數位貨幣風向變了！比特幣狂跌近8% 以太坊卻狂漲60%，比特幣不行了嗎？

數位貨幣風向變了！比特幣狂跌近8% 以太坊卻狂漲60%，比特幣不行了嗎？

以太坊正與比特幣進行一輪較量！數位貨幣市場的投資者，開始考慮將更多的資金分給以太坊，而不是只買比特幣。種種趨勢看來，全球第二大虛擬貨幣的以太坊，正開啟一波新的投資潮，終於可以打破過去人們認為，「比特幣就是虛擬貨幣」的觀念。

在最近30天時間內，以太坊的價格上漲了60%，創出歷史新高，而比特幣同期下跌了7%。

值得注意的是，比特幣從週一高於5.8萬美元一路跌至最低跌至不足5.4萬美元。5月4日美股盤初，比特幣達到5.5萬美元上方之後，由於葉倫有關小幅加息的言論過後跌破5.4萬美元，24小時內跌幅擴大至近8%。截至美股收盤，比特幣重回5.4萬美元上方。

此外，狗狗幣在24小時內，則是暴漲40%，數據顯示，狗狗幣市值現已超越瑞波幣市值，位列第四。5月4日晚間，狗狗幣站上0.6美元/枚，刷新歷史新高。過去7天漲近一倍，如果從今年年初算起，漲幅超過100倍。

而這些都釋出了一個訊息，那就是比特幣不再是虛擬貨幣中的風向指標，投資人也都有了新的觀念：比特幣不再代表所有的虛擬貨幣。

以太坊成比特幣的最大空頭

在過去相當長一段時間，比特幣的表現牽動著整個虛擬貨幣市場。

比特幣在全部虛擬貨幣市場的佔比，在2017年最高達80%，去年7月降至60%。今年五月開始，比特幣的市值佔比又降至47%。

而對比來看，以太坊在過去三年間的市值佔比不斷提高，目前已在幣圈總市值中達到近18%。

就在許多股票投資者將比特幣，作為對虛擬貨幣市場認知的全部之際，以太坊的價格創出了歷史新高。

5月4日，全球第二大虛擬貨幣以太坊的價格突破3500美元，24小時內價格上漲近13%。3500美元的價格，也意味著以太坊創出了價格的歷史新高，並且這發生在比特幣價格回調的一個月內。截至5月5日早上，以太坊價格維持在3300美元。

以太坊的這種強勢，與比特幣近期弱勢直接相關。也正因為此消彼長的市場特點，以太坊的強勢使得一些投資者認為，以太坊恐怕會成為比特幣的最大空頭！

也就是說，過去如果股票投資人想要避險，把資金從股票抽出轉投虛擬貨幣市場時，往往沒有其它的念頭就是直接買比特幣。但是，現在他們看到比特幣也在下跌，就會把資金拿去買以太坊。因此，比特幣下跌、以太坊就上漲。

「長期來看，我確實認為比特幣的空頭就是以太坊。」知名交易員和分析師Crypto Cobain認為，如果以太坊持續上漲超過比特幣的市值，那麼這可能會損害領先的加密資產的成功，因為長期的比特幣資產持有者會將其持有的資產換為以太坊。

市場研究公司FundStrata表示，加密貨幣的關注焦點正從比特幣轉向以太坊，今年將以太坊的目標價格定為1萬美元。

為何走弱的比特幣還有足夠的關注度？

雖然比特幣在短期階段上的盈利貢獻能力大幅減弱，但這不意味著，比特幣的吸引力徹底輸給以太坊。

想要瞭解原因，就像是你看台積電股票一樣，台積電大幅上漲之後，你買不起它。但是只要股價跌到你能負擔的時候，還是會吸引夠多的投資者重新進入。

因此，儘管比特幣價格似乎太高，向上的彈性或在一兩個季度內繼續跑輸，但依然有許多機構依舊將比特幣作為主要的資產。

其中，也包括對虛擬貨幣情有獨鍾的特斯拉公司CEO馬斯克，他在今年一季度投資15億美元進入虛擬貨幣市場，這15億美元並未進行分散投資，而是全部買入比特幣這一單一品種。顯而易見的是，作為對虛擬貨幣市場有深刻理解的馬斯克，他一定看到了以太坊的強勢表現，但他依舊只買比特幣。這體現出馬斯克個人的投資理解，他知道短期內以太坊會漲，但是長期來看，他依然將非常大的比重放在比特幣上。

Bitcoin will eventually hit ‘$1 million a coin,’ CoinDesk editor predicts

Bloomberg

(Bloomberg) – The personal-care products brand Honest Co. jumped 44% in its trading debut, delivering what co-founder Jessica Alba called a “pinch me moment” and elevating her platform for pitching wholesome products.The actress turned entrepreneur, whose stake in her decade-old venture could be worth up to about $130 million, said she has no plans to step back now that Honest has gone public.“I have three kids, I would say Honest is my fourth kid,” Alba said in an interview. “You should have products that you can trust and across the board we hit on all of those things that are very important to not just the millennials, but the younger generation that are driving really the consumer’s behavior to a more conscious life.”The company’s shares, which sold for $16 in its initial public offering, closed at $23 in New York trading Wednesday, giving the company a market value of about $2.1 billion. Fully diluted to include employee stock options and restricted stock units, the company is valued at about $2.5 billion.Honest and its existing stockholders raised $413 million in Tuesday’s share sale. The company offered 6.5 million shares, with more than 19 million shares sold by investors including private equity firm L Catterton, Institutional Venture Partners, Lightspeed Venture Partners and General Catalyst.“The vision and the mission of the company 100% came from Jessica,” said Eric Liaw, a general partner at IVP and board member at Honest. “We wouldn’t be here without her.”Honest received merger interest from special purpose acquisition companies, or SPACs, but “just decided it probably wasn’t the right thing for us,” Liaw said. The long-discussed IPO was made possible in part because the company had become profitable, he said.Alba’s StakeAlba, though she has stepped down as board chair, remains a director and is also the company’s chief creative officer. She owns 5.65 million shares including options, and didn’t plan to sell her shares in the offering, according to the filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.In a letter to potential investors in the company’s filings, Alba touted Honest’s commitment to healthy products. In addition to baby products like shampoos, the company also sells cosmetics as well as cleaning supplies, a collection that was launched during the coronavirus pandemic.Alba, who has starred in movies such as “Fantastic Four,” traced her interest in healthy products to her own childhood ailments.“I suffered from chronic illnesses, severe asthma and allergies, leading to long, lonely weeks in the hospital,” she said. “There were no lasting solutions for my health issues and by the time I was 10, I became aware of how wellness can define your whole life. That’s never left me.”Target, AmazonFounded in 2011, Honest has grown into a national brand and has partnerships with retail giants including Target Corp. and Amazon.com Inc.Alba has said she became particularly concerned about ingredients in baby products and that she tried to appeal to lawmakers for chemical legislation reform.Honest’s business touches on several trends that have become more prominent during the coronavirus pandemic, including a focus on wellness and elevated demand for cleaning products. Those have buoyed top-line results for household-goods companies such as Procter & Gamble Co., the maker of Pampers diapers and Tide laundry detergent.Sales GainLos Angeles-based Honest generated sales last year of about $301 million, a 28% increase over 2019. It lost $14.5 million in 2020. Diapers and wipes accounted for 63% of last year’s sales.Honest is focused on growing its brands rather than acquiring new ones, Chief Executive Officer Nick Vlahos said in the interview with Alba.“If there is an opportunity from a capability standpoint to look at something, that’s something that we would consider,” Vlahos said. “But to turn around and look at bringing in multiple brands under a portfolio, that’s not something that we’re focused strategically on.”Vlahos said he sees potential growth despites declining birth rates in the U.S. Honest appeals to the 3.7 million to 4 million millennial and Generation Z that become mothers every year, he said.“They care about sustainability as well as social responsibility,” he said. “And we’re kind of right at that sweet spot when it comes to that consumer segment.”More than 34% of new customers on the company’s website came through the skin and personal care space, making those categories promising growth areas, Vlahos said.Post-Pandemic SlipThe pandemic boom for consumer-products makers is starting to fade, though. P&G has acknowledged that rising costs are pressuring results, toilet paper maker Kimberly-Clark Corp. recently cut its earnings forecast and Clorox Co. last week missed Wall Street’s estimates for quarterly sales. In addition to shifting demand, manufacturers are grappling with higher commodity and freight costs.Honest said in the filing that it’s working to manage disruptions to its supply chain, but it anticipates “sustained market turmoil” as a result of the pandemic and its economic impact. “If the disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic continue for an extended period of time, our ability to meet the demands of our consumers may be materially impacted.”The company’s offering was led by Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Jefferies Financial Group Inc. The shares are trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol HNST.Alba compared the IPO and future plans for Honest to becoming a mother.“You put so much into your birth plan and essentially when you’re a mom and you have the kids then you understand, especially me after having three, that the real work is raising those kids,” she said in the interview. “That’s when you really getting started and that’s kind of how I feel today.”(Updates with closing share price in fourth paragraph)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2021 Bloomberg L.P.

How Much Energy Does Bitcoin Actually Consume?

Today, Bitcoin consumes as much energy as a small country. This certainly sounds alarming — but the reality is a little more complicated. The author discusses several common misconceptions surrounding the Bitcoin sustainability debate, and ultimately argues that it’s up to the crypto community to acknowledge and address environmental concerns, work in good faith to reduce Bitcoin’s carbon footprint, and ultimately demonstrate that the societal value that Bitcoin provides is worth the resources needed to sustain it.

How much energy does an industry deserve to consume? Right now, organizations around the world are facing pressure to limit the consumption of non-renewable energy sources and the emission of carbon into the atmosphere. But figuring out how much consumption is too much is a complex question that’s intertwined with debates around our priorities as a society. The calculation of which goods and services are “worth” spending these resources on, after all, is really a question of values. As cryptocurrencies, and Bitcoin in particular, have grown in prominence, energy use has become the latest flashpoint in the larger conversation about what, and who, digital currencies are really good for.

On the face of it, the question about energy use is a fair one. According to the Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance (CCAF), Bitcoin currently consumes around 110 Terawatt Hours per year — 0.55% of global energy production, or roughly equivalent to the annual energy draw of small countries like Malaysia or Sweden. This certainly sounds like a lot of energy. But how much energy should a monetary system consume?

How you answer that likely depends on how you feel about Bitcoin. If you believe that Bitcoin offers no utility beyond serving as a ponzi scheme or a device for money laundering, then it would only be logical to conclude that consuming any amount of energy is wasteful. If you are one of the tens of millions of individuals worldwide using it as a tool to escape monetary repression, inflation, or capital controls, you most likely think that the energy is extremely well spent. Whether you feel Bitcoin has a valid claim on society’s resources boils down to how much value you think Bitcoin creates for society.

If we’re going to have this debate, however, we should be clear on how Bitcoin actually consumes energy. Understanding Bitcoin’s energy consumption may not settle questions about its usefulness , but it can help to contextualize how much of an environmental impact Bitcoin advocates are really talking about making. Specifically, there are a few key misconceptions worth addressing.

Energy Consumption Is Not Equivalent to Carbon Emissions

First, there’s an important distinction between how much energy a system consumes and how much carbon it emits. While determining energy consumption is relatively straightforward, you cannot extrapolate the associated carbon emissions without knowing the precise energy mix — that is, the makeup of different energy sources used by the computers mining Bitcoin. For example, one unit of hydro energy will have much less environmental impact than the same unit of coal-powered energy.

Bitcoin’s energy consumption is relatively easy to estimate: You can just look at its hashrate (i.e., the total combined computational power used to mine Bitcoin and process transactions), and then make some educated guesses as to the energy requirements of the hardware that miners are using. But its carbon emissions are much harder to ascertain. Mining is an intensely competitive business, and miners tend not to be particularly forthcoming around the details of their operations. The best estimates of energy production geolocation (from which an energy mix can be inferred) come from the CCAF, which has worked with major mining pools to put together an anonymized dataset of miner locations.

Based on this data, the CCAF can guess about the energy sources miners were using by country, and in some cases, by province. But their dataset doesn’t include all mining pools, nor is it up to date, leaving us still largely in the dark about Bitcoin’s actual energy mix. Furthermore, many high profile analyses generalize energy mix at the country level, leading to an inaccurate portrait of countries such as China, which has an extremely diverse energy landscape.

As a result, estimates for what percentage of Bitcoin mining uses renewable energy vary widely. In December 2019, one report suggested that 73% of Bitcoin’s energy consumption was carbon neutral, largely due to the abundance of hydro power in major mining hubs such as Southwest China and Scandinavia. On the other hand, the CCAF estimated in September 2020 that the figure is closer to 39%. But even if the lower number is correct, that’s still almost twice as much as the U.S. grid, suggesting that looking at energy consumption alone is hardly a reliable method for determining Bitcoin’s carbon emissions.

Bitcoin Can Use Energy That Other Industries Can’t

Another key factor that makes Bitcoin’s energy consumption different from that of most other industries is that Bitcoin can be mined anywhere. Almost all of the energy used worldwide must be produced relatively close to its end users — but Bitcoin has no such limitation, enabling miners to utilize power sources that are inaccessible for most other applications.

Hydro is the most well-known example of this. In the wet season in Sichuan and Yunnan, enormous quantities of renewable hydro energy are wasted every year. In these areas, production capacity massively outpaces local demand, and battery technology is far from advanced enough to make it worthwhile to store and transport energy from these rural regions into the urban centers that need it. These regions most likely represent the single largest stranded energy resource on the planet, and as such it’s no coincidence that these provinces are the heartlands of mining in China, responsible for almost 10% of global Bitcoin mining in the dry season and 50% in the wet season.

Another promising avenue for carbon neutral mining is flared natural gas. The process of oil extraction today releases significant amount of natural gas as a byproduct — energy that pollutes the environment without ever making it to the grid. Since it’s constrained to the location of remote oil mines, most traditional applications have historically been unable to effectively leverage that energy. But Bitcoin miners from North Dakota to Siberia have seized the opportunity to monetize this otherwise-wasted resource, and some companies are even exploring ways to further reduce emissions by combusting the gas in a more controlled manner. Of course, this is still a minor player in today’s Bitcoin mining arena, but back of the envelope calculations suggest that there’s enough flared natural gas in the U.S. and Canada alone to run the entire Bitcoin network.

To be fair, the monetization of excess natural gas with Bitcoin does still create emissions, and some have argued that the practice even acts as a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry, incentivizing energy companies to invest more in oil extraction than they otherwise might. But income from Bitcoin miners is a drop in the bucket compared to demand from other industries that rely on fossil fuels — and that external demand is unlikely to disappear anytime soon. Given the reality that oil is and will continue to be extracted for the foreseeable future, exploiting a natural byproduct of the process (and potentially even reducing its environmental impact) is a net positive.

Interestingly, the aluminum smelting industry offers a surprisingly relevant parallel. The process of transforming natural bauxite ore into useable aluminum is highly energy intensive, and the costs of transporting aluminum often aren’t prohibitive, so many nations with a surplus of energy have built smelters to take advantage of their excess resources. Regions with the capacity to produce more energy than could be consumed locally, such as Iceland, Sichuan, and Yunnan, became net energy exporters through aluminum — and today, the same conditions that incentivized their investment in smelting have made those locations prime options for mining Bitcoin. There are even a number of former aluminum smelters, such as the hydro Alcoa plant in Massena, NY, that have been directly repurposed as Bitcoin mines.

Mining Bitcoin Consumes a lot More Energy Than Using It

How energy is produced is one piece of the equation. But the other area where misconceptions are common is in how Bitcoin actually consumes energy, and how that’s likely to change over time.

Many journalists and academics talk about Bitcoin’s high “per-transaction energy cost,” but this metric is misleading. The vast majority of Bitcoin’s energy consumption happens during the mining process. Once coins have been issued, the energy required to validate transactions is minimal. As such, simply looking at Bitcoin’s total energy draw to date and dividing that by the number of transactions doesn’t make sense — most of that energy was used to mine Bitcoins, not to support transactions. And that leads us to the final critical misconception: that the energy costs associated with mining Bitcoin will continue to grow exponentially.

Runaway Growth Is Unlikely

Because Bitcoin’s energy footprint has grown so rapidly, people sometimes assume that it will eventually commandeer entire energy grids. This was the premise of a widely-reported 2018 study that was recently cited in the New York Times, making the shocking claim that Bitcoin could warm the earth by two degrees Celcius. But there’s good reason to believe this won’t happen.

First, as has become common in many industries, the energy mix of Bitcoin grows less reliant on carbon every year. In the U.S., publicly-traded, increasingly ESG-focused miners have been gaining market share, and China recently banned coal-based mining in Inner Mongolia, one of the largest remaining coal-heavy regions. At the same time, many organizations within the mining industry have launched initiatives like the Crypto Climate Accord — inspired by the Paris Climate Agreement — to advocate for and commit to reducing Bitcoin’s carbon footprint. And of course, as renewable options such as solar grow more efficient and thus more viable for mining, Bitcoin could end up serving as a serious incentive for miners to build out these technologies.

In addition, miners are unlikely to continue expanding their mining operations at the current rates indefinitely. The Bitcoin protocol subsidizes mining, but those subsidies have built-in checks on their growth. Today, miners receive small fees for the transactions that they verify while mining (accounting for around 10% of miner revenue), as well as whatever profit margins they can get when they sell the bitcoins they have mined.

However, the protocol is built to halve the issuance-driven component of miner revenue every four years — so unless the price of Bitcoin doubles every four years in perpetuity (which economics suggests is essentially impossible for any currency), that share of miner revenue will eventually decay to zero. And as far as transaction fees, Bitcoin’s natural constraints on the number of transactions it can process (fewer than a million per day) combined with users’ finite tolerance for paying fees limit the growth potential of this as a revenue source. We can expect some miners to continue operating regardless, in exchange for these transaction fees alone — and in fact, the network depends on that to keep functioning — but if profit margins fall, the financial incentive to invest in mining will naturally decrease.

Of course, there are countless factors that can influence Bitcoin’s environmental impact — but underlying all of them is a question that’s much harder to answer with numbers: Is Bitcoin worth it? It’s important to understand that many environmental concerns are exaggerated or based on flawed assumptions or misunderstandings of how the Bitcoin protocol works.

That means that when we ask, “Is Bitcoin worth its environmental impact,” the actual negative impact we’re talking about is likely a lot less alarming than you might think. But there’s no denying that Bitcoin (like almost everything else that adds value in our society) does consume resources. As with every other energy-consuming industry, it’s up to the crypto community to acknowledge and address these environmental concerns, work in good faith to reduce Bitcoin’s carbon footprint, and ultimately demonstrate that the societal value Bitcoin provides is worth the resources needed to sustain it.