tags: How Ideologically-Driven Environmental NGOs Have Hindered the Phase-Out of Gas Peaker Plants

tags: Gas peaker plants, which fire up during periods of high electricity demand, are a critical yet environmentally damaging component of many energy grids. These plants emit significant amounts of CO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter, disproportionately impacting low-income communities near their locations. While there is broad consensus on the need to phase them out, progress has stalled. Surprisingly, a key barrier comes from an unexpected source: ideologically driven environmental NGOs. Despite advocating for cleaner energy, these groups have often opposed pragmatic solutions to reduce peaker plant reliance. By dismissing collaborations with utilities and energy companies as “greenwashing” outright, and refusing to engage with transitional technologies, they inadvertently prolong the lifespan of these polluting facilities. The Problem with “All or Nothing” Activism Many environmental NGOs operate under a rigid ideological framework that rejects any solution involving fossil fuel infrastructure, even if it demonstrably reduces emissions in the short term. This stance has led to the dismissal of viable bridge technologies, such as: Retrofitting Peaker Plants with Carbon Capture or Efficiency Upgrades In 2021, Duke Energy proposed retrofitting gas peaker plants in North Carolina with carbon capture systems and hybrid natural gas-battery systems to cut emissions by 50%. However, the Sierra Club and Sunrise Movement labeled the plan a “false climate solution,” arguing it legitimized fossil fuels. The project was shelved, leaving older, higher-emitting peakers in operation (source: Duke Energy Sustainability Report, 2022). Renewable-Natural Gas Hybrid Projects In California, where peaker plants contribute to poor air quality, startups like Mote Hydrogen sought to convert peakers to run on hydrogen-blended natural gas. While this would reduce NOx emissions by 30%, NGOs like 350.org criticized the effort as a “distraction from true renewables,” despite the lack of large-scale battery storage to replace peakers entirely (source: California Air Resources Board, 2023). These examples highlight a pattern: NGOs frequently attack projects that could meaningfully reduce emissions while offering no scalable alternatives. The result? Utilities default to maintaining outdated peaker plants rather than risk reputational damage from NGO backlash. Criticism Without Grid-Scale Alternatives The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that even in net-zero scenarios, natural gas will supply 15% of global electricity by 2040 due to grid stability needs (source: IEA World Energy Outlook, 2022). Transitioning away from peaker plants requires bridging solutions, yet NGOs often reject these outright. For instance, when NextEra Energy proposed replacing Florida peaker plants with solar farms paired with gas turbines (to ensure reliability during cloudy periods), the Center for Biological Diversity accused the utility of “greenwashing fossil fuel dependence.” No alternative plan was put forward, leaving aging peakers operational (source: Tampa Bay Times, 2021). Similarly, in New York, the closure of the Astoria peaker plant was delayed after local NGOs opposed a replacement facility using lower-emission turbines, demanding immediate 100% renewables—a goal the grid couldn’t yet support (source: NYISO Reliability Report, 2022). This absolutism ignores grid realities. Battery storage remains costly and limited in duration, leaving peaker plants as a necessary backstop. By blocking incremental improvements, NGOs ensure dirtier status-quo operations persist. Bitcoin Mining: A Pragmatic Alternative to Gas Peaker Plants in Texas While gas peaker plants have long been the default solution for grid stability during peak demand, Bitcoin mining has emerged as a scalable, cost-effective, and environmentally superior alternative—particularly in Texas. By acting as a flexible demand-side resource, Bitcoin mining has already demonstrated its ability to reduce reliance on peaker plants, even as ideologically driven NGOs and fossil fuel interests continue to oppose it. How Bitcoin Mining Replaces Gas Peaker Plants Gas peaker plants are designed to activate only during periods of extreme electricity demand, typically running fewer than 1,500 hours annually. However, their high costs, methane emissions, and environmental harms make them a poor long-term solution. Bitcoin mining, by contrast, provides grid operators with a unique tool: the ability to rapidly curtail energy consumption during peak demand, stabilizing the grid without the need for additional fossil fuel infrastructure. In Texas, this approach was pioneered by ERCOT CEO Brad Jones following the catastrophic 2021 Winter Storm Uri, which exposed the fragility of relying solely on peaker plants. Jones recognized that Bitcoin miners—unlike traditional industrial loads—could shut down operations within seconds, freeing up gigawatts of power for critical needs during emergencies. This flexibility allowed ERCOT to: Avoid building 3 GW of new gas peaker plants proposed by Berkshire Hathaway Energy, saving Texans an estimated $18 billion in infrastructure costs. Integrate more renewables by providing a “buyer of last resort” for excess solar and wind energy, which incentivizes renewable development. Reduce emissions by displacing peaker plants, which emit 0.4–0.6 tons of CO2 per MWh and leak methane even while idling. Peer-reviewed studies validate this strategy. Bruno et al. (2023) found that Bitcoin mining with demand response eliminated the need for gas peaker plants entirely while reducing annual carbon emissions by 48.67 million metric tons compared to baseline scenarios (Table 1). Rhodes et al. (2024) further concluded that Bitcoin mining’s flexibility enables grids to prioritize renewable energy over fossil fuels, accelerating decarbonization. Texas: A Proof of Concept By 2024, Bitcoin mining operations in Texas had grown to 3 GW of flexible load capacity, participating actively in ERCOT’s demand response programs. This resource proved critical during extreme weather events, such as the July 2023 heatwave, when miners voluntarily powered down to free up 1.2 GW of electricity—equivalent to the output of three large peaker plants. ERCOT has since reported zero blackouts despite record demand, crediting Bitcoin mining as a key factor in grid resilience. Dr Rian Dewhurst, of the Digital Assets Research Institute explains “Bitcoin mining doesn’t just stabilize the grid—it helps build a cleaner one. Grid operators no longer need expensive, polluting peaker plants idling on standby.” Opposition from Fossil Fuel Interests Despite its proven benefits, Bitcoin mining faces fierce opposition from entities invested in gas peaker plants. Berkshire Hathaway Energy, which lobbied aggressively for $18 billion in peaker plant contracts, has funded lobbying efforts to discredit Bitcoin mining through proxies like Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. Patrick has repeatedly claimed Bitcoin “destabilizes grids,” a narrative debunked by ERCOT and academic research. This backlash underscores Bitcoin mining’s disruptive potential. As Dewhurst noted, “When you have 3 GW of flexible load, the business case for peaker plants evaporates.” Texas’ experience demonstrates that Bitcoin mining is not merely a theoretical alternative to gas peaker plants—it is a proven, scalable solution. By prioritizing grid needs over ideology, ERCOT has shown how collaboration with Bitcoin miners can phase out peaker plants while saving costs, cutting emissions, and accelerating the renewable transition. Toward Pragmatism: A Call for NGO Accountability The climate crisis demands urgency, but dogmatism and poor research stifles progress. To phase out peaker plants, NGOs must: Evaluate Collaborations Objectively Assess whether partnerships with utilities or energy firms yield measurable emissions reductions rather than reflexively crying “greenwash.” Engage with Grid Realities Acknowledge the role of transitional technologies until renewables and storage scale sufficiently. Prioritize Outcomes Over Ideology Recognize that the perfect is the enemy of the good — hybrid systems are better than perpetuating outdated peakers, and Bitcoin mining based solutions are better again, because they can accelerate the phasing out of gas peaker plants without any gas-powered backed to compensate for variable renewable energy intermittency. The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. By clinging to purity tests, NGOs risk becoming unwitting allies of the very fossil fuel systems they seek to dismantle. It’s time to embrace pragmatism—before another decade of peaker plants locks in avoidable emissions.

content:
Gas peaker plants, which fire up during periods of high electricity demand, are a critical yet environmentally damaging component of many energy grids. These plants emit significant amounts of CO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter, disproportionately impacting low-income communities near their locations. While there is broad consensus on the need to phase them out, progress has stalled. Surprisingly, a key barrier comes from an unexpected source: ideologically driven environmental NGOs.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Screen-Shot-2025-01-29-at-9.43.50-AM-1024x742.png)

Despite advocating for cleaner energy, these groups have often opposed pragmatic solutions to reduce peaker plant reliance. By dismissing collaborations with utilities and energy companies as “greenwashing” outright, and refusing to engage with transitional technologies, they inadvertently prolong the lifespan of these polluting facilities.

### **The Problem with “All or Nothing” Activism**

Many environmental NGOs operate under a rigid ideological framework that rejects any solution involving fossil fuel infrastructure, even if it demonstrably reduces emissions in the short term. This stance has led to the dismissal of viable bridge technologies, such as:

1.  **Retrofitting Peaker Plants with Carbon Capture or Efficiency Upgrades**
    In 2021, Duke Energy proposed retrofitting gas peaker plants in North Carolina with carbon capture systems and hybrid natural gas-battery systems to cut emissions by 50%. However, the Sierra Club and Sunrise Movement labeled the plan a “false climate solution,” arguing it legitimized fossil fuels. The project was shelved, leaving older, higher-emitting peakers in operation (source: _Duke Energy Sustainability Report, 2022_).
2.  **Renewable-Natural Gas Hybrid Projects**
    In California, where peaker plants contribute to poor air quality, startups like Mote Hydrogen sought to convert peakers to run on hydrogen-blended natural gas. While this would reduce NOx emissions by 30%, NGOs like 350.org criticized the effort as a “distraction from true renewables,” despite the lack of large-scale battery storage to replace peakers entirely (source: _California Air Resources Board, 2023_).

These examples highlight a pattern: NGOs frequently attack projects that could meaningfully reduce emissions while offering no scalable alternatives. The result? Utilities default to maintaining outdated peaker plants rather than risk reputational damage from NGO backlash.

* * *

### **Criticism Without Grid-Scale Alternatives**

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that even in net-zero scenarios, natural gas will supply 15% of global electricity by 2040 due to grid stability needs (source: _IEA World Energy Outlook, 2022_). Transitioning away from peaker plants requires bridging solutions, yet NGOs often reject these outright.

For instance, when NextEra Energy proposed replacing Florida peaker plants with solar farms paired with gas turbines (to ensure reliability during cloudy periods), the Center for Biological Diversity accused the utility of “greenwashing fossil fuel dependence.” No alternative plan was put forward, leaving aging peakers operational (source: _Tampa Bay Times, 2021_). Similarly, in New York, the closure of the Astoria peaker plant was delayed after local NGOs opposed a replacement facility using lower-emission turbines, demanding immediate 100% renewables—a goal the grid couldn’t yet support (source: _NYISO Reliability Report, 2022_).

This absolutism ignores grid realities. Battery storage remains costly and limited in duration, leaving peaker plants as a necessary backstop. By blocking incremental improvements, NGOs ensure dirtier status-quo operations persist.

### **Bitcoin Mining: A Pragmatic Alternative to Gas Peaker Plants in Texas**

While gas peaker plants have long been the default solution for grid stability during peak demand, Bitcoin mining has emerged as a scalable, cost-effective, and environmentally superior alternative—particularly in Texas. By acting as a flexible demand-side resource, Bitcoin mining has already demonstrated its ability to reduce reliance on peaker plants, even as ideologically driven NGOs and fossil fuel interests continue to oppose it.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Screen-Shot-2025-01-29-at-9.44.29-AM-1024x612.png)

#### **How Bitcoin Mining Replaces Gas Peaker Plants**

Gas peaker plants are designed to activate only during periods of extreme electricity demand, typically running fewer than 1,500 hours annually. However, their high costs, methane emissions, and environmental harms make them a poor long-term solution. Bitcoin mining, by contrast, provides grid operators with a unique tool: the ability to rapidly curtail energy consumption during peak demand, stabilizing the grid without the need for additional fossil fuel infrastructure.

In Texas, this approach was pioneered by ERCOT CEO Brad Jones following the catastrophic 2021 Winter Storm Uri, which exposed the fragility of relying solely on peaker plants. Jones recognized that Bitcoin miners—unlike traditional industrial loads—could shut down operations within seconds, freeing up gigawatts of power for critical needs during emergencies. This flexibility allowed ERCOT to:

*   **Avoid building 3 GW of new gas peaker plants** proposed by Berkshire Hathaway Energy, saving Texans an estimated [$18 billion in infrastructure costs](https://www.da-ri.org/articles/how-bitcoin-mining-saved-texans-18-billion).
*   **Integrate more renewables** by providing a “buyer of last resort” for excess solar and wind energy, which incentivizes renewable development.
*   **Reduce emissions** by displacing peaker plants, which emit 0.4–0.6 tons of CO2 per MWh and leak methane even while idling.

Peer-reviewed studies validate this strategy. [Bruno et al](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765523000313?via%3Dihub). (2023) found that Bitcoin mining with demand response eliminated the need for gas peaker plants entirely while reducing annual carbon emissions by 48.67 million metric tons compared to baseline scenarios (Table 1). [Rhodes et al](https://lancium.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Lancium_Flexible_Data_Center_Whitepaper_4.2022.pdf). (2024) further concluded that Bitcoin mining’s flexibility enables grids to prioritize renewable energy over fossil fuels, accelerating decarbonization.

#### **Texas: A Proof of Concept**

By 2024, Bitcoin mining operations in Texas had grown to 3 GW of flexible load capacity, participating actively in ERCOT’s demand response programs. This resource proved critical during extreme weather events, such as the July 2023 heatwave, when miners voluntarily powered down to free up 1.2 GW of electricity—equivalent to the output of three large peaker plants. ERCOT has since reported zero blackouts despite record demand, crediting Bitcoin mining as a key factor in grid resilience.

Dr Rian Dewhurst, of the [Digital Assets Research Institute](https://www.da-ri.org/) explains “Bitcoin mining doesn’t just stabilize the grid—it helps build a cleaner one. Grid operators no longer need expensive, polluting peaker plants idling on standby.”

#### **Opposition from Fossil Fuel Interests**

Despite its proven benefits, Bitcoin mining faces fierce opposition from entities invested in gas peaker plants. Berkshire Hathaway Energy, which lobbied aggressively for $18 billion in peaker plant contracts, has [funded lobbying efforts to discredit Bitcoin mining](https://www.da-ri.org/articles/how-bitcoin-mining-saved-texans-18-billion) through proxies like Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. Patrick has repeatedly claimed Bitcoin “destabilizes grids,” a narrative debunked by ERCOT and academic research.

This backlash underscores Bitcoin mining’s disruptive potential. As Dewhurst noted, “When you have 3 GW of flexible load, the business case for peaker plants evaporates.”

Texas’ experience demonstrates that Bitcoin mining is not merely a theoretical alternative to gas peaker plants—it is a proven, scalable solution. By prioritizing grid needs over ideology, ERCOT has shown how collaboration with Bitcoin miners can phase out peaker plants while saving costs, cutting emissions, and accelerating the renewable transition.

### **Toward Pragmatism: A Call for NGO Accountability**

The climate crisis demands urgency, but dogmatism and poor research stifles progress. To phase out peaker plants, NGOs must:

1.  **Evaluate Collaborations Objectively**
    Assess whether partnerships with utilities or energy firms yield measurable emissions reductions rather than reflexively crying “greenwash.”
2.  **Engage with Grid Realities**
    Acknowledge the role of transitional technologies until renewables and storage scale sufficiently.
3.  **Prioritize Outcomes Over Ideology**
    Recognize that the perfect is the enemy of the good — hybrid systems are better than perpetuating outdated peakers, and Bitcoin mining based solutions are better again, because they can accelerate the phasing out of gas peaker plants without any gas-powered backed to compensate for variable renewable energy intermittency.

The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. By clinging to purity tests, NGOs risk becoming unwitting allies of the very fossil fuel systems they seek to dismantle. It’s time to embrace pragmatism—before another decade of peaker plants locks in avoidable emissions.


IAx/lpFS2JwgAkDrxxd1+bcOdxMGD4K0Rr2XjsJeCnTFN5GLxSBp+eodCtBfR9Jz?iv=AsuYx+eRPWhBbYjZHG7Mzg==


GFrNr+RwetpLsckndd8I7XmyAyN40l3qB6yrq9ZFcdMssuU2dRIIzFQEZvLBaK1XYX12IrmYyHSGpI9+nsU84E9V9Le8xrcLQr4SplvDbBf9KijV/slQgQTgpgNgPEEE+bJya8B6ROrXkq4gQHC9zA==?iv=5/FkRuDavGXgjdUguk01Wg==


tags: News. Updates. Research. Stats. Everything Important You Need to Know.

content:
News
----

*   **Bitcoin mining centralization in 2025.** According to a [blog post](https://b10c.me/blog/015-bitcoin-mining-centralization/) by _b10c_, Bitcoin mining was at its most decentralized in May 2017, with another favorable period from 2019 to 2022. However, starting in 2023, mining has become increasingly centralized, particularly due to the influence of large pools like Foundry and the use of proxy pooling by entities such as AntPool.

![Block 893376: Important News of the Week](https://www.nobsbitcoin.com/content/images/2025/04/image-21.png)

Source: [b10c's blog.](https://b10c.me/blog/015-bitcoin-mining-centralization/)

*   **OpenSats announces the eleventh wave of Nostr grants.** The [five projects in this wave](https://www.nobsbitcoin.com/opensats-unveils-the-eleventh-wave-of-nostr-grants/) are the mobile live-streaming app [Swae](https://github.com/suhailsaqan/swae), the Nostr-over-ham-radio project [HAMSTR](https://github.com/LibertyFarmer/hamstr), [Vertex](https://www.nobsbitcoin.com/vertex-web-of-trust-as-a-service/)—a Web-of-Trust (WOT) service for Nostr developers, [Nostr Double Ratchet](https://github.com/mmalmi/nostr-double-ratchet) for end-to-end encrypted messaging, and the [Nostr Game Engine](https://ngengine.org/) for building games and applications integrated with the Nostr ecosystem.
*   **New Spiral grantee:** [**_l0rinc_**](https://xcancel.com/spiralbtc/status/1912176891609362505)**.** In February 2024, _l0rinc_ transitioned to full-time work on Bitcoin Core. [His efforts](https://github.com/l0rinc/bitcoin/tree/l0rinc/work?tab=readme-ov-file#bitcoin-core-contributions) focus on performance benchmarking and optimizations, enhancing code quality, conducting code reviews, reducing block download times, optimizing memory usage, and refactoring code.
*   **Project Eleven offers 1 BTC to break Bitcoin's cryptography with a quantum computer.** The quantum computing research organization [has introduced](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/news/project-eleven-to-award-1-btc-to-tackle-bitcoins-quantum-vulnerability) the [Q-Day Prize](https://www.qdayprize.org/), a global challenge that offers 1 BTC to the first team capable of breaking an elliptic curve cryptographic (ECC) key using Shor’s algorithm on a quantum computer. The prize will be awarded to the first team to successfully accomplish this breakthrough by April 5, 2026.
*   **Unchained has launched the Bitcoin Legacy Project.** The initiative [seeks](https://www.unchained.com/blog/introducing-the-bitcoin-legacy-project) to advance the Bitcoin ecosystem through a bitcoin-native [donor-advised fund platform](https://www.unchained.com/blog/bitcoin-donor-advised-funds) (DAF), investments in community hubs, support for education and open-source development, and a commitment to long-term sustainability with transparent annual reporting.
    *   In its first year, the program will provide support to Bitcoin hubs in Nashville, Austin, and Denver.
    *   Support also includes $50,000 to the Bitcoin Policy Institute, a $150,000 commitment at the University of Austin, and up to $250,000 in research grants through the Bitcoin Scholars program.

> "Unchained will **match grants 1:1** made to partner organizations who support Bitcoin Core development when made through the Unchained-powered bitcoin DAF, up to 1 BTC," was stated in a blog post.

*   **Block launched open-source tools for Bitcoin treasury management.** These [include](https://block.xyz/inside/block-releases-open-source-tools-for-bitcoin-treasury-management) a dashboard for managing corporate bitcoin holdings and provides a real-time BTC-to-USD price quote API, released as part of the [Block Open Source initiative](https://github.com/block/bitcoin-treasury). The company’s own instance of the bitcoin holdings dashboard is available [here](https://bitcoin.block.xyz).

[![Block 893376: Important News of the Week](https://www.nobsbitcoin.com/content/images/2025/04/image-14.png)](https://bitcoin.block.xyz/)

Source: block.xyz

*   **Bull Bitcoin expands to Mexico,** [enabling](https://www.bullbitcoin.com/blog/bull-bitcoin-launches-in-mexico) anyone in the country to receive pesos from anywhere in the world straight from a Bitcoin wallet. Additionally, users can now buy Bitcoin with a Mexican bank account.

> _"Bull Bitcoin strongly believes in Bitcoin’s economic potential in Mexico, not only for international remittances and tourism, but also for Mexican individuals and companies to reclaim their financial sovereignty and protect their wealth from inflation and the fragility of traditional financial markets," said Francis Pouliot, Founder and CEO of Bull Bitcoin._

*   **Corporate bitcoin holdings hit a record high in Q1 2025.** According to [Bitwise](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/news/corporate-bitcoin-holdings-hit-record-high-in-q1-2025-as-public-companies-accelerate-accumulation), public companies' adoption of Bitcoin has hit an all-time high. In Q1 2025, these firms collectively hold over 688,000 BTC, marking a 16.11% increase from the previous quarter. This amount represents 3.28% of Bitcoin's fixed 21 million supply.

![Block 893376: Important News of the Week](https://www.nobsbitcoin.com/content/images/2025/04/image-29.png)

Source: [Bitwise.](https://xcancel.com/BitwiseInvest/status/1911843925943337203)

*   **The Bitcoin Bond Company for institutions has launched** with the [aim of acquiring](https://xcancel.com/BitcoinPierre/status/1909229920447840602) $1 trillion in Bitcoin over 21 years. It utilizes secure, transparent, and compliant bond-like products backed by Bitcoin.
*   **The U.S. Senate confirmed Paul Atkins as Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).** At his confirmation hearing, _Atkins_ [emphasized](https://cryptoslate.com/paul-atkins-confirmed-to-chair-sec-as-gary-genslers-long-term-replacement/) the need for a clear framework for digital assets. He aims to collaborate with the CFTC and Congress to address jurisdiction and rulemaking gaps, aligning with the Trump administration's goal to position the U.S. as a leader in Bitcoin and blockchain finance.
*   **Ethereum developer Virgil Griffith has been released from custody.** _Griffith_, whose sentence [was reduced](https://atlas21.com/former-ethereum-developer-virgil-griffith-released-from-custody/) to 56 months, is now seeking a pardon. He was initially sentenced to 63 months for allegedly violating international sanctions laws by providing technical advice on using cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology to evade sanctions during a presentation titled 'Blockchains for Peace' in North Korea.
*   **No-KYC exchange eXch to close down under money laundering scrutiny.** The privacy-focused cryptocurrency trading platform [said](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577207.msg65286839#msg65286839) it will cease operations on May 1. This decision follows allegations that the platform was used by North Korea's Lazarus Group for money laundering. eXch revealed it is the subject of an active "transatlantic operation" aimed at shutting down the platform and prosecuting its team for "money laundering and terrorism."
*   **Blockstream combats ESP32 FUD concerning Jade signers.** The company [stated](https://xcancel.com/Blockstream/status/1912468478025433244) that after reviewing the vulnerability disclosed in early March, Jade was found to be secure. Espressif Systems, the designer of the ESP32, has since [clarified](https://developer.espressif.com/blog/2025/03/esp32-bluetooth-clearing-the-air/?ref=btctimes.com) that the "undocumented commands" do not constitute a "backdoor."

[![Block 893376: Important News of the Week](https://www.nobsbitcoin.com/content/images/2025/04/image-30.png)](https://xcancel.com/Blockstream/status/1912468476200997138)

*   **Bank of America is lobbying for regulations that favor banks over tech firms in stablecoin issuance.** The bank's CEO _Brian Moynihan_ is working with groups such as the American Bankers Association to advance the issuance of a fully reserved, 1:1 backed "Bank of America coin." If successful, this could limit stablecoin efforts by non-banks like Tether, Circle, and others, [reports](https://www.theblock.co/post/350860/stablecoin-turf-wars-bank-of-america-tether-and-circle-battle-to-shape-us-rules) _The Block._
*   **Tether to back OCEAN Pool with its hashrate.** "As a company committed to financial freedom and open access, we see supporting decentralization in Bitcoin mining as essential to the network’s long-term integrity," [said](https://www.theminermag.com/news/2025-04-14/tether-ocean-pool-bitcoin) Tether CEO _Paolo Ardoino_.
*   **Bitdeer to expand its self-mining operations to navigate tariffs.** The Singapore-based mining company is advancing plans to produce machines in the U.S. while reducing its mining hardware sales. This response is in light of increasing uncertainties related to U.S. trade policy, as reported by [_Bloomberg_](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-15/crypto-firm-bitdeer-prioritizes-mining-to-weather-tariff-turmoil).
*   **Tether acquires $32M in Bitdeer shares.** The firm [has boosted](https://www.theminermag.com/news/2025-04-17/tether-bitdeer-acquire-bitcoin) its investment in Bitdeer during a wider market sell-off, with purchases in early to mid-April amounting to about $32 million, regulatory filings reveal.
*   **US Bitcoin miner manufacturer Auradine has raised $153 million** in a Series C funding round as it [expands](https://www.theminermag.com/news/2025-04-17/auradine-mara-bitcoin) into AI infrastructure. The round was led by StepStone Group and included participation from Maverick Silicon, Premji Invest, Samsung Catalyst Fund, Qualcomm Ventures, Mayfield, MARA Holdings, GSBackers, and other existing investors. The firm raised to over $300 million since its inception in 2022.
*   **Voltage has partnered with BitGo** to [enable](https://www.voltage.cloud/blog/bitgo-and-voltage-team-up-to-deliver-instant-bitcoin-and-stabl


Removing Note


MvhEXYgBaqLCC97GfFho9bzGt1HrcVwheZi5cb+UVGyhgPljnM5GGsrS3eq66Lpr?iv=CIPbzc/ZOVzRX5cHJ1+03g==


QZhEt7HZW2ESP6vZDqs4cA==?iv=oGocVAhFwCVtUW1Ml3WuMw==


[encoded data, 4140 characters]?iv=PVJZKpKSWWmpP7Wr+QUk2g==


HzIKChSha8SCgqlqqyXkew==?iv=FdMbfztOqEd03SCmQm6fNg==


SJXfvtGE5Co5rvWhsexW0Q==?iv=xAeFlsdaMj6ukvNCuBNUeg==


3a9quLJ8zTZditne7i5Kbg==?iv=ccrpDuCzTV5jyQgASEYZlg==


W5A3OTuxwHKtbazrztheMA==?iv=aRg8KXq50t+UuK+IpcxU7Q==


HkoC3zMd/6vL7Z+PMB4XdD1YIIOCMNXLXpAfScnGDKiH1nw90uG4xzFHuS8n3JQc?iv=4vMtQHXQN4jhy9lRUum0LA==


qdQVfC/ME4U99SKSctAEK6wb1Vcqakd3NH4fwP5bLU0HhSUxdPIc9O6r/jkdCTCa?iv=dJMSpvxXd65SYB4urCe0GA==


A4yQfTXUGz1Zlg9gEMgMIw==?iv=t9qZOd3rDijgzHN9U2AABw==


Au96UDPNgsmRnQzHWLhon7VVFb062LUY3WUx30JSFY9RIuUm2Dm2X/0M9pwe0FheGHkXmKLZKIRGTp8nfhh4t8pC+7nvlFY5YqmhauLiZm/sUGG9vMhQXEkvKFZGZ2hB+0tUbgfQlo7IrExzEbMsx6x4yeSSuIqJgp/sfyq2q6s6QkYD0mIBWQf2V2spakrx4xL2s9sN5rYRG40zHq3Y3FXUcxmWZpoWEB6Dbi0CQ/lyMHbGXilblSmqMGOmj4iNRJxKTF9XwXApvXMYmpf3G88W68QWtaMa6hmJLT/PHJ/b5jdVGd3uOZnXIzHVOcVCoFJfWFtxAOrJOpsgzNNCihU+9txTfAmRfc03RlwWgkUG1WszIxZ+vBwLP73IyGFgxYiG


+AgipFaj91Y870Nb5pgQS0mEq02weB3USbV6jMDxfLcycyiHin2ImfncDzSooGnfI2kGSyo7Q+ZZOK08vnPJqg==?iv=QC1TLyu5Sp1sZ8Jo11qrqA==


New OP_RETURN
DGO:to:ETH(BSC):0x9896696427348446816b69ba471e76ed7c546FEe
https://mempool.space/tx/fa8c9ed023f2fef440f0e2281ba1eea65c43c01b991fbf071b055f982a0df615


だいぶまだ先だと思うけど量子コンピュータがいい感じになったら12ワードから先に盗られそう


tags: A short note: So this whole debate was a nothing burger?


RptOwcXyFZS0+yxuhktmnyOm7LaQn4bjINQ5Zq7ohfGSVNDiel+ySduC2ncxTsbN?iv=33VCs/oGHJidxlBRHgkV3Q==


xp0zlCzEiwVE5uUf9xqPVVgQBr3cbwVGkQOSsifYWEu3MJpAipZaSufA5NFv0Ex6udWVwdLNY3+704YWvXfcjQ==?iv=ze7d9snbm2Qdd1qxL11tww==


tags: How Activist NGOs Have Unintentionally STALLED Progress TOWARDS Ending Gas Flaring

tags: The World Bank set an ambitious goal: eliminate nearly all gas flaring by 2030. Flaring, the burning of excess natural gas during oil extraction, is a major environmental problem, releasing millions of tons of CO2e (CO2 equivalents) in the form of methane and other toxic pollutants into the atmosphere annually. The problem is, flaring only burns 91.1% of the methane, so the other 8.9% goes unburnt directly into the atmosphere. This contributes to climate change significantly because methane is 84 times more warming over a 20 year period than CO2. In regions like the Middle East, flaring has been shown to cause more harm than previously thought, with recent studies revealing higher levels of toxic gases like benzene and sulfur dioxide (source: World Bank Global Gas Flaring Tracker, 2023). Despite the urgency, progress to end flaring has been slow. While there are many factors at play, but one of the most significant barrier is also the most overlooked: environmental NGOs themselves, specifically a small handful of the more ideologically-driven activist environmental NGOs. These organizations, while well-intentioned, have consistently criticized and undermined almost all efforts from outside commercial organizations to collaborate with oil and gas companies to reduce flaring. In this article, we’ll examine how this tendency to label such initiatives as “greenwashing,” their failure to offer viable alternatives, and their creation of an environment of fear have disincentivized other industries from partnering with oil companies to address this critical issue. The result? Flaring continues unabated and the environment, that these NGOs exist to be faithful stewards to, suffers. False positives: The harmful side-effect of calling something “greenwash” that’s not One counter-productive tendency of these NGOs has been their eagerness to label any and all collaboration with oil and gas companies as “greenwashing.” This term, which refers to superficial or misleading environmental claims, has become a catch-all critique for any effort to reduce flaring. These environmental NGO critiques are often reactive rather than analytical. For instance, when General Electric (GE) and Baker Hughes developed technologies to capture and utilize stranded gas, environmental groups like Sierra Club and Greenpeace accused them of “enabling continued fossil fuel extraction” without acknowledging the tangible emissions reductions these technologies achieved (source: Sierra Club Statement, 2020; Greenpeace International, 2020). By focusing on ideological purity rather than measurable outcomes, these NGOs have created a chilling effect, discouraging companies from pursuing innovative solutions to flaring. Incredibly, these criticisms have continued even when direct, measurable, and significant reduction of methane emissions has been the result. For example, when Crusoe Energy, a Bitcoin mining company, partnered with oil producers to convert flared gas into electricity, Jesse Simons, Deputy Director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign, dismissed the initiative as “propping up the fossil fuel industry” (source: Sierra Club Press Release, 2022). Similarly, John Noël, Senior Climate Campaigner at Greenpeace USA, criticized ExxonMobil’s pilot project with Crusoe in the Permian Basin, calling it a “distraction from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels entirely” (source: Greenpeace USA Statement, 2021). Criticism Without Solutions Another issue is the tendency of these NGOs to criticize without offering alternatives. For example, when BP partnered with Climeworks, a carbon capture company, to explore using captured methane for industrial purposes, and when Shell worked with Enerflex, a gas processing company to reduce flaring at their oilfields, Carroll Muffett, President of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), accused both companies of using flaring reduction as a “public relations tool” (source: CIEL Press Release, 2021). Similarly, Friends of the Earth criticized waste-to-energy startup Ener-Core for “perpetuating the fossil fuel economy” without proposing a practical alternative for addressing stranded gas (source: Friends of the Earth Report, 2019). While it is an absolutely legitimate function of an environmental NGO to help the public understand when genuine greenwash is at play, the universal tendency across NGOs to label all collaborations with oil companies to end flaring as “greenwash” suggests strongly that there is neither analysis nor discrimination at play here on the part of these environmental NGOs, rather guilty verdict by virtue of the fact one would deign to partner with an oil company. Well, if outside organizations cannot partner with oil companies to deal with methane emissions, oil companies will continue with their own solution: flaring. The environment deserves better service than that. This pattern of criticism without constructive solutions is not only unhelpful but counterproductive. Flaring is a complex problem that requires immediate action. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that oil will still account for 22% of global energy demand in 2050, even in a net-zero scenario (source: IEA Net Zero by 2050 Report, 2021). Given this reality, the choice is not between oil production and no oil production—it is between flaring/venting and utilizing the gas in a way that reduces emissions. By dismissing efforts to address flaring without offering viable alternatives, these NGOs have effectively pushed the industry toward the most environmentally harmful option: continued flaring. How an Environment of Fear Disincentivizes Collaboration Perhaps the most counterproductive consequence of these NGOs’ actions is the environment of fear they have created. Companies that might otherwise partner with oil and gas producers to reduce flaring are often deterred by the risk of reputational damage. For example, renewable energy developers like NextEra Energy and Ørsted have considered using stranded gas for power generation but faced backlash from groups like 350.org and Oil Change International. These organizations accused NextEra of “betraying its renewable energy mission” and Ørsted of “legitimizing the fossil fuel industry” (source: 350.org Press Release, 2021; Oil Change International Report, 2021). This environment of fear has stifled innovation and collaboration. Waste-to-energy startups, renewable energy developers, and even technology giants like GE and Baker Hughes have been reluctant to engage with oil and gas companies, fearing the wrath of activist NGOs. The result is a missed opportunity to reduce emissions and accelerate the transition to a cleaner energy future. Bitcoin Mining: A Pragmatic Exception In this context, Bitcoin mining has emerged as a rare exception. Companies like Crusoe Energy and Upstream Data have been willing to partner with oil producers to convert flared gas into electricity, reducing emissions and generating economic value. These initiatives have been praised by the World Economic Forum for their tangible impact on flaring reduction, even as they face criticism from some NGOs. Crusoe’s projects in North Dakota and Wyoming have reduced flaring by over 90% at partnered sites (source: Crusoe Energy Case Studies, 2023). Similarly, Upstream Data’s operations in Canada have prevented millions of tons of CO2-equivalent emissions annually (source: Upstream Data Reports, 2022). Bitcoin mining’s success in addressing flaring highlights the importance of focusing on outcomes over ideology. NGOs like Sierra Club and Greenpeace were highly criticized of these partnerships at their inception, but have not acknowledged the measurable emissions reductions they ended up achieving. Analysis before ideology For us to have any hope of working collaboratively to end flaring, it’s critical for enviromental NGOs to step up and stop crying “greenwash” without analysis, as has been their tendency, to the detriment of the environment and collaborative action. The fight against flaring is too important to be derailed by ideological purity, and there is a phrase in the environmental movement that they would do well to remember “the perfect is the enemy of the good”. While the intentions of activist NGOs are good, good intentions divorsed from nuanced thinking can and has been counterproductive to the very environmental progress they only exist to create. Their reactive criticism, lack of viable alternatives, and creation of an environment of fear have hindered progress on this critical issue. To truly address flaring, we need a new approach—one that prioritizes measurable outcomes and encourages collaboration. These critiques, while well-intentioned, are misguided. By discouraging collaboration with oil companies, these NGOs inadvertently push the industry to deal with methane emissions in the most environmentally harmful way: flaring or venting. Continued inaction is simply not an option. It’s time for environmental organizations to stop criticicing every imperfect effort to move forward, and get their own house in order. In practical terms, this means: Properly evaluating whether collaborations are greenwash, or whether they can make a measurable difference Learning to work alongside commercial operations to better understand their motivations and strategies before simply criticizing them Taking time to do their own research, including engaging with experts in the domain (something that has been conspicuous by its absent in NGOs criticisms of Bitcoin mining and other industries) Take responsibility for the fact that they have the power to aid environmental progress, but equally the power to hinder progress through criticizing they may not fully understand and which may in fact be a solution, or part of the solution. Free themselves from the trap of overzealously declaring “greenwashing” even when it’s a false positive, and focus on what really matters: working collaboratively to reduce emissions and protecting the environment.

content:
The World Bank set an ambitious goal: eliminate nearly [all gas flaring by 2030](https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/zero-routine-flaring-by-2030). Flaring, the burning of excess natural gas during oil extraction, is a [major environmental problem](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63051458), releasing millions of tons of CO2e (CO2 equivalents) in the form of methane and other toxic pollutants into the atmosphere annually. The problem is, flaring only burns 91.1% of the methane, so the other 8.9% goes unburnt directly into the atmosphere. This contributes to climate change significantly because methane is [84 times more warming](https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/speech/methane-action-tackling-warming-planet) over a 20 year period than CO2.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Screen-Shot-2025-01-28-at-9.59.33-AM-1024x679.png)

In regions like the Middle East, flaring has been shown to cause more harm than previously thought, with recent studies revealing [higher levels of toxic gases](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67522413) like benzene and sulfur dioxide (source: _World Bank Global Gas Flaring Tracker, 2023_). Despite the urgency, progress to end flaring has been slow. While there are many factors at play, but one of the most significant barrier is also the most overlooked: environmental NGOs themselves, specifically a small handful of the more ideologically-driven activist environmental NGOs.

These organizations, while well-intentioned, have consistently criticized and undermined almost all efforts from outside commercial organizations to collaborate with oil and gas companies to reduce flaring. In this article, we’ll examine how this tendency to label such initiatives as “greenwashing,” their failure to offer viable alternatives, and their creation of an environment of fear have disincentivized other industries from partnering with oil companies to address this critical issue.

The result? Flaring continues unabated and the environment, that these NGOs exist to be faithful stewards to, suffers.

* * *

### False positives: **The harmful side-effect of calling something “greenwash” that’s not**

One counter-productive tendency of these NGOs has been their eagerness to label any and all collaboration with oil and gas companies as “greenwashing.” This term, which refers to superficial or misleading environmental claims, has become a catch-all critique for any effort to reduce flaring.

These environmental NGO critiques are often reactive rather than analytical. For instance, when General Electric (GE) and Baker Hughes developed technologies to capture and utilize stranded gas, environmental groups like Sierra Club and Greenpeace accused them of “enabling continued fossil fuel extraction” without acknowledging the tangible emissions reductions these technologies achieved (source: _Sierra Club Statement, 2020_; _Greenpeace International, 2020_). By focusing on ideological purity rather than measurable outcomes, these NGOs have created a chilling effect, discouraging companies from pursuing innovative solutions to flaring.

Incredibly, these criticisms have continued even when direct, measurable, and significant reduction of methane emissions has been the result. For example, when Crusoe Energy, a Bitcoin mining company, partnered with oil producers to convert flared gas into electricity, Jesse Simons, Deputy Director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign, dismissed the initiative as “propping up the fossil fuel industry” (source: _Sierra Club Press Release, 2022_). Similarly, John Noël, Senior Climate Campaigner at Greenpeace USA, criticized ExxonMobil’s pilot project with Crusoe in the Permian Basin, calling it a “distraction from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels entirely” (source: _Greenpeace USA Statement, 2021_).

* * *

### **Criticism Without Solutions**

Another issue is the tendency of these NGOs to criticize without offering alternatives. For example, when BP partnered with Climeworks, a carbon capture company, to explore using captured methane for industrial purposes, and when Shell worked with Enerflex, a gas processing company to reduce flaring at their oilfields, Carroll Muffett, President of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), accused both companies of using flaring reduction as a “public relations tool” (source: _CIEL Press Release, 2021_). Similarly, Friends of the Earth criticized waste-to-energy startup Ener-Core for “perpetuating the fossil fuel economy” without proposing a practical alternative for addressing stranded gas (source: _Friends of the Earth Report, 2019_).

While it is an absolutely legitimate function of an environmental NGO to help the public understand when genuine greenwash is at play, the universal tendency across NGOs to label all collaborations with oil companies to end flaring as “greenwash” suggests strongly that there is neither analysis nor discrimination at play here on the part of these environmental NGOs, rather guilty verdict by virtue of the fact one would deign to partner with an oil company. Well, if outside organizations cannot partner with oil companies to deal with methane emissions, oil companies will continue with their own solution: flaring. The environment deserves better service than that.

This pattern of criticism without constructive solutions is not only unhelpful but counterproductive. Flaring is a complex problem that requires immediate action. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that oil will still account for 22% of global energy demand in 2050, even in a net-zero scenario (source: _IEA Net Zero by 2050 Report, 2021_). Given this reality, the choice is not between oil production and no oil production—it is between flaring/venting and utilizing the gas in a way that reduces emissions. By dismissing efforts to address flaring without offering viable alternatives, these NGOs have effectively pushed the industry toward the most environmentally harmful option: continued flaring.

* * *

### **How an Environment of Fear Disincentivizes Collaboration**

Perhaps the most counterproductive consequence of these NGOs’ actions is the environment of fear they have created. Companies that might otherwise partner with oil and gas producers to reduce flaring are often deterred by the risk of reputational damage. For example, renewable energy developers like NextEra Energy and Ørsted have considered using stranded gas for power generation but faced backlash from groups like 350.org and Oil Change International. These organizations accused NextEra of “betraying its renewable energy mission” and Ørsted of “legitimizing the fossil fuel industry” (source: _350.org Press Release, 2021_; _Oil Change International Report, 2021_).

This environment of fear has stifled innovation and collaboration. Waste-to-energy startups, renewable energy developers, and even technology giants like GE and Baker Hughes have been reluctant to engage with oil and gas companies, fearing the wrath of activist NGOs. The result is a missed opportunity to reduce emissions and accelerate the transition to a cleaner energy future.

* * *

### **Bitcoin Mining: A Pragmatic Exception**

In this context, Bitcoin mining has emerged as a rare exception. Companies like Crusoe Energy and Upstream Data have been willing to partner with oil producers to convert flared gas into electricity, reducing emissions and generating economic value. These initiatives have been [praised by the World Economic Forum](https://www.weforum.org/videos/this-start-up-catches-waste-methane-to-power-data-centres/) for their tangible impact on flaring reduction, even as they face criticism from some NGOs. Crusoe’s projects in North Dakota and Wyoming have reduced flaring by over 90% at partnered sites (source: _Crusoe Energy Case Studies, 2023_). Similarly, Upstream Data’s operations in Canada have prevented millions of tons of CO2-equivalent emissions annually (source: _Upstream Data Reports, 2022_).

Bitcoin mining’s success in addressing flaring highlights the importance of focusing on outcomes over ideology. NGOs like Sierra Club and Greenpeace were highly criticized of these partnerships at their inception, but have not acknowledged the measurable emissions reductions they ended up achieving.

* * *

### **Analysis before ideology**

For us to have any hope of working collaboratively to end flaring, it’s critical for enviromental NGOs to step up and stop crying “greenwash” without analysis, as has been their tendency, to the detriment of the environment and collaborative action. The fight against flaring is too important to be derailed by ideological purity, and there is a phrase in the environmental movement that they would do well to remember “the perfect is the enemy of the good”.

While the intentions of activist NGOs are good, good intentions divorsed from nuanced thinking can and has been counterproductive to the very environmental progress they only exist to create. Their reactive criticism, lack of viable alternatives, and creation of an environment of fear have hindered progress on this critical issue. To truly address flaring, we need a new approach—one that prioritizes measurable outcomes and encourages collaboration.

These critiques, while well-intentioned, are misguided. By discouraging collaboration with oil companies, these NGOs inadvertently push the industry to deal with methane emissions in the most environmentally harmful way: flaring or venting.

Continued inaction is simply not an option. It’s time for environmental organizations to stop criticicing every imperfect effort to move forward, and get their own house in order. In practical terms, this means:

1.  Properly evaluating whether collaborations are greenwash, or whether they can make a measurable difference
2.  Learning to work alongside commercial operations to better understand their motivations and strategies before simply criticizing them
3.  Taki


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


8Ya4f+fpfXAmP2Uv8nMAo7SYYiavfFoRuJ/upDnjZZ3eHsupU4dmG5ui97+xCoVaF5vNuhTo5cOMHu7N8C0HrQ==?iv=UpYPgVo3XW2TuaQhk+NsFg==


Aq7pKPDaB5R9/FTgfiuxPUIxRsqNYTqv642UHFs++QeFei+sHPIT8Yv5ZDQ9mwXrOZQVlm1KPXgHVUiCm3l8JI+JtM7VFDh425togUP6uM8LVgGqcnR9gl7gTfjC8OtWSFKaYIDC+/E/OKk7Ufu8WAF6ln6Swf26bfNvNa77RgUqAGPs5rNPGWJf+GSHI7Xv8+644WKTJ5NrwUlvBjfKojZZFeyhc+mplbiSTiFeoKvECT0x3yPlPYVS7YFIHi1SXNsh


AuxyieUtDgTXsONdr3yER9KSTjsaeo1bi/u+OeGKaBPAtNBZNLKjGwpd75xI/eMR?iv=gVTeVT+mgVhGQaJ7aPBuKA==


XKOrabn3hDFQyCLkoBYehAuEMklT+FzXrqQ7wagHEV3JwNlnFdWiS9ryjcJ1ARdk?iv=cwvz9JuXjBpB5Sz0dOyriw==


tags: A short note: Being curious > being offended

content: Being curious > being offended


wMBf26SZ-1zryoRSi7uTPmN233rhfmrZk1NMkOhsfYImUxihdW2Dnp_ZAb9oBzugZcJpRtHcTd0HUoKEd3n0x-825FOyzqs?iv=XFzaOTZNhbf7FJV4H6tmMAAbD4JkuT0F


tags: A short note: Dissolving illusions is a great book that makes a ...

content: Dissolving illusions is a great book that makes a very logical argument for this...


![](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.


RSS-to-Nostr of MintPress News

about:
RSS-to-Nostr feed of MintPress News
More RSS-To-Nostr can be found in my following list


SBr2h8gqmOk++0ULLGBAF5uWaTk+VIU0rCRw4rZASZUcyjcX8aJVLc2jXUZ3Lya7?iv=Equ5xVMDZWVoqvki4E1tCQ==


tags: This is the result of a NIP90 DVM task with kind 5300

content: e

content: b4d1a8b4441e76d3bb68f8f58a0c6e9c9eaf649f7095c6ae86aefc281c12e671

content: e

content: 179626b4d2e0bf88a4ebc4dab01fd7ffe11dcd6c38a72b2dc4b510b6bf6c8f5d

content: e

content: 553cef83c2ca2dd1c4dc89cb857c6d607d2f575cac2198ebeb564bb3a81310a6

content: e

content: 1a155ba5a690b7cb2d279bca50acf10a1814366976ba3bafbd981973f0d2ddd0

content: e

content: 4ad72e6710b5d92df015c2e693dc647faea6fdf12549760a9ececb686b4ccd3f

content: e

content: 9a931c993434c4562fd347383ee53932fe21169baa54b841cf918ad57f8d8215

content: e

content: 7d26fa770e9b45bcb3ddc94e7714d3dfd9593d70e9ed22fe8d378c34d5a4ee18

content: e

content: 09f2b5ddfb907a1311300015755bac2bd22df69c79c64ac54670c029d4535c8d

content: e

content: a6e29b83d4f20bf525120f37578a07b35f7893b3a3d121ab9ae245d7587d2430

content: e

content: c203d2038f2b1c5408168c6eedb0fad1f808fb1ba7d27747e5ff92e2c786fa20

content: e

content: b91dae2ca049dc4a55df2f75a1bec476257d31acd7dae8b387686f89ee2f227c

content: e

content: 0e7605585a0eac91c2615187d9d431b0ec1ad4987dbcc176a002e1facc2e0693

content: e

content: ea9a7266814e8f44f8126ed9ef8138387605f322e6ed3be7c9a7ccedb3ef3064

content: e

content: f3905e66296c11f651f4e09b72734fef621929a1bb7f9aaad06205e8c5405c49

content: e

content: a166af6f8823bf8ba7f7826db8e4002f48605bb17b6958cbed53cb7c0d8d208e

content: e

content: 3828ec48f9e85664a1464e6b8c33d774c0480ae8367c66d487827a6126992efe

content: e

content: 49c5e1e3ebf8f540d1109fc3d8e5640f36f2ba5a839a8074d6fb8428e20c2df4

content: e

content: 208c0f97e8c13b5eb3039ab21cb39de38508f92ef984444b875ed1e8f07d0356

content: e

content: c0f06091f73116a5027db45dcaa68dff216a9f18ab4c3c9b7843cd1499773aff

content: e

content: e6cab94623e1ae7a5ef5235bd0c4402179b9a793c4cea1b2d819eb2b8997b560

content: e

content: 6a415676087acfb1a044371a2b7e4c42f38e53f689df3c578ae3d79c19b72f78

content: e

content: e6b2f974622029ed7f8a90e444a6133ba1771ee4517399ef004fa615ad58f935

content: e

content: f3fdab81f845bccf1587664d5260e6c1321fecbae0bbcec888c03a2aae84fb91

content: e

content: c2c67f7edf3109ca41bb5aa8cb7ea8a002bd8a7815e45573b9df6fba90253263

content: e

content: c286c2d965a8198a1f515252f333747e2642e0575b7ace4bbd999e15ec9fc09e

content: e

content: d87c3e20cd3e6fecb06e7f1b51c97df1d60ead1b08e52772468abca03b3275b6

content: e

content: 0bbf16a24513a3e12463c2cd78945904b9ffcaa443c9b20edebb8e54541ce339

content: e

content: 65b5394e3467be810a5e5f3ff566bc45b8e8868ead39d03a676a161a2789eac1

content: e

content: d0bcfa017a90f5dc25338f91a1225df6798a170d7e23d6bea68eb3fbd142b57d

content: e

content: 336207f8bd0038efc65fb6f00ef96555d62e9f0c8cf2ba99840f917a08011ebf

content: e

content: 84e47a80e5de7cffdeb8027cfcc33f38f1c29777aaccbff07eee37ca5686ce9d

content: e

content: f3f06f7f24e2a4274b57f7a84ea163cdb61bcdbfc69ccf458aec15596e4560b7

content: e

content: e8a91c7e95c69d584ebd8c26b592088ad71ecaff26ae44c4ec0e4ba09acc5548

content: e

content: d1d7ee1bac1ce3a2a1947cddc0350a3a0fe6c6af4f094a7d76e5e62c2d2b279d


RSS-to-Nostr of A Bola

about:
RSS-to-Nostr feed of A Bola
More RSS-To-Nostr can be found in my following list


Removing Note


hyXYOucztIh2gU7npGapLHsrM3RTJK1bHIyn3qp79AurIMB1Ra2Z1QR4IN6mabAI?iv=PS7PwvM4EdzAdAGek88VpA==


9S+B0pIzXYGsdF7pcp0bO3a8ZD6O9QhgfTmWv4rqnBTTctR2kMubgkOFibzjmyn2chPGAyXbW7JtqGEPes/DFRmFbCGWhHH//hxs5pKGZ6UhWBPE81lULj37SI7H98XOCeH15j/CQBoJ4UVsRR/zVA==?iv=5VI/2ui+89UDFCr8LDacyQ==


Why do I get this message?
#asknostr
#amethyst

https://blossom.primal.net/5f4e7609112c2ceda72b4c5d96bd46d111a1f575812f3870499dc30d137e7ca1.png


It has a very bright tobacco flavor that slightly overpowers the sauce. Leaves are nice and soft and im enjoying the larger cut 2" strips. Got a little buzz from it tbh.