Bitcoin, specifically the mining process gets a lot of flack for its energy usage. However, Bitcoin mining can help alleviate one of the greatest challenges facing renewable energy – the Duck Curve. 🧵
The Duck Curve ELI5
Energy from renewables is inconsistent and peaks at inconvenient times. Solar peaks during the midday and wind in the middle of the night.
But, peak demand occurs in the morning and in the late afternoon which is opposite from renewable energy generation.
Renewables now provide an excessive amount of renewable energy from solar and wind during the middle of the day which screws up the economics of electricity generation because the net energy production (grid load) continues to increase without any outlet.
This results in the “Duck Curve” where there’s too much energy being generated which ends up getting curtailed – wasted – or sold at negative prices.
Conversely, as demand rises at the end of the day, generators scramble to ramp up energy load, typically utilizing fossil fuels.
Texas is the largest producer of renewable energy and has a deregulated energy grid which increases competition and so the Duck Curve – and the fate of renewables – is an even larger dilemma.
The Solution
Bitcoin mining provides a mechanism known as demand response:
• Bitcoin mining consumes energy constantly
• Bitcoin mining operation is a flexible load, meaning it is
relatively easy to shut down since it doesn’t require any
sort of continuous operations.
Layer1 is capitalizing on this use case by negotiating with ERCOT – the Texas energy grid regulator – for long term demand response contracts. Essentially, Layer1 agrees to shut down at a moment’s notice while collecting an annual premium based on their expected power demand.
How does this help?
Demand response helps stabilize the energy grid by removing price spikes, leveling energy demand, and realign economic incentives – reduce negative pricing – that allow for the continued growth of renewable energy sources.
Now, Layer1’s strategy comes with the obvious downside that their bitcoin printers – mining facilities – go brrrr less often.
However, in exchange for guaranteed revenues, this may be an effective hedge for miners against bitcoin’s volatility.
Bitcoin and The Environment
Bitcoin mining energy usage is dependent on local energy grids, most mining facilities already use renewable energy sources such as thermal, hydro, wind, and solar.
CoinShares estimates a 73% renewables penetration in the bitcoin mining energy mix and that Texas is a prospective region for mining.
Still, Bitcoin will only ever be as clean and environmentally friendly as the grid. Period.
If mining utilizes energy from peaker plants that are turned on only when demand reaches certain levels – then it’s not entirely environmentally friendly.
Bitcoin is unique, it will continue to consume energy.
There is no upper limit on the price of bitcoin and therefore no limit on how much energy can be dedicated to mining bitcoin. This is the biology of Bitcoin.
The ever – and altruistically – moving goalpost of environmental servitude ensures that Bitcoin will never be without environmental consequences. The hope is Bitcoin’s benefits will outweigh its flaws.
While the world is no longer early to Bitcoin, we're still in the early innings of stablecoins with only 20-30 million monthly active users of stablecoins.
Over the course of the next decade, I expect this number to grow significantly as hundreds of millions of users interact with stablecoins – directly or indirectly – in their daily lives.
Some of the stablecoin opportunities we're excited about:
Great recent newsletter from @artemis__xyz about stablecoin activity.
Some takeaways that I thought were interesting 👇
The on and offramp space, once dominated by Moonpay continues to grow more competitive.
Recently, traditional large fintech Revolut has grown as a leading stablecoin onramp provider.
Exchanges are still key liquidity hubs for specific regions and corridors. For instance, stablecoin remittance activity from U.S. based CEX's like Coinbase and Kraken @Bitso has nearly doubled in 2024.
Stablecoin activity will be most impactful in emerging market corridors like LATAM, South East Asia, and Africa.
Thought provoking essay but I still stand in the fat app thesis camp.
While horizontal wallets certainly capture value today I think Applications will be better positioned than wallets in the future.
Applications will capture more value than horizontal wallets because: 1) Wallet fragmentation will happen. All large apps will launch their own wallets. 2) Every app in the future will be its own wallet capturing order flow and attention. 3) Crypto’s inevitable shift to mobile will favor applications over horizontal wallets.
1) All apps want to own the end user.
Wallets are increasingly commoditized and every sufficiently large app launches its own wallet - Uniswap, Coinbase, Magic Eden, Jupiter, etc.
I also disagree with the statement: “If an application increases its take rate, will users leave for a cheaper alternative?” Apps with retail users are sticky just like wallets are sticky.
The top applications all maintain healthy take rates - Uniswap, Magic Eden, Aave, Jupiter, Raydium.
2) Future apps launch with their own wallets.
There’s a reason we see fewer horizontal wallet companies being built today. New apps (whether consumer or defi) launch with their own wallets by default because of access solutions like Privy and Turnkey. It’s never been easier to integrate a wallet into an app. While horizontal wallets today have an advantage, new apps of the future can onboard users to their wallets directly. Apps like Farcsster are a one good example on this trend- people onboard to Warpcast directly.
Telegram bots are another perfect example of this - they’re first and foremost exchanges / trading apps but have wallets by default. They’ve grown because they offer better products (more social and convenient) that horizontal wallets.
Chain abstraction also arguably decreases the stickiness of Fat Wallets because it gets easier to move asset. Abstraction allows apps to vampire attack horizontal wallets to easily move funds to its own app integrated wallet without the user knowing or caring.
The superpower of crypto is creating new assets and markets.
Now, I try to ask the question – how could this business become an exchange? For certain businesses it’s very clear, but for others, it requires some imagination.
Let’s talk about exchanges, and where to find them 👇
One of the most common and successful business models in crypto is the exchange model which is why we've seen so many companies and protocols eventually adopt the exchange business model.
Exchanges are well-positioned to develop in scenarios were:
- New assets emerge onchain
- Apps control distribution and can introduce transactional behavior
- New services emerge that impact valuable onchain state or are somehow connected to transactions
- Crypto games control their own asset issuance and have open economies
- Developer platforms can introduce service marketplaces or auction houses for transactions
There are a few common crypto business models:
- Exchanges and marketplaces
- Transaction sequencing
- Asset managers
Let's dive into some examples 👇
Exchange Model
Subset 1) marketplace models – fee on transactions
- create a new asset and market (e.g. Polymarket, Perps)
- expand access to emerging asset (Coinbase and BTC)
- convenience fee (wallet swaps)
- SaaS enabled marketplaces – Proof marketplaces
Exchange subset 2): Liquidity servicing - build valuable pool of specialized liquidity and charge acces fee to end app (e.g. hooks) or match-maker fee (e.g. swaps)
- DEXs
- Lending
MEV / Transaction sequencing – own and monetize valuable order flow
- App PFOF (e.g. TG Bots)
- Sequencer model - own sequencer and MEV (e.g. L2)
- SaaS enabled tx sequencing and monitoring - RaaS, RPC providers, security providers, oracles etc.
When combined with new products, tokens – or the promise of tokens – have proven effective at alleviating the cold start problem.
But, networks that launch with a token from the jump, must find PMF in a shortened window amidst inorganic activity or otherwise these networks are just spending tokens for limited upside.
My friend and fellow investor, @howdai27 calls this the “hot start problem” where the presence of a token limits the window of time a startup has to find PMF and gain enough organic traction such that the startup can retain users/liquidity as token rewards diminish.
The hot start problem – launching tokens early and dealing with finding PMF amidst inorganic activity – is favorable to the cold start problem in two scenarios:
1) Startups competing in red ocean markets (markets with a high degree of competition and known demand)
Examples: Second mover defi protocols, Blur vs OpenSea, LRTs, etc.
2) Products and networks with passive-supply side participation
Examples: passive jobs to be done – staking (L1s), providing liquidity, or set-it and forget-it hardware (e.g. DePIN). masonnystrom.com/p/tokenized-ma…