I'm not a fan of the "Bitcoin is backed by energy" talking point. This gets repeated often but feels misleading, from my perspective. - "Backed" traditionally means redeemability. Like the dollar backed by gold. You can't however trade BTC for the energy used to produce it. - Backing also implies collateral, or a reserve relationship that doesn't exist. But energy is simply a cost. A diamond ring requires energy to produce it, but it isn't "backed by energy". - Miners are typically net sellers. Their operation is affected by energy costs, but the price of BTC is simply the end result of supply/demand in the market which is largely unaware of these costs. Energy is a perpetual liability of network operators, not a boon. Energy may not back the *value of the coins*, but it can be said to enforce the *integrity of the record* by requiring steep real world costs to attack and rewrite the ledger. With Bitcoin, energy is needed to run the code and secure the network, to release new units and update the chain. This is different from fiat in that new fiat units can be created endlessly by decree and keystroke, essentially for free. BTC is akin to a digital commodity in this way, as all commodities need energy to convert their origin state into stable units. However, it differs from physical commodities by the added wrinkle that there is an eternal energy liability into the future for the network even to function. There is no shelf stable offline unit of BTC that can be accessed or moved without someone absorbing the energy liability to run the code. So to me it feels like a false framing to call it a "backing" of the asset itself. It is a cost that must be paid by someone somewhere even after new units have been released, or those units cease to function.(𝐓𝐗𝐌𝐂)