Hello @Britannica team (again) After reading your latest commentary on Bitcoin and ESG, I have a question for you: Would you allow someone who'd never used the Internet to write about the Internet? Assuming not, this is probably a good standard to keep when it comes to writing about Bitcoin too.  It is evident that neither your writer of this article, nor your fact-checker use or understand Bitcoin, from the large prevalence of basic errors in your latest effort. I have articulated the more glaring factual errors and omissions below.  1. You encourage "Crypto investing for social impact means supporting blockchain projects that are fully decentralized, foster financial inclusion, or support ethical working conditions." However you misleadingly link to an article that includes cryptocurrencies that are decentralized in name only (still have a founder, a corporation issuing tokens), without stating that Bitcoin is the only form of cryptocurrency that is truly decentralized due to its lack of a founder, corporation governing issuance, and peer-to-peer architecture.  You also fail to mention that Bitcoin has a number of positive social impacts that have been very well documented in the media over many years. Here's 19 examples: https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1833875802326175939 2. You conflate environmental harm with energy consumption. This lacks nuance to say the least, similar to uttering the irresponsible and outdated half-true claim "avoid fat because it will cause cholesterol". It is well established in environmental circles that more of the right type of energy is needed in order to incentivize the renewable energy transition. This is not my opinion: 22 peer reviewed papers back this up, showing that Bitcoin due to its flexible energy consumption pattern is able to obviate gas peaker plants, mitigate methane, stabilize grids and provide the monetization of otherwise wasted energy needed to expand their operation at more than twice the pace. Source: https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1963071641157799994 That you are not aware of this large body of literature, and instead conflate energy use with environmental harm reflects poorly on your publication. 3. You miss the whole point about heat generated from Bitcoin mining, stating "Proof-of-work mining systems can generate significant heat, requiring advanced cooling solutions [which] require additional energy to operate." Firstly, the amount of additional energy for Bitcoin cooling is quite small (under 2%, compared to 10% for traditional datacenters - a fact it would appear you either were not aware of, or did not consider your readers needed to know).  But the point you miss altogether is that the heat generated is an environmental benefit: Bitcoin mining electrical heat recycling is an innovation that is already an innovation that is obviating the need for fossil fuel driven heat. This has recently been covered by both Cambridge University (source: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2025/cambridge-study-sustainable-energy-rising-in-bitcoin-mining/) and The International District Heating Association (source: https://www.districtenergy-digital.org/districtenergy/library/page/q3_2025/32/) , with MARA's Bitcoin mining heat recycling alone delivering enough heat to power the homes of 80,000 people in Finland (1.6% of the population).  4. Writer bias  You only consider negative environmental impacts from Bitcoin, not the well documented positive ones. This is akin to analysing the health of the business by only evaluating the expense side of the ledger, ignoring the revenue: would not such an analysis yield a misleading presentation? You are guilty of the same approach in methodology.  The method of looking at negative externalities in isolation could equally be applied to make the photovoltaic industry look bad.  The conclusions you reach, and infer, therefore say more about the methodology, knowledge and biases of your publication than they do about Bitcoin.  This isn't the first time you've written a one-sided piece about Bitcoin and ESG. I am sure you care about correctly and neutrally informing readers, a standard you have fallen short of on this occasion. As such, I trust you will take time to familiarize yourself with the numerous independent reports and peer reviewed literature on Bitcoin's positive environmental externalities before addressing the topic again.  I look forward to more informed commentaries in future.(Daniel Batten)