newly minted MBA's complaining about their education not being focused on a fad should make them unhirable, since they're not valuing the the unchanging principles, accounting practices and laws of how to run a business they're there to learn. if they think they should just show up and AI everything and fake people out about company valuations so they can IPO, they should just be kicked out of the program.

why should circle have the monopoly on stable coins?

good foundations, but what happens at scale? how trustworthy are the custodians of stable coins to maintain solvency? if you create a stable coin, and back it with treasuries, which the idea is they are completely safe, right? but what if treasuries become not safe.

just as bank notes were the first abstraction from gold, it seems like this is an abstraction from fiat. bank notes issued against gold had similar governance issues; who verified the gold deposits and that banks couldnt just print more certificates than they could redeem instantly?

i would be desperately concerned about allowing this practice. but it seems like its the direction we're going, which if you game it out long enough it will eventually just explode.

it'll have value, but it will be reduced to and approach the cost of the electricity

with agent based purchasing, it will increase active competition for all resources. everything will go up in price because of it, wrapped in a tool that is supposed to help you find the least expensive option. what a grift.

every 10 minutes bitcoin produces around $300,000 in economic value. if it weren't, the price of bitcoin would adjust appropriately.

a freshly mined bitcoin is actually worth more than the spot price of bitcoin

i appreciate your engagement. i checked the links provided and they are more self-referential "research". there's no real study behind any of these "analysis" beyond what i would call napkin math of taking a series of estimates to emerge with a cost to mine bitcoin.

for example, very simplistically, you can take guess at the cost to mine using the mining rate of a typical miner and multiply that by the cost of electricity, and then obfuscate that behind some more hogwash, but that simplistic analysis is grossly inaccurate because it assumes that all miner's are using the same electricity rate. for example, bitcoin thrives on cheap electricity. cheap electricity comes from lost or stranded sources and contributes to the hashrate.

there are also power sharing agreements in place where bitcoin miners operate as a consumer of last resort and turn themselves off when the grid demands them to.

in the end, what im saying is the original article has no citation and there is no good study that concludes with any accuracy whatsoever what the cost to mine a bitcoin really is. you can guess at it, but you'll never know. the only insight that could be close to accurate would be based on whatever disclosures a publicly traded company made in their required filings.

I don't think this article was really worth posting.

The article doesn't even provide citations for the cost factors cited, and it basically boils down to "I've known it all along!" but the author doesn't really understand what they're writing about. It's PCGamer, an article by a games author, dissing on bitcoin using no outside citation for the cost factors.

i did a quick google search hoping to find some sort of source for the figures invented and couldn't find it. "German bitcoin $200,000" only google search result is this article.

its really easy to argue against something when you decide what the narrative is youre arguing against. completely invented perception, truly.

Trump's team will cut this research ASAP because cutting the research will make it never happen.

*fingers in ears and screaming* LALALALALA CANT HEAR YOU ITS FAKE NEWS.

their lie still got their headline. Still got them attention. Still got investor dollars and increased valuation.

We live in a post-truth society where value isn't based on anything real.

The 25 year olds might not yet understand this, but "AI factored into perfromance reviews" from the people exploiting your labor means they want 100x productivity and you get 3% raise.

its always shocking to learn where i sit in the slashdot reader# pile when legends like this are so far away.

rip dave taht i never knew about you, now im sad i didn't.

Climate change is real and it will raise costs for insurance, but the real driver behind raising costs for insurance is the inflationary monetary supply. The cost to insure a building is far higher in 2025 than it was in 1980, not because its more likely to be destroyed but because the cost for replacement is so much higher. The labor isnt there, the materials arent there, all of the economic value has been sucked out of the economy and replaced with air.