Carl Jung once said
“Loneliness does not come from having no people around you, but from being unable to communicate the things that seem important to you"
That's something I've been working to resolve for a while now
*Link in comments, if you're keen to know more
Who is more generous - X, LinkedIn or Nostr users?
Here's one datapoint.
We're running this campaign currently to get this Bitcoin ad into the NY Times. The campaign is going well.
We've exceeded our first target and have now raised over $3000, that's enough to get in a reputable periodical and 4.3% of our BHAG goal.
Of social media channels, donations have come:
73% from Nostr (~4K followers)
24% from X (~50K followers)
3% from LinkedIn (~10K followers)
Make of that what you will, but if you'd like to give and skew these stats at the same time, you can do so here
Bitcoin (75.3% of people have chosen this option)
👇
https://t.co/0TxNbGbi2l
Fiat
👇
https://t.co/hrKPVQP8n9
The backstory:
A while ago, I was contacted by one of the world’s top advertising creatives (who is also a bitcoiner).
He shared his #1 adoption concern:
Retail’s lack of interest in Bitcoin.
"They think they know what Bitcoin is, and based on that, they're not interested"
What he said next floored me.
“I’m in a unique position of both caring deeply about bitcoin and working with advertising at the highest international level.
And I don’t see a better story to open people’s minds about Bitcoin than the methane story. Nothing is even close”
“If we want retail to give Bitcoin a second look, we need to hook them with something unexpected.
The methane story is it. It's surprising, hope-inspiring and no other single sentence about Bitcoin has the same punch”
He proposed that we shine a light of truth in the darkness: A full page ad in the New York Times.
The ad could create enough of a stir to get this message on some big podcasts and other broad media outside Bitcoin-land
(with a little help from his PR colleagues).
So he orange-pilled a colleague, and they made this ad for us, free of charge.
Imagine opening the NYT and seeing this truthbomb!
The NYT print edition has over 500,000 subscribers, many of which are very influential.
So the ad can make a real difference for how Bitcoin is perceived. And it can accelerate our goal to make Bitcoin mining carbon-negative.
One more thing:
Most people still think Bitcoin = crypto
(no surprise they're not interested in BTC!)
Repeating "Bitcoin not crypto" doesn't change that.
But of the world's top cryptos, only Bitcoin mitigates methane.
This ad shows a huge audience that Bitcoin ≠ crypto.
A version of this ad has already run on Instagram, where it outperformed every other post on that account, including the lighter and funnier ones
How do we funds this ad?
Same way we defeated GreenpeaceUSA: we work together as one
Let's crowd-funding this thing into history.
If we raise $70,000, we can put the ad in the NYT.
If we raise $2K, we can put it in a small but influential magazine like the Royal Geographical Society’s magazine.
And there are lots of interesting spots in between.
Let's do this!
@Wanderlust_jan After we do our first project (not long now) and got the data in on how much methane we mitigated, and our future pipeline, that's exactly what I'd like to spend some time doing.
@M1kaelSolheim@grok You're welcome to ask me. I can give you some better answers than Grok because we spent a year researching all the different ways to mitigate methane on landfills and have access to data that Grok will almost certainly not.
@basedlayer Along with other responses that assume the precoiner shares the same values, propensity for independent research and disposition to read terse domain-specific prose, yes.
@I_Xvision Surprisingly true. In some ways more so because it is more scarce, and information goes in and stays in better when its read on a physical page apparently.
UPDATE: we're now 4.31% of the way to get this Bitcoin ad into the NY Times. (151% of our first objective to get enough to put this in a highly reputable Royal Society magazine)
Some key stats
1. Nostr donations are outpacing Twitter donations 3:1
2. 75.4% of donations have been in Bitcoin.
So it's working!
If you'd like the chance to help make history and change not just minds but hearts, this campaign is a great way to do that.
And ... if you are thinking "what is this all about?" - read the backstory below.
If you'd like to give, you can do so here.
Bitcoin
👇
https://t.co/0TxNbGbi2l
Fiat
👇
https://t.co/hrKPVQP8n9
Keep giving, keep sharing.
Backstory: https://t.co/ofGsMMIDF9
1/9
A while ago, I was unexpectedly contacted by one of the world’s top advertising creatives (who is also a bitcoiner).
He shared his #1 adoption concern:
Retail’s lack of interest in Bitcoin.
"They think they know what Bitcoin is, and based on that, they're not interested"
Fiat encourages waste through overconsumption that end up in landfills. Bitcoin reduces this.
Landfills waste their waste by venting potential power. Bitcoin mining reduces this.
New peer reviewed research gives insights into
- how Bitcoin mining reduces curtailment of renewable energy
- economically, why the network is now 59.4% sustainable energy-based (Cambridge)
The paper notes:
1. A miner next to a wind farm can survive a Bitcoin price 45% lower than one running on gas
2. “mining can use surplus renewable energy during off-peak hours, reducing fossil dependence and potentially promoting renewables”
3. “mining loads can absorb excess renewable energy and enhance grid resilience”
4. “price-responsive Bitcoin mining can absorb excess renewables at low/negative prices, reducing curtailment”
The paper is published in Renewable Energy which has an impact factor of 9.1, placing it in the top 3% of journals worldwide.
It is the 32nd research paper showing either environmental or grid stabilization benefits to Bitcoin mining.
Link to full paper in comments
Big landfills emit crazy amounts of gas
Imagine 76,000 gas stoves, each with an element on full, unlit, continuously
That's how much methane Indonesia's Bantar Gebang landfill emits
Our climatetech fund found Bitcoin mining is the only profitable way to destroy that methane
@bitcoindudebro You don't wait for it to get to the air. You have pipes going deep into the landfill, then at the surface of the landfill you cap and channel those pipes to a bit header-unit, purify it then send it to a generator.
@octopidl Ironically, that is more expensive to the landfill owner because they need to foot the bill, and they get no revenue.
If they let a Bitcoin mining company use the gas, the landfill owner doesn't pay any capex but they get paid for the power generated every month.
@MadupuruV@SovSummitNZ It's a great time of year to be in Queenstown. A bit of snow on the peaks, a crisp cool refreshing feel to the air, and still plenty of sunlight.