Talk:Requests for comment/Stop accepting cryptocurrency donations

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Reddit[edit]

A lot of oppose votes are coming from https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/s1jd3p/vote_ongoing_to_ask_the_wikimedia_foundation_to/hs8ke6v/ lots of these people don't know how to sign... Amir (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've mentioned it at Requests_for_comment/Stop_accepting_cryptocurrency_donations#Offwiki_discussion also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BitcoinCash, LiteCoin and Monero have very low fees. This argument is only valid for Bitcoin and Ethereum.
I think that Wikimedia Foundation should start accepting Monero too, instead of removing cryptocurrency.
> Accepting cryptocurrency signals endorsement of the cryptocurrency space by the Wikimedia Foundation and members of the Wikimedia Movement
Accepting cryptocurrency is no different from accepting turkish lira or any other medium of exchange.
Cryptocurrency's price fluctuates because it is used as a "stock market", but using it as money instead of fiat will stabilize the price.
Removing cryptocurrency signals hate or fear against cryptocurrency. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xfede (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you would like to weigh in on the merits of the proposal, you'll want to do so on the RfC itself. This talk page is more for meta-discussion about the RfC (for example, to note canvassing concerns). GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slashdoted[edit]

Note slashdot has linked <https://news.slashdot.org/story/22/01/12/1810251/wikipedia-faces-pressure-to-stop-accepting-crypto-donations-on-environmental-grounds> to a coindesk article <https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/01/12/wikipedia-faces-pressure-to-stop-accepting-crypto-donations-on-environmental-grounds/> that links to this page. — xaosflux Talk 19:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request to remove demeaning holocaust joke[edit]

Could this be removed please? It appears to be intentionally offensive, disruptive and harmful, it certainly reads that way. --Anstil (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done by MarcoAurelio. Thibaut (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Voting"[edit]

The section header is "Voting" but then there's the "not a vote" template. Either it's a vote, or it's a "consensus-based" discussion that needs some other section heading. Legoktm (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Survey"? Thibaut (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Viva voce"? Seddon (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting section needs restructure[edit]

The Support and Oppose votes must be separated from each other. The votes are long to see and would likely increase. George Ho (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not a majority vote though, it’s the same system used on enwiki for AfD or RfC:

Do not reorder comments [to group them]. Reordering can disrupt the flow of discussion, polarize an issue, and emphasize vote count or word count.

--Thibaut (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note on viva voce.[edit]

  • As of the last signature from Marcus Cyron, 214 people have noted their position
  • Without filtering for possible canvassing, the numbers stand roughly at around 138 for ( 63. 3% )/ 80 against ( 36.7% ) and 1 comment.
  • With filtering for possible canvassing, the numbers stand roughly at around 133 for ( 70% )/ 57 ( 30% ) against

-- Seddon (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As of the last signature from Andre, 226 people have noted their position
  • Without filtering for possible canvassing, the numbers stand roughly at around 146 for ( 63. 5% )/ 84 against ( 36.5% ) and 1 comment. Seddon (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As of the last signature from Vukky, 248 people have noted their position
  • Without filtering for possible canvassing, the numbers stand roughly at around 163 for ( 65.7% )/ 89 against ( 34.3% ) and 1 comment. Seddon (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With filtering for possible canvassing, the numbers stand roughly at around 157 for ( 70.7% )/ 65 against ( 29.3% ) and 1 comment. Seddon (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As of the last signature from MaxEnt:
    • Without filtering for possible canvassing, the numbers stand roughly at around 177 for ( 66.3% )/ 90 against ( 33.7% ) and 1 comment.
    • With filtering for possible canvassing, the numbers stand roughly at around 171 for ( 72.8% )/ 66 against ( 27.8% ) and 1 comment.
    - Seddon (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closure date[edit]

I think there’s a consensus here

Is there a process for agreeing a closure date for this RFC?

I have raised a comment at Talk:Requests_for_comment#Duration_for_RFCs, but the RFC policy is vague about duration, with nothing stated about a default duration and RFCs running for up to 2 years.

It seems highly likely that the main value of this RFC in content of discussion and representation in votes would be given in the first week, and being open for more than a month probably unhelpful one way or the other, if the objective is to make a timely recommendation to the Wikimedia Foundation.

I suggest the outcome of this RFC would be most beneficial if it was closed after 30 days = 10 February 2022. --Anstil (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

30 days seems too long, maybe just let it run until the end of January. The consensus seems clear that most active users support banning crypto, with a majority/plurality of crypto supporters being obviously biased vote bombers from Reddit, and arguments are just being restated over and over again with no progress. Dronebogus (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Formal closure will have to be in the form of "The Wikimedia Movement makes [or does not make, in the event of a no-consensus] a formal recommendation to the WMF to X", since it's not within our specific remit to just enact change on. Regarding timing, we've made it 8 years (when the Community itself requested it), we can make it thirty days - no benefit in giving grounds for saying it wasn't properly discussed. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, „Environment-destroying plaything of the ultrarich“ is not even an objective argument, is it? By the way, some users supporting central bank money only are not even active on meta one quarter but still, they are allowed to express themselves. Sargoth (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you break it down, the vast majority of reliable sources that have been added to this RFC about the carbon footprint of bitcoin mining support the view that it wastes seriously high levels of domestic energy, for example being the tenth largest consumer of electricity in China. "Environment-destroying" is attention grabbing, but it's not nonfactual considering some of the reliable sources put it in a similar attention grabbing way. Similarly, the user market for Bitcoin is mostly "high risk investors" looking for a quick buck or people who are using it as a quick way to hide money and income for criminal purposes. These may not be the 'ultrarich', but the sentiment is understandable, as the market for this is not the poorest in society, nor my Mum wanting to save her pension money somewhere.
Anyway, this section is about when to close the RFC, you haven't actually said what closure date you think would be useful or realistic, perhaps you should? --Anstil (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wasting energy is a relevant point, that is why I state that donations should be accepted from Proof of Stake or similiar currencies (I have linked Algorand, also see here). Also, criminals can't hide behind Bitcoin any more. From my european point of view, the problem of Bitcoin was articulated by a wise man once: "Bitcoin, it just seems like a scam, I don't like it because it's another currency competing against the dollar." :) As far as closing is concerned: I don't believe much will change, there seems to be a stable two third majority against accepting money not printed by the US Federal Reserve. Sargoth (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's now hit 30 days, nobody had any objection to closing this RFC after 30 days and voting has died away to less than 1 per day and the balance of votes has been stable since the 1st week. Is there someone independent to approach that would be a good choice to close this RFC? --Anstil (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anstil: per Meta-Wiki policy, the discussion has to be closed by an admin or a steward (links to lists), so perhaps a request at Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat would be appropriate. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canvassing?[edit]

Just wondering what the rules are on canvassing on Meta. With just a quick review I didn't see any, but there must be something. How do most people find out about meta RfCs? Just to be clear, I found out via Google News, ultimately thru CoinDesk. But the source of knowing about the RfC didn't affect my comment. Any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • I think there doesn’t really need to be one in this case (though there should), since the closers can just reject clear bad-faith (or just bad) arguments under the principle of “debate not ballot”. Dronebogus (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updates?[edit]

Well, bookies? Any updates on the voting ratio? Dronebogus (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I ran the voting wikitext through a text analyzer and got 159 support, 73 oppose (or roughly 69% to 31%), with no filtration for obviously canvassed votes. Dronebogus (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for admin to close[edit]

The thread asking for someone to close is at Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Cryptos_RfC if anyone wishes to add to that noticeboard request. The fact is there is a super-majority of support and voting and discussion came to a natural stop several days ago. --Anstil (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There’s a steady trickle of stragglers but they’re more like protest votes than anything else. Dronebogus (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
…which are now countered out with a trickle of counter-votes. Dronebogus (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update from Mozilla[edit]

"Reporting Back on Mozilla’s Cryptocurrency Donation Policy", 7 April 2022.

tl;dr Mozilla decided that they will no longer accept proof-of-work (PoW) cryptocurrencies but will continue to accept proof-of-stake (PoS) ones. Thibaut (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update from Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

Thank you very much for the in-depth discussion on cryptocurrencies and its advantages and drawbacks. As mentioned in the discussion, we initially accepted cryptocurrencies for donations back in 2014 as requested at the time by Wikimedia communities. Times change and situations change. Now that the RfC has closed, we will take into account the final suggestion and discuss internally. We will provide an update by the end of April. Thank you, MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was originally posted on the main RfC page, which is closed, so I have moved it here. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, cool. Dronebogus (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation has decided to discontinue direct acceptance of cryptocurrency as a means of donating. We began our direct acceptance of cryptocurrency in 2014 based on requests from our volunteers and donor communities. We are making this decision based on recent feedback from those same communities. Specifically, we will be closing our Bitpay account, which will remove our ability to directly accept cryptocurrency as a method of donating.
We will continue to monitor this issue, and appreciate the feedback and consideration given to this evolving matter by people across the Wikimedia movement. We will remain flexible and responsive to the needs of volunteers and donors. Thank you again to everyone that has provided valuable input on this increasingly complex and shifting topic.--Lgruwell-WMF (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is great news. Thank you for listening to the community. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a shame. Especially the last argument made for this RfC turned out to be purely reactionary. Compare the media reception of Ukraine accepting cryptocurrencies for donations just a few weeks after. 95.91.212.65 17:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great to hear that- glad that the Foundation is listening to community members on controversial issues like this. Padgriffin (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What would the worth of WMF' portfolio have been if no cryptocurrency donations had ever been converted to dollars?[edit]

I think Bitcoin was worth just $10 around 2013 and even less before that. So, it seems to me that changing Bitcoins to dollars as soon as they were received was a big mistake. Count Iblis (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like a pointless hypothetical question per w:wp:NOTFORUM. The only thing this highlights is how insanely volatile crypto is. Dronebogus (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not hypothetical and it's not just cryptocurrencies that have gained against the USD, it's all assets from stocks to real estate. The dollar has lost a lot of value even against commodities. First there was only the asset price inflation, now regular people have noticed the reduced purchasing power in food and other goods as well.
Paying for servers (electricity) with a quickly depreciating currency gets more and more expensive too. Of course the Wikimedia Foundation can choose to only accept cash and to not hedge their holdings. Just like we the donors can choose to not give money to an organization that doesn't know how to manage it. Would be a shame though, because Wikipedia is important. I hope they reconsider this, keeping those wallets open doesn't cost a single cent. Nusernaame (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]