An open letter to @beincrypto While 97% of publications are improving their reporting of Bitcoin mining, there is one outlier who has gone in the other direction: yours. For context, you deserve praise for having in 2023 ran research-based articles on Bitcoin mining like this one that showed how Bitcoin mining had numerous environmental and energy benefits. https://beincrypto.com/bitcoin-why-environmentalists-need-to-relax-its-better-than-you-think/ When journalists who made the effort to research bitcoin mining such as @DaniREscudero left (I know because he reach out to me many times), it would appear he's been replaced by people who have not made this effort. As a result, you are now publishing 2021-style misinformation that even mainstream media has stopped publishing, including the false claim that Bitcoin uses energy per transaction. Let's be clear, this is objectively misinformation, first debunked by Cambridge University in 2018, then subsequently 4 times in peer reviewed publications. (Masanet et al,  2019, Dittmar et al. 2019, Sedlmeir et al, 2020, and Sai and Vraken, 2023). Simply put, there is no better way to announce to the world that you are not a serious news publication than to claim in 2025 that Bitcoin uses energy per transaction. Not only do you include this false claim in your article, you made it your headline! You then made other factually incorrect claims including "coal is also a significant contributor to the global hash rate" (citing a 3.5 year old news article). Again, easily verifiable as false. Today coal makes up only 8% of bitcoin electricity mix (source: Cambridge April 2025), which is less than 1/4 of global gridmix, making it the least-coal dependent industry in the world by some magnitude. Your article also makes no mention of the fact that 22 peer reviewed studies and 8 independent reports show that Bitcoin is both environmentally beneficial and essential to the green energy transition and methane mitigation: a fact which has been widely covered in 10 different sustainability magazines source: https://batcoinz.com/the-changing-narrative-on-bitcoin-mining/ Why did you miss this out? Your article then goes on to present Solana, Algorand, and NANO as more "environmentally friendly" alternatives. This begs the question - is your article genuine ignorance, or is it intentional misinformation to promote a bunch of altcoins? If the latter, then your tactics will be seen for what they are by the community and based on history this is likely to rebound badly on your credibility. If it's genuine ignorance, you can demonstrate this by 1. retracting your article 2. reaching out to people knowledgeable about Bitcoin mining (as you once did) before you set fingers to keyboard in future Cointelegraph recently turned around their quality of Bitcoin mining reporting, after a couple of incorrect statements like yours slipped through about a year ago, for which they were held accountable. Your choice, but without taking these corrective steps expeditiously, I think you'll find you very quickly lose the goodwill and trust you built up between 2023-24 through your well-informed Bitcoin mining reporting over that period.(Daniel Batten)