Elon Musk And The Other Billionaires Whose Fortunes Fell This Week As Tech Stocks Continue To Struggle


The founders of Tesla, Oracle and Airbnb lost billions of dollars this week amid surging market volatility and continued pressure on tech stocks.


espite several days of declines, stock indices finished the week slightly higher, offsetting some of this month’s widespread losses. But the market’s troubles look far from over. 

Many tech company CEOs and founders were unsurprisingly among the billionaires whose fortunes fell the most since the market close on Friday, January 21, according to Forbes’ calculations.

Leading the declines for the second week in a row: Tesla chief exec Elon Musk, whose fortune fell $22 billion after shares of his electric vehicle maker had yet another rough week, falling over 10%. Even though Tesla posted record profits after reporting quarterly earnings on Wednesday, investors focused on the company’s warning that supply chain issues may hurt growth in 2022. 

Musk also took to Twitter on Thursday to insult President Joe Biden, apparently in response to being snubbed at a White House forum for electric vehicle makers. Still the world’s richest person, Musk now has a net worth of $222.2 billion, according to Forbes’ estimates.

Oracle cofounder Larry Ellison, meanwhile, fell from fifth to eight richest in the world over the course of the  week as shares of his software giant sank more than 2%. Ellison, who owns about 35% of Oracle (and has pledged millions of his shares as collateral for loans), saw his fortune drop by $3.4 billion, to $109.2 billion, according to Forbes’ calculations. Shares of Oracle have been on a downward trajectory since last month, when the company confirmed it was planning to acquire medical records company Cerner for nearly $30 billion.

Other notable billionaires whose net worths fell this week include Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky and Roblox cofounder David Baszucki. Chesky, who cofounded the home rental company in 2008, dropped $1.1 billion to $11.3 billion, , as shares of Airbnb fell 9% this week. Meanwhile, shares of gaming company Roblox fell nearly 16% since last Friday, shaving roughly $700 million off of Baszucki’s net worth, which now stands at $3.9 billion, Forbes estimates.

Fourth quarter earnings season has so far failed to boost equities as some big name companies posted lackluster results. Combined with investor fears about the Federal Reserve’s tightening monetary policy and upcoming interest rate hikes, the stock market is now on pace for its worst month since March 2020. 

As government bond yields surge, investors have continued to rotate out of riskier growth and tech stocks, many of which have been among the hardest hit in the market’s wider sell-off. The  tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite, which is in correction territory after falling nearly 15% since the start of 2022, is on pace for its worst January ever—and its worst month overall since the financial crisis in October 2008

Other billionaires whose fortunes contracted this week: Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong’s  net worth dropped around $600 million to $7.3 billion, as shares of his cryptocurrency exchange fell 7.5%. Spotify cofounder Daniel Ek similarly lost around $400 million—putting his net worth at $2.9 billion—as shares of his music streaming platform fell nearly 12% since last Friday.

The fortunes of Snap cofounders Bobby Murphy and Evan Spiegel,  declined by $350 million and $250 million, respectively. They’re now worth $6.4 billion and $6.2 billion, after Snap’s stock fell over 5% this week.


The net worth change is from close of markets Friday, January 21 to Friday, January 28.
































Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Dogecoin Soars After Elon Musk Says It Can Be Used To Buy Tesla Merch


The value of meme-based cryptocurrency dogecoin surged Friday morning after Elon Musk said Tesla will accept the popular token as payment for some of its merchandise, signaling the electric car maker’s renewed interest in digital currencies after it temporarily accepted payments in bitcoin last year.  

Key Facts

The price of dogecoin jumped nearly 12% Friday morning, at one point trading just above $0.2, after Musk made the announcement on social media.  

Musk tweeted: “Tesla merch buyable with Dogecoin” and the company’s online store displayed prices for some items—including a whistle inspired by its highly anticipated Cybertruck model (300 DOGE), an electric quad bike for children (12020) and a belt buckle (835)—in both U.S. dollars and the popular crypto token. 

Dogecoin’s growth stands out amid the relative calm of top cryptocurrencies, which remained relatively flat over the past 24 hours. 

Key Background

In December, Musk said Tesla would shortly be accepting dogecoin for some products and the token’s value soared nearly 20% in an hour. Musk’s social media posts are incredibly influential and have caused dramatic shifts in financial markets in the past, particularly with cryptocurrencies and assets popular with retail traders. Interest in dogecoin, one of the most volatile assets within an already volatile asset class, has tracked Musk closely, swiftly going from a joke to one of the world’s most valuable cryptocurrencies at its peak. It is currently the 11th most valuable token and has a market capitalization of over $26 billion, according to CoinGecko.


Tesla briefly accepted bitcoin, the world’s most valuable cryptocurrency by market cap, as payment for its electric vehicles. Musk cited concerns over bitcoin’s environmental impact when he announced the company would no longer accept it as payment, sending its value plummeting.

Further Reading

Tesla Will Accept Dogecoin Payments For Some Products And ‘See How It Goes,’ Says CEO Elon Musk (Forbes)

Bitcoin Tanks After Elon Musk Says Tesla Stops Accepting It Due To Carbon Energy Use (Forbes)


Tagged : / / / / / / / / /

Blockchain’s Biggest Businesses: Forbes Blockchain 50 Call For 2022 Nominations

Over the first three years of the Forbes Blockchain 50, our list of billion-dollar companies making meaningful use of the technology popularized by bitcoin, has become a bellwether of institutional adoption. Our list shines light on how large corporations—often household names like Walmart and Novartis— are using blockchain tech to improve business processes and become more efficient and profitable. Now is your chance to help us find the best possible honorees for next year.

Each year’s list, which requires that members be valued at $1 billion or more, or generate $1 billion in revenue, has demonstrated the technology’s wide and growing geographic and industry reach. Over time, it has shifted from a focus on early stage proof of concept projects to functioning technology with giant transaction volumes. And it has increasingly featured consumer-facing companies, rather than only B2B players.

In other words, the distributed ledger technology that lets a group of users agree on a single truth, and prove that a digital object is only in one place at a time, is actually being used. And it’s not only being used by nimble startups with little to lose, but also by generations-old enterprises with some of the best known and trusted names in the world: Fidelity, Honeywell, Visa and the NBA.

Forbes Blockchain 50 – Inside The Class Of 2021

With the rapid rise of bitcoin, which this year reached an all time high of $64,000, the number of companies aiming to capitalize on the original digital asset has surged. What began with cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase, which made the first list in 2019 when bitcoin was only worth $5,000 and went public this year with an $86 billion direct listing, has expanded to include companies such as business analytics firm MicroStrategy, which essentially turned itself into bitcoin ETF by holding more than $5 billion worth of bitcoin. 

“There is going to be more change in the next 5 years than we have seen in the last 30 years in the financial system,” said Dan Schulman, the CEO of Blockchain 50 lister, PayPal, speaking at last year’s Blockchain 50 Symposium. “And I think digital currencies are going to lead the way.”

Know a company whose blockchain innovation is under-appreciated? Let us know now, and help us spread the word using #Blockchain50 on Twitter. Has your company been overlooked in the past, or fallen off the list, but is breaking new ground by making real strides with blockchain? Let us know how. Do you work at one of the nine firms that has been on the list all three years, and is still leading the way? We want to know what the company is doing that merits it remaining on the list.

The nomination deadline is Friday, November 5. Once the nomination period ends, a team of Forbes reporters and editors will sort through the nominees, looking for the most mature blockchain programs run by the most talented teams in the world. Winners will be revealed in a 2022 magazine issue, and online.


Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Bitcoin’s Energy Use Compared To Other Major Industries

As a civil engineer still working in the construction industry full-time, the burgeoning Bitcoin ecosystem is not an environment where I can easily make any significant impact in terms of technological development or coding. That said, there are several civil engineering skills that transfer over to the Bitcoin space, mainly, environmental analysis and strong knowledge of the built environment and traditional commodity mining, which is where I initially found my niche in the Bitcoin space back in 2014.

If you were wondering why I’d only previously compared Bitcoin to banking, gold and the military industrial complex, and not more industries and sectors such as my very own building and construction sector, or even healthcare or transport (road, rail, air and sea) for that matter, then today’s your lucky day! Let’s have a look at some data on all of the above.

How Much Energy Is Bitcoin Consuming?

For context, at time of writing, the Cambridge Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index (CBECI) estimates Bitcoin’s annual energy use at 79 terawatt hours (TWh).

The next question is one of carbon intensity. In a previous article, I calculated the carbon intensity of the Bitcoin network to be around 420 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour (kWh) based on data from Cambridge’s “3rd Global Cryptoasset Benchmarking Study.” However, this was long before the Chinese mining exodus happened in June and July 2021, where almost half of the entire network unplugged its mostly coal-powered rigs.

Figure 17 from that report (page 27), shown below as figure One, demonstrates the typical energy sources for miners around the world.

The data shows Bitcoin’s energy use would represent just a rounding error in the construction, transportation or healthcare industries.

Figure one: energy sources by region (source: Cambridge Centre For Alternative Finance).

China is now out of the picture, and fresh data from the Bitcoin Mining Council (BMC) (figure two) shows that over two-thirds of the membership, representing almost one-third of the network hash rate, is being powered by low-emissions energy sources, and that global Bitcoin mining is now estimated to receive 56% of its energy needs from sustainable sources (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, geothermal and other “renewables”).

The data shows Bitcoin’s energy use would represent just a rounding error in the construction, transportation or healthcare industries.

Figure two: Bitcoin energy mix (source: Bitcoin Mining Council)

To that end, I offer a new global mining profile and carbon intensity figure of 280 grams of CO2 per kWh, using my original methodology presented in this previous article (see section one on energy mix) based on the below assumed generation mix, and 50th percentile IPCC carbon intensity figures (see page 190). The dramatic drop is a result of moving a large proportion of the network from coal to gas, cutting the carbon intensity of Bitcoin by a third.

The data shows Bitcoin’s energy use would represent just a rounding error in the construction, transportation or healthcare industries.

Figure three: Carbon intensity and energy mix comparative data, CBECI and BMC scenarios

As can be seen, since the Chinese exodus, Bitcoin’s carbon intensity has dropped by a third, from 419 to 280, mainly as a result of shifting away from coal to the much cleaner natural gas. Comparing Bitcoin to global primary energy production shows that Bitcoin is less than half as carbon intense, and when compared to the world’s grid, is over 40% less carbon intense.

So! Now that we know Bitcoin’s carbon intensity is 280 g of CO2 per kWh (or 0.28 megatonnes [Mt] of CO2 per TWh), and that Bitcoin uses 79 TWh per year, we can quickly arrive at an emissions figure of 22.1 Mt CO2 per year.

Bitcoin’s Energy Use Compared To Building And Construction

The United Nations Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (Global ABC) provides detailed data on the building and construction sector in its annual “Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction.” The below figure comes from the 2020 iteration of its report, and is based on data from The International Energy Association’s (IEA) “World Energy Statistics and Balances Database” (paywalled) and “Energy Technology Perspectives” report (free).

The data shows Bitcoin’s energy use would represent just a rounding error in the construction, transportation or healthcare industries.

Figure four: Carbon intensity and energy mix comparative data (source: UN Global ABC)

The “Energy Technology Perspectives” report states that “primary energy use worldwide reached 14,400 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) in 2019” (page 36), and that there were 33 gigatonnes (Gt) of greenhouse gases (GHG) linked to fossil fuel energy generation globally in 2019 (page 49), expected to drop to 30.6 Gt in 2020 due to COVID (page 50). GHGs are also produced by non-fossil-fuel energy generation, and total world CO2 emissions for 2019 were 36,440 (Mt).

To be conservative, I will assume that The UN is taking the IEA figure of 33 Gt. To that end, 38% of emissions is equal to 12,540 Mt CO2. The UN Global ABC states that “Global final energy consumption for buildings operation was approximately 130 EJ [exajoules] [about 36111 TWh], which is around 30% of total final consumption, and a further 21 EJ [about 5833 TWh] for buildings and construction or 5% of total demand” (page 20).

So, from the above figures, what numbers can we draw? First, let’s establish the uniform units of “terawatt hours (TWh)” for energy use and “megatonnes of CO2 equivalents” (MtCO2e) for carbon emissions — I wish all of the various environmental and energy agencies would follow suit! To that end, 1 megatonne of oil equivalent (Mtoe) is equal to 11.63 TWh, 1 quad British thermal unit (BTU) is equal to 293.07 TWh, and 1 EJ is equal to 277.777 TWh.

Here’s where it gets a little messy, and why comparisons and debates are not useful — the “official” environmental data is always opaque, inconsistent and sometimes misleading. In the same report, the IEA specifies that primary energy supply was 14,400 Mtoe, or 167,472 TWh. Later, on page 159, it says, “[Operating] the buildings sector — including residences, offices, shops, hotels, schools and other public and commercial premises [but not including construction of these premises] — today accounts directly and indirectly for 30% of the final energy consumed around the world, or around 3,100 Mtoe, including almost 55% of global electricity consumption.”

Notice the subtle difference? It starts with production numbers, but switches to consumption numbers for a stronger narrative — the bigger the number, the bigger the evil. 3,100 Mtoe is only 36,053 TWh, which is only 21.5% of global energy production. If you’re doing the math in your head and wondering how the building sector uses 21.5% of the world’s produced energy, but at the same time, 30% of the world’s consumed energy, you would be 100% correct in concluding that almost one-third of what we produce is not consumed at all and simply goes to waste.

To be precise, in the IEA’s “Key World Energy Statistics 2020” report, it showed that only 9,938 Mtoe of energy was consumed (page 34) out of 14,282 Mtoe supplied (page six) — 30.41%, 4,344 Mtoe, or 50,520 TWh, is wasted. When the wastage alone can power Bitcoin over 639 times, it is at this point where all debate about Bitcoin energy consumption should die, but alas, we endure.

Sorry to get off track! Here are those numbers that I promised you earlier, but not as percentages of world consumption, but as raw numbers:

  • Non-residential buildings: 9,330 TWh
  • Residential buildings: 26,481 TWh
  • Construction: 5,833 TWh
  • Sector total energy use: 40,830 TWh
    • Bitcoin: 79TWh, or 0.19% of the building and construction industry

  • Sector total emissions: 12,735 MtCO2
    • Bitcoin: 22.1 Mt CO2 or 0.18% of the building and construction industry

  • Sector carbon intensity: 330.6 g per kWh (about 20% more intense than Bitcoin)
The data shows Bitcoin’s energy use would represent just a rounding error in the construction, transportation or healthcare industries.

Figure five: Bitcoin versus buildings — yearly energy use, in TWh

Bitcoin’s Energy Use Compared To The Transportation Industry

Once again, the data here fails us somewhat. You’d expect that the IEA, an agency focused on energy, would provide detailed figures on such things as energy consumption in the transportation industry. Alas, the best they can do for us is carbon emissions for specific subsectors, and an overall energy figure of “28% of the world’s energy” (around 32,600 TWh).

While this is probably quite important for an environmentalist to know, it would be nice to have TWh data too, but I digress. Here is the transportation sector’s emissions data, in Mt CO2, with the size of the industry sub-sector shown as a percentage, in brackets:

  • Passenger road vehicles (including buses): 3,643 (45%)
  • Road freight vehicles: 2,406 (29.7%)
  • Shipping: 858 (10.6%)
  • Aviation: 937 (11.6%)
  • Rail: 78 (1.0%)
  • Other: 174 (2.1%)
  • Total emissions: 8,096 Mt CO2
    • Bitcoin: 22.1 Mt CO2, or 0.28% of the transportation industry

In terms of a more concrete energy figure, the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) presented the following figures on page 127 of its “2016 International Energy Outlook,” shown below as figure six.

The data shows Bitcoin’s energy use would represent just a rounding error in the construction, transportation or healthcare industries.

Figure six: World transportation energy consumption by energy source (source: EIA)

The EIA also provided some subsector information on page 131 of its “2016 International Energy Outlook,” and it shows that percentage of energy consumption and percentage of emissions are quite similar. For example, road vehicles are responsible for 46% of transportation energy use, and 45% of emissions. Air transport is responsible for about 12% of energy use and 11.6% of emissions. This is due to most petroleum fuels having very similar impacts to each other, which will be explained in further detail at the end of this section.

The data shows Bitcoin’s energy use would represent just a rounding error in the construction, transportation or healthcare industries.

Figure seven: World transportation energy consumption by mode (source: EIA)

Using the above ratios, and a total sector energy use of 118 quad BTU in 2020, or 34,582 TWh, we have the following:

  • Light-duty passenger road vehicles: 15,424 TWh (44.6%)
  • Air transportation: 4,046 TWh (11.7%)
  • Bus: 1,321 TWh (3.8%)
  • Other transportation: 859 TWh (2.5%)
  • Road freight vehicles (heavy vehicles and other trucks): 8,059 TWh (23.3%)
  • Marine shipping: 4,063 TWh (11.7%)
  • Rail: 793 TWh (2.3%)
  • Total energy use: 34,582 TWh
    • Bitcoin: 79 TWh, or 0.23% of the transportation industry

  • Sector carbon intensity: 234 g CO2 per kWh (about 16% less intense than Bitcoin, 50% less intense than the world grid)
The data shows Bitcoin’s energy use would represent just a rounding error in the construction, transportation or healthcare industries.

Figure eight: Bitcoin versus transportation — yearly energy use, in TWh

It’s not a nice thing to acknowledge, but if you’re charging your Tesla on the U.S. natural-gas-powered grid, or the slightly-greener world average grid, or basically anything other than your own solar roof panels, you’d be doing 50% less damage to the environment by driving an internal combustion vehicle. We just calculated the carbon intensity of fossil-fuel-driven transport to be 234 g CO2 per kWh based on emissions and energy data from the EIA and IEA (I swear to God, they do that with their acronyms on purpose!). Here, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shows that most petroleum products (including jet fuel, gasoline and diesel) have a carbon intensity of around 65 kg CO2 per mmBTU to 75 kg CO2 per mmBTU, or, about 222 g CO2 per kWh to 256 g CO2 per kWh — which gives us strong validation of our calculated transportation industry figure of 234 g CO2 per kWh.

Bitcoin’s Energy Use Compared To The Healthcare Industry

No matter how controversial a topic, if data exists on its energy use, I’m here to provide it to you.

A widely-cited article in the “European Journal Of Public Health” in September 2020, “Health Care’s Climate Footprint: The Health Sector Contribution And Opportunities For Action,” shows that, globally, healthcare’s climate footprint is equivalent to 4.4% of global net emissions, based on detailed data from 43 countries, including the top three emitters, The U.S., the EU and China, which are responsible for more than half of the total healthcare footprint. The 4.4% figure is an average of course, with a Lancet published analysis, noting that healthcare accounted for only 3% of emissions in the U.K, but for 10% of emissions in the U.S. and 7% in Australia.

But 4.4% of global emissions doesn’t necessarily correspond to 4.4% of global energy use, as we have just seen from the building and construction (35% of energy versus 38% of emissions — mainly thanks to the high intensity of steel and cement production) and transportation industries (28% of energy versus 22% of emissions — mainly thanks to far lower carbon intensity of liquid fuels in vehicles, ships and aircraft relative to using fossil fuels for electrical generation).

One study concludes that healthcare facilities (hospitals, general practitioner clinics, etc.) in the U.S. consume 210 TWh of energy per year, which is 10.3% of total energy consumption in the U.S. commercial building sector. Another Lancet paper, this time on the U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS), shows that emissions from energy used in buildings accounts for only 10.1% of total emissions of the healthcare system, as shown in figure nine below. The supply chain and commissioned services make up another 66%; personal, fleet and business travel another 13.6%; and the remaining 10.3% come from anaesthetic gases, water and waste. These are not dissimilar from international figures showing that the supply chain accounts for 71% of emissions.

The data shows Bitcoin’s energy use would represent just a rounding error in the construction, transportation or healthcare industries.

Figure nine: Emissions breakdown of the U.K. NHS

But this still doesn’t get us to the answer we’re looking for: How much energy does healthcare use? We already know that transportation and heat energy are far less “carbon intense” than electrical energy generated by fossil fuels (about 250 g CO2/kWh versus 500 g CO2 per kWh to 1,000 g CO2 per kWh, respectively), so the best we can do is assume a world average grid of 487 g CO2 per kWh for all non-travel related items, and 250 g CO2 per kWh for transportation-related items. When we do this, we achieve a total of 3,716 TWh of energy from an emissions base of 1,603 Mt CO2 (i.e., 4.4% of the world’s emissions of 36,440 Mt CO2), at an average carbon-intensity of 431 g CO2 per kWh. This figure shows that healthcare is more grid-dependent in its energy use than on liquid fuels for transport and shipping. In contrast, Bitcoin uses only 2.1% of this energy, emits only 1.4% of the CO2 and is more than 35% less carbon intense

Revisiting Bitcoin’s Energy Use Compared To Finance, Gold And The Military-Industrial Complex


As per my previous piece, the breakdown for the gold mining industry, excluding additional refining of gold for industrial use, is as follows:

  • Total energy use: 265 TWh
    • Bitcoin: 79 TWh, or 29.8% of the gold mining and jewelry industries

  • Total Emissions: 145 MtCO2
    • Bitcoin: 22.1 Mt CO2, or 15.2% of the gold mining and jewelry industries

  • Sector carbon intensity: 547 g per kWh (about 95% more intense than Bitcoin)

Finance And Insurance

As per my previous piece, we found that the finance sector emitted 1,368 Mt CO2 per year, using the help of the University of California, Berkeley’s (UCB) CoolClimate Network (CCN) model. While it doesn’t explicitly provide a figure for energy use, it provides a great breakup of where the emissions come from. As shown in figure 10 below, 80% of emissions came from transportation, with 20% going to facilities and procurement. Using the same approach we did with healthcare earlier, we will assume a carbon intensity of 250g CO2 per kWh for travel, and 487g CO2 per kWh (i.e., “the world grid”) for procurement and facilities.

The data shows Bitcoin’s energy use would represent just a rounding error in the construction, transportation or healthcare industries.

Figure 10: UCB CCN model output

The resulting energy breakdowns are as follows:

  • Transportation: 4,377 TWh (88.6%)
  • Facilities: 309 TWh (6.3%)
  • Procurement: 253 TWh (5.1%)
  • Total energy use: 4,939 TWh
    • Bitcoin: 79 TWh, or 1.6% of the finance and insurance industries

  • Total emissions: 1,368 MtCO2
    • Bitcoin: 22.1 Mt CO2, or 1.6% of the financial and insurance industries

  • Sector carbon intensity: 277 g per kWh (about 1% less intense than Bitcoin)

Military-Industrial Complex

As per my previous piece, we saw that the global military industrial complex was responsible for roughly 5% of global GHG emissions, or around 2,500 Mt CO2e per year. Again, we’re faced with the emissions versus energy problem, but luckily, we have enough transparency in the data to make valid estimates. We know that fuel use accounts for around 11% of energy use, facilities for around 6% and the final 83% coming from the nearly $2 trillion dollar military industry. We even know that the 57 Mt CO2 emitted by the U.S. Department of Defense came from 207.45 TWh of energy use, or, a carbon intensity of around 270g CO2 per kWh — primarily driven by fuel use instead of electricity.

The industrial and manufacturing sectors are far more procurement- and-facilities driven than the financial sector, which is predominantly human- and travel-driven. Transportation accounts for 80% of the financial industry’s energy use. In the manufacturing industry, it is closer to only 25%. Therefore, we have the following:

  • Military fuel/transportation use: 275 Mt CO2, 1,100 TWh
  • Military facilities use: 150 Mt CO2, 308 TWh
  • Military industry fuel/transportation use: 525 Mt CO2, 2,100 TWh
  • Military industry facilities and procurement use: 1,550 Mt CO2, 3,183 TWh
  • Total energy use: 6,691 TWh
    • Bitcoin: 79 TWh, or 1.18% of the military-industrial complex

  • Total emissions: 2,500 MtCO2
    • Bitcoin: 22.1 Mt CO2, or 0.88% of the military-industrial complex

  • Sector carbon intensity: 374 g CO2 per kWh (about 33% more intense than Bitcoin)


As always, the numbers speak for themselves, and I’ll let the below figure tell the story:

The data shows Bitcoin’s energy use would represent just a rounding error in the construction, transportation or healthcare industries.

Figure 11: Bitcoin versus other industries — yearly energy use, in TWh

A few caveats: The above figures are not mutually exclusive — in practice, the all-encompassing building and construction sectors’ energy use is spread out to most other sectors, as is the case with the various transportation sectors. Many of the above figures are reverse engineered from a raft of “authoritative,” yet contradictory, sources.

The main takeaway should be that Bitcoin is a rounding error in the global scheme of things, and from a carbon-intensity point of view, has significantly less emissions per kilowatt than finance, construction, healthcare, industry or the military, and will only improve further in time. My prediction still stands: Bitcoin’s carbon intensity will go from 280 g CO2 per kWh today, to around 100 g in 2026, and zero by 2031, and maybe, finally, we’ll be done with this debate.

This is a guest post by Hass McCook. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.


Tagged : / / / / / / /

Bitcoin Bounces Back From Three Month Low As Elon Musk Denies Tesla Has Sold Its Crypto Assets


Bitcoin started to bounce back from a three month low Monday morning after Tesla CEO Elon Musk denied the company had sold its sizable bitcoin assets, marking the latest swing in volatile crypto markets since the billionaire precipitated a $300 billion crash by announcing Tesla would no longer accept bitcoin as payment due to its weighty environmental footprint. 

Key Facts

Bitcoin prices rallied Monday morning after Musk clarified that “Tesla has not sold any Bitcoin.”

The crypto’s value surged by about 7% in the 20 minutes following Musk’s tweet to around $45,700 a token. 

A hint from Musk that Tesla may sell its $1.5 billion bitcoin holding Sunday sent prices plummeting to around $42,000 a coin, the lowest since February.

Bitcoin remains the most valuable cryptocurrency by a long margin—its market cap, around $850 billion, is still over double that of its closest rival Ethereum and more than ten times its third closest, Binance Coin.

But the crypto market is still reeling from a $300 billion crash precipitated when Musk said Tesla said it would no longer accept bitcoin as payment.   

Key Background

Cryptocurrencies are a notoriously volatile asset class and, increasingly, subject to the whims and fancies of Musk, whose social media activity alone can shift or create value at breakneck speed. Much of the big bitcoin movements this year can be traced to Musk, with the token surging to a new all time high in March after he revealed the cryptocurrency could be used to purchase Tesla vehicles, a hotly anticipated move first teased when Tesla revealed it had invested $1.5 billion in the controversial asset and what many saw as a signal of confidence that could bring bitcoin closer to mainstream use. Now, many major institutions are embracing cryptocurrencies after years of hesitation, if only to satisfy growing client demand. Tesla’s decision to stop accepting bitcoin, for environmental reasons, knocked around $300 billion off the crypto market, though created appetite for environmentally friendly cryptos like Cardano’s ada, which temporarily soared to become the fourth most valuable cryptocurrency. 


Dogecoin is another cryptocurrency Musk frequently influences, helping take it from something created as a joke to one of the most valuable cryptocurrencies around. Its value surged to all time highs earlier this month in anticipation of Musk’s SNL performance, but it plummeted 40% after he called it a “hustle.” Its value dropped further in the $300 billion sell off, though rallied when Musk hinted Tesla may accept doge in payment and said he was working with the engineers to produce a more efficient system. At the time of writing, dogecoin is the sixth most valuable cryptocurrency.   

Crucial Quote

Musk has repeatedly warned people to “invest with caution,” describing crypto assets as speculative. 

Further Reading

Elon Musk Sends Bitcoin Tumbling With A One-Word Tweet (Forbes)

Tesla Will Stop Accepting Bitcoin As Payment Due To Environmental Worries, Musk Says (Forbes)

Dogecoin Stages A Comeback Amid Crypto’s $300 Billion Crash, Soaring 30% As Elon Musk And Coinbase Signal Confidence (Forbes)

Elon Musk Warns People To ‘Invest With Caution’ As Dogecoin Rallies Ahead Of His SNL Appearance (Forbes)

Cardano Surges During $300 Billion Crypto Crash As Musk Eyes Sustainable Bitcoin Alternatives (Forbes)


Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / /

Elon Musk Says Tesla Stops Accepting Bitcoin For Car Purchases Due To Carbon Energy Use

Elon Musk, who has become a force in the cryptocurrency universe, said Tesla is no longer accepting Bitcoin as payment for purchases of its electric vehicles owing to the excessive amount of carbon-based energy it uses. Bitcoin fell more than 6% following his tweet.

“We are concerned about rapidly increasing use of fossil fuels for Bitcoin mining and transactions, especially coal, which has the worst emissions of any fuel,” Musk tweeted on Wednesday afternoon. “Cryptocurrency is a good idea on many levels and we believe it has a promising future, but this cannot come at great cost to the environment.”

While Tesla isn’t going to accept Bitcoin as payment, the company’s billionaire CEO said it also won’t be selling holdings in the cryptocurrency and still plans to use “it for transactions as soon as mining transitions to more sustainable energy.”

The move is a curious one since Tesla’s recent $1.5 billion Bitcoin investment triggered a surge in the currency’s value. It also helped the carmaker report a first-quarter project this year, owing to the $101 million gain it reported from selling 10% of its Bitcoin holdings. He’s also made comments that pumped up and then undercut Dogecoin, a cryptocurrency that started as a joke.

Musk said the company is looking at other cryptocurrencies that “use “<1% of Bitcoin’s energy/transaction,” without identifying specific alternatives. 

Bitcoin dropped 6.2% to $52,960 at 7:59 p.m. New York time on Wednesday, while Tesla shares fell 4.4% to $589.89 in Nasdaq trading.

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Send me a secure tip

I track technology-driven changes that reshape how we get around (from Los Angeles, America’s sunny capital of congestion).


Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Dogecoin Reclaims Spot As Fourth Most Valuable Cryptocurrency After Elon Musk Fuels Speculation Tesla Could Accept It As Payment


Shiba Inu-based cryptocurrency dogecoin reclaimed its spot as the fourth most valuable cryptocurrency Tuesday after Tesla CEO Elon Musk asked Twitter followers if the company should accept the token as payment for its vehicles, a move that could legitimize the highly volatile asset and restore some of the value it had lost after Musk called it a “hustle” on SNL Saturday.

Key Facts

In the space of an hour, the billionaire’s tweet garnered over a million responses, with nearly 80% of people  supporting the idea in a poll. 

The price of dogecoin rose nearly 14% to around 53 cents a coin, down from an all time high of 73 cents this weekend in advance of Musk’s SNL appearance.

The rally took dogecoin’s market cap over $68 billion, surpassing XRP as the fourth most valuable crypto. 

Key Background 

Musk’s highly anticipated appearance on Saturday Night Live whipped up doge-related interest online, prompting a weeklong rally that took it to new all time highs of over 70 cents a coin. The billionaire is one of the most high-profile proponents of it and other cryptocurrencies, though he has urged people to invest with caution as it is still a speculative asset class. Its value plummeted 40% following Musk’s performance. The token is volatile and highly responsive to Musk’s actions, with some of the biggest spikes for dogecoin coming after the token was mentioned by Elon Musk on Twitter, often with memes. 


Bitcoin surged to a new all time high in March after Elon Musk revealed the cryptocurrency could now be used to purchase Tesla vehicles, a hotly anticipated move first teased when Tesla revealed it had invested $1.5 billion in the controversial asset and a signal of confidence that could bring bitcoin closer to mainstream use. After years of hesitation, major institutions are now embracing cryptocurrencies, if only to satisfy client demand.

Further Reading

“Elon Musk Warns People To ‘Invest With Caution’ As Dogecoin Rallies Ahead Of His SNL Appearance” (Forbes)

Bitcoin Surges As Elon Musk Says It Can Be Used To Buy Teslas (Forbes)

Dogecoin Rockets Towards ‘The Moon’ — Meme Cryptocurrency Nears 70 Cents As Rally Continues (Forbes)

Dogecoin Down Nearly 40% From Record Value After Elon Musk ‘SNL’ Appearance (Forbes)

‘It’s Doge Time’: Dogecoin Surges As Reddit Traders Push To Make It The Crypto GameStop (Forbes)

Dogecoin Soars Past 70 Cents To Record High After Elon Musk SNL Tease (Forbes)


Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / /

Bitcoin Surges As Elon Musk Says It Can Be Used To Buy Teslas


Bitcoin’s price surged Wednesday after Elon Musk revealed the cryptocurrency could now be used to purchase Tesla vehicles, a hotly anticipated move first teased when Tesla revealed it had invested $1.5 billion in the controversial asset and a signal of confidence that could bring Bitcoin closer to mainstream use. 

Key Facts

Musk revealed the new purchase option on Twitter early Wednesday morning, tweeting: “You can now buy a Tesla with Bitcoin.”

To begin with, the payment option will only be available in the U.S., Musk said, with plans to expand to other countries “later this year.” 

Musk said the Bitcoin paid to Tesla “will be retained as Bitcoin” and not be converted to fiat currency, boosting the company’s $1.5 billion holding in the cryptocurrency that it announced in February. 

The price of Bitcoin, which has fallen in the last few days, pushed back beyond $56,500 after Musk’s tweet.

Key Background

The announcement of Tesla’s acceptance of Bitcoin once again places Musk at the center of a cryptocurrency spike. The billionaire’s tweets have been known to send its value skyrocketing, with the price of bitcoin surging more than 15% in 15 minutes when he added the hashtag #bitcoin to his profile at the end of January and Dogecoin, a cryptocurrency originally invented as a joke, has soared in value with Musk’s vocal online support, proving especially popular among retail traders. 

Big Number

$1.5 billion. Tesla spurred a surge in institutional interest in Bitcoin when it announced the significant investment, fueling a huge rally. Many other institutions, including BNY Mellon and MasterCard, announced plans to utilize the cryptocurrency. 

Crucial Quote 

“I think bitcoin is really on the verge of getting broad acceptance by sort of the conventional finance people,” Tesla CEO Elon Musk said on Clubhouse earlier this year.

Further Reading

Not Just Tesla: Big Institutions Keep Piling Into Bitcoin As Price Rockets Past $50,000 (Forbes)

Bitcoin Soars To New High After Tesla Says It Invested $1.5 Billion (Forbes)

Bitcoin Poised For ‘Massive Transformation’ Into The Mainstream, Citi Says (Forbes)


Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Bitcoin (BTC) $ 26,577.12 0.12%
Ethereum (ETH) $ 1,591.80 0.31%
Litecoin (LTC) $ 64.83 0.17%
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) $ 208.06 0.03%