When it comes to accuracy of Bitcoin reporting in the cryptomedia, @DecryptMedia is currently in last place ... by some distance. As of today, Decrypt are ✅most likely to cite debunked studies ✅most likely to be unaware of current research that every the mainstream media routinely use ✅most likely to ask a non-Domain expert to comment extensively outside their subject matter expertise Their latest, very poor, article on Bitcoin mining is an illustration of this 1. Extensively cited the work of not one but two widely debunked authors Chamanara and de Vries (for context, none of the other crypto media or mainstream media use these sources any more, Decrypt are the remaining outlier) 2. Falsely suggested that Bitcoin mining enviromental benefits are theoretical, apparently unaware that 10 nation states - yes nation states - are using Bitcoin mining to monetize wasted renewable energy, stabilize their grid, accelerate the buildout of new renewable capacity and lower electricity prices. 3. Used a general cryptocurrency commentator to comments in the nuanced area of Bitcoin mining environmental impact: akin to asking a GP to perform your knee replacement surgery: guaranteed to deliver a disastrous result. The GP of cryptocurrency Andrew Urquhart proceeds to butcher facts the way a GP would butcher your knee in a throwback article that we haven't seen much of since 2021-2. This is not an exception, its an extenuation of a theme of some other very poorly researched Bitcoin mining research Decrypt has put out this year, and failed to retract. Decrypt, do better.(Daniel Batten)