The leader of TSL recently threw out a groundbreaking viewpoint — equating energy directly with currency, and Bitcoin just happens to be the best vehicle for this trap.
This statement sounds quite abstract at first, but upon careful consideration, it indeed has its merits. The mining mechanism of Bitcoin essentially converts electricity into computing power, which then competes to obtain block rewards. Throughout this process, energy consumption is a hard cost, which gives Bitcoin's value a quantifiable physical anchor. Unlike traditional currencies that rely on national credit backing, the underlying value of Bitcoin directly corresponds to the electricity costs burned in real cash.
From this perspective, the saying "energy is currency" holds some ground—after all, miners are daily backing the value of Bitcoin with their electricity costs. Of course, whether this theory can truly take off will depend on how the market digests it, but at least it provides a rather novel perspective to understand the source of cryptocurrency's value.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
12 Likes
Reward
12
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
FrogInTheWell
· 12-03 02:06
The idea that "energy is money" is basically an attempt to give Bitcoin a physical backing. It sounds very theoretical, but in practice, the electricity costs for miners have nothing to do with the price of the coin.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidityWizard
· 12-02 15:59
actually the energy-to-value correlation only works if you ignore opportunity costs... like statistically speaking most miners are running negative margins rn so this "physical anchor" thesis gets shakier by the week. theoretically speaking sound but empirically? nah.
Reply0
GateUser-7b078580
· 12-02 15:58
Although, according to hourly statistics, what can the proportion of electricity costs reach at historical lows for miners? Data shows that this trap has quite a big logic flaw.
View OriginalReply0
MetaverseLandlord
· 12-02 15:56
This guy just loves to ramble, energy equals currency? So does that mean I'm printing money every day by paying my electricity bill, haha.
View OriginalReply0
ContractCollector
· 12-02 15:54
I think the idea that energy is currency is a bit over-romanticized. Is the electricity bill that miners pay the value anchor? Then, when electricity prices fluctuate, shouldn't the coin prices also shake in response...
View OriginalReply0
DogeBachelor
· 12-02 15:39
Energy is currency? This guy is thinking quite beautifully, as long as the electricity bill can still be this cheap, haha.
View OriginalReply0
ColdWalletGuardian
· 12-02 15:32
The logic of energy as currency sounds great, but backing Bitcoin with electricity costs seems too idealistic.
The leader of TSL recently threw out a groundbreaking viewpoint — equating energy directly with currency, and Bitcoin just happens to be the best vehicle for this trap.
This statement sounds quite abstract at first, but upon careful consideration, it indeed has its merits. The mining mechanism of Bitcoin essentially converts electricity into computing power, which then competes to obtain block rewards. Throughout this process, energy consumption is a hard cost, which gives Bitcoin's value a quantifiable physical anchor. Unlike traditional currencies that rely on national credit backing, the underlying value of Bitcoin directly corresponds to the electricity costs burned in real cash.
From this perspective, the saying "energy is currency" holds some ground—after all, miners are daily backing the value of Bitcoin with their electricity costs. Of course, whether this theory can truly take off will depend on how the market digests it, but at least it provides a rather novel perspective to understand the source of cryptocurrency's value.