Bitdeer strengthens rebuttal to NYT's mining piece
Drama takes interesting turn as no energy benefits found in income statements
There has been a lot of pushback this week towards the New York Times story on bitcoin mining from the industry, accusing the media outlet of losing credibility and ethical standards by manipulating a preset agenda. TL;DR of the story was that bitcoin mining companies got rich either way by consuming or curtailing electricity at the expense of the public.
Riot issued a response shortly after the article was published, saying the media outlet distorted realities and made false assumptions about certain numbers.
A few days later, Riot’s Rockdale neighbor Bitdeer, which just went public on Friday, said the NYT made false claims about its Texas business at the top sections of the story. That adds to a series of rebuttal that challenges the foundation of the critique as the story mainly focused on the deregulated Texas energy market like CoinDesk pointed out in this op-ed:
While the headline grandly declares it will expose “The Real-World Costs of the Digital Race for Bitcoin,” the bulk of the article’s factual findings seem to describe failures in a specific load-balancing incentive program in Texas.
By way of setting an example of real-world costs, the NYT wrote that ERCOT, the Texas grid operator, paid Bitdeer $175K/hour to shut down during Storm Uri in 2021. Without citing a source to the number, the NYT went on to claim Bitdeer would make $18mm during the five-day curtailment, except Bitdeer now says that was not true.
Bitdeer wasn’t clear though to what extent the claim was false. Did it receive no revenue benefits from ERCOT at all, or it didn’t make $18 million? But within the industry, mining companies that received power credits (like Riot) or energy benefits (like Mawson) from similar demand response programs had reflected such line items on income statements. So what about Bitdeer?
Bitdeer’s revenue streams include proprietary mining, hashrate sharing (cloud mining contracts), equipment sales, hosting, and others, based on a recent filing. “Others” refer to revenue from the provision of management services and the sale of mining machine peripherals. There was no clear indication in the filing that Bitdeer credited energy benefits in any business segment.
But either way, it seems the NYT should at least clarify these numbers. Framing a narrative is one thing but being accused of making factually incorrect claims is a different matter.
Regulation News
Niagara planning board is prepared to recommend operating permit for Blockfusion facility - Niagara Gazette
Texas Senate Passes Bill to Limit Bitcoin Miners' Participation in Demand Response Programs - CoinDesk
Bitcoin Miners Will Have Same Rights as Data Centers, Says New Arkansas Bill - Decrypt
Montana Crypto Mining Bill Passes House, Headed to Governor’s Desk - Blockworks
Hardware & Infrastructure News
CleanSpark Doubles Bitcoin Mining Fleet With $145M Deal - Decrypt
Bitfarms to Acquire 22MW Hydro Power Capacity in Baie-Comeau, Quebec - Link
Iris Energy Increases Hashrate to 3.6 EH/s from 3.1 EH/s in Early April - Link
Corporate News
Core Scientific Appoints a New President - CoinDesk
Cathedra Bitcoin Announces Closing of Debt Settlement - Link
China fines Bitmain $3.6 million for tax violations - Forkast
Bitmain’s salary structure reform accused of age discrimination - Link
Bitdeer Stock Slumps Nearly 30% at Trading Debut - CoinDesk
Feature
Marathon Digital CEO: Bitcoin Mining Bill 'Won’t Change Our Minds About Texas' - Decrypt
Sweden Drives Final Nail Into Its Bitcoin Mining Industry With Tax Hike - CoinDesk
Are you a journalist or analyst seeking more information or comments from industry experts? We’d love to help!