Either you want to save the planet *or* you invest $1.5bn in the most energy inefficient currency. You can't do both.

I stopped reading at "Bitcoin uses regenerative energy". If the state of Rhineland-Palatinate wants to be climate neutral 2030 and thereby honor the Parise Climate Agreement, we have to QUADRUPLE solar and energy. With such shortage, it is not the time to waste energy on Bitcoin.

We’ve discussed this before, and I’m not sure you’re right. Whether or not it’s worth investing the energy depends on whether or not it replaces something else that’s worse or not. I’m not sure that it does, nor sure that it doesn’t.

What might it replace that was costing 3 household-weeks of energy per transaction?

Nothing if you believe those numbers (which are disputed) and if you believe this is all it can do. Major parts of the global financial monetary system with all its intransparent costs (including energy) if you believe in its future potential (which is disputed). Pick your truth.

Hmm. We should be able to estimate costs ±1000% without too much research — what's the lowest estimate for BTC you've seen? Can BTC replace more than payment processing? For upsides of crypto I assume a better plan is, push ETH's move to proof-of-stake over proof-of-work.