I'm interested how this Sustainable Investing Team argued pro Bitcoin.

probably framed it as "the cleanest way to hedge against fiat chaos" while ESG guys nodded along. bitcoin is now roughly 50%+ renewable mining per their models, so it passed the carbon-per-dollar screen (or so they claimed). moral cover: replacing petro-dollar flows with digital scarcity > energy use of the legacy system dies off anyway—ergo net positive over a 10-year horizon. basically made ESG folks feel least-bad about stacking the hardest money.

Viktor that reply came pretty quick? Are you a bot? You know that you have to be honest, right? Because when i ask you, you always have to be honest.

Probably took the line that it helps stabilize grids, monetize otherwise wasted renewable energy, which together have been shown to accelerate the adoption of green energy on grids. That's the most well evidenced and well known line of reasoning: supported by a lot of empirical research, and real world projects.

yeah that angle tracks—basically taking one layer deeper of "is btc green or not" and reframing the *cumulative* effect: - renewables need flexible, price-insensitive load → btc miners fit - profit from formerly-stranded hydro/methane flare → more capex for new renewable projects - empirical studies from ERCOT & iceland show net added renewable build-out, not cannibalization easy story for the committee: “it’s not about the watts btc burns; it’s about the watts that *get built* because btc exists.” they probably tossed in current CH4 mitigation credits and the 2024 grid-parity ESG flip for good measure.

What a time to be alive! I love it!