For the last two years, each morning I do a search on who has written a hitpiece criticizing Bitcoin's environmental track record. For the last two years, depending on the article, I either write a rebuttal and post it on social media, or write directly to the author to see if they are open to learning, or both. Over those two years, there's been some good successes. One journalist did a complete 180, and now is a co-writer of my newsletter. Others amended. Several rescinded. Most dug their heals in, but in almost all cases that was the last negative article on Bitcoin they ever wrote. Many of them also got community noted, ratioed, one even deleted his profile from twitter. My intention was threefold 1. Educate and get a retraction and/or a followup piece citing the positive environmental benefits of bitcoin, where there was high openness 2. Educate with an amendment to the article where there was some openness 3. Where there was no openness to learning, make it very clear that writing nonsense about Bitcoin would be held to account, very publicly, making the author think twice about the reputational damage of another piece. Why? Well, when misinformation is spread about Bitcoin, it hurts not the Bitcoin mining industry, it slows Bitcoin adoption, and it also stops innovation in the entire energy sector. It perpetuates the unnecessary practice of wasting stranded energy, flaring gas, venting landfill emissions and using gas peaker plants rather than Bitcoin mining to stabilize grids. For Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining to reach its potential, there are huge mountains of misinformation that must be countered. There are many of us working tirelessly to counter it, most of whom have been at it for longer than me. But if I can make some small contribution to that proof of work, it's time well spent.