The Guardian, New York Times, The Economist, The Financial Times, Bloomberg, BBC, Forbes, Reuters, CNBC, and The Street. The posts were analyzed for sentiments—criticisms, praises, or neutral mentions—related to each outlet’s Bitcoin coverage. Next, scores were inferred based on the content of each article from each media outlet.

### Detailed Findings

The resulting media reliability index is presented in the table below, ranked from best to worst based on average scores.

**Media Outlet**

**Novel Research**

**Depth of Thinking**

**Neutral Appraisal**

**Avoidance of Groupthink**

**Overcoming Negativity Bias**

**Average Score**

Forbes

8

8

9

9

8

8.4

The Street

7

7

8

8

8

7.6

Bloomberg

7

7

8

8

7

7.4

Reuters

7

7

8

8

7

7.4

CNBC

6

6

7

7

6

6.4

BBC

4

5

4

5

6

4.8

The Financial Times

5

4

3

4

5

4.2

The Guardian

3

4

2

3

2

2.8

WIRED

3

4

2

2

3

2.8

New York Times

3

5

1

2

2

2.6

The Verge

2

3

2

1

2

2.0

The Economist

2

3

1

2

1

1.8

### Individual Outlet Analysis

Below is a detailed commentary for each outlet

**The Street**: The coverage marks a significant evolution in perspective, highlighted by an article asserting Bitcoin’s role in the future of finance and renewable energy, with Overcoming Negativity Bias (8/10) as the key factor, averaging 7.6.

**Bloomberg**: The coverage stands out for recognizing Bitcoin’s environmental advantages, such as reporting on miners utilizing Iceland’s renewable energy surplus, with Neutral Appraisal (8/10) as the most salient, averaging 7.4.

**Reuters**: The coverage mirrors Bloomberg’s nuanced framing of Bitcoin mining, exemplified by reporting on MARA’s methane emission reduction efforts, and use of stranded energy in Iceland, with Neutral Appraisal (8/10) driving the average of 7.4.

**CNBC**: The coverage offers a balanced perspective, notably acknowledging Bitcoin’s contribution to African renewables, with Overcoming Negativity Bias (6/10) as the most relevant, averaging 6.4.

**BBC**: The coverage features a positive report on Bitcoin mining’s role in rural electrification, with Overcoming Negativity Bias (6/10) as the key improvement. The history of non-nuanced framing, including use of non-peer reviewed science for sensationalist headlines dragged down the score, averaging 4.8.

**The Financial Times**: The coverage reflects a mixed track record, with a pro-Bitcoin ESG article in December 2023 undermined by later critiques, with Neutral Appraisal (3/10) highlighting the inconsistency, averaging 4.2.

**The Guardian**: The coverage is marred by significant errors, and lack of fact checking such as mislabeling gas plant noise as cryptocurrency mining sound, with Neutral Appraisal (2/10) as the most critical weakness, averaging 2.8.

**WIRED**: The coverage includes instances of many misleading and factually incorrect claims. For example, WIRED claimed that Bitcoin mining destabilizes grids, despite the fact this has been debunked in peer reviewed research (their article was also community noted). Neutral Appraisal (2/10) was their lowest rating, averaging 2.8.

**New York Times**: The coverage reveals a consistent framing of Bitcoin mining as a villain in a morality play. Of particular note was a 2023 article which selectively used data, and misusing marginal emissions accounting to create a heavily distorted view of Bitcoin mining. Neutral Appraisal (1/10) as the most glaring deficiency, averaging 2.6.

**The Verge**: The coverage exhibits severe factual errors, such as unsupported claims about IMF paper momentum, with Avoidance of Groupthink (1/10) as the most prominent failing, averaging 2.0.

**The Economist**: The coverage reflects the most pronounced falsehoods about Bitcoin, with Overcoming Negativity Bias (1/10) as the most critical shortcoming, averaging 1.8.

### Implications and Use as a Reliability Tool

This index reflects how each outlet handles Bitcoin coverage, providing insight into their broader journalistic reliability. Higher-scoring outlets like Forbes and The Street demonstrate a commitment to balanced, informed reporting and re-evaluation of previous articles based on new evidence. Less reliable outlets like The Economist and The Verge show persistent issues with bias and accuracy.

The BBC’s rating of 4.8 acknowledges its recent positive article on Bitcoin Mining but notes that this is an outlier in an overall trend of inaccuracies and non-objective appraisal. The NYTimes’ score of 2.6 highlights its lack of nuance in appraising Bitcoin, and evidence of using data selectively to suit a narrative, plus the impact of its much criticized article on Bitcoin mining in 2023.