Case Study 1 - Cryptocurrencies, NFTs and the metaverse threaten an environmental
nightmare – here’s how to avoid it
As concerns rise and hearings are held in the US about the cryptocurrency industry’s effect on
the environment, it’s time to address blockchain’s poor sustainability record. The first port of call
should be changing how transactions on the blockchain operate – a move which could cut its
energy usage by 99.99%.
A cryptocurrency is a digital representation of value that, unlike traditional money, isn’t issued
by any central bank or agency. Cryptocurrencies are powered by blockchain technology, which
allows the exchange of virtual coins like bitcoin and ether.
Cryptocurrency mining is the process of creating new coins by solving complex mathematical
problems. The mining process also validates transactions on the cryptocurrency’s network,
proving that they’re genuine.
Crypto transactions are validated in two main ways: using either a “proof of work” or “proof of
stake” mechanism.
Written by academics, edited by journalists, backed by evidence.
Get newsletter
Proof of work requires miners around the world to compete to complete a maths puzzle. The
winner is rewarded with a predetermined amount of cryptocurrency and the ability to validate
their transaction.
In proof of stake, cryptocurrency owners validate blockchain transactions based on the number
of coins they stake. In other words, cryptocurrency owners are required to put up their own
cryptocurrency as collateral for the opportunity to successfully approve transactions.
Proof of work is more secure than proof of stake, but it’s slower and consumes more energy. The
mining activities of pioneering blockchains like Bitcoin are based on proof of work and thus use
enormous amounts of energy. But switching transactions to proof of stake has the potential to
dramatically cut emissions.
Although renewable energy is now being used to power some cryptocurrency activities, that
energy could surely be put to better use elsewhere: for example, to power homes or businesses.
Instead, if blockchain transactions were verified through proof of stake – a move that Ethereum
is planning to make – their energy consumption could be reduced to 0.01% of its original value.
Emissions
The estimated power needed to run the Bitcoin network across the world is an extraordinary 7.46
gigawatts (GW) per year. For comparison, in 2020 an average-sized nuclear plant produced
around 1GW of electrical power in a year. The energy required for just one bitcoin transaction
could power the average US home for more than 70 days.
As the US committee heard, a bitcoin transaction adds around 400kg of CO² to the atmosphere
(assuming it’s powered by an energy mix typical of the UK, of which around two-thirds comes
from fossil fuel).
Together, Bitcoin and Ethereum mining operations emit more than 70 million tonnes of CO² into
the atmosphere. That’s the same as the annual exhaust emissions of over 15.5 million cars. One
cryptocurrency mining firm is even seeking to restart operations at two coal-fired power plants in
Pennsylvania to generate more energy.
Crypto futures
The main concern raised by the US committee was that, given the potential for a dramatic
increase in cryptocurrencies’ value, their required energy consumption – and environmental
impact – is likely to keep growing.
This is partly thanks to the boom in related markets like decentralised finance (DeFi) and nonfungible tokens (NFTs), which are largely based on the Ethereum blockchain.
DeFi is a financial system using blockchain technology to let users make transactions and
investments without going through a central mediator, while NFTs are unique pieces of digital
media stored on the blockchain.
An artist’s impression of a Bored Ape NFT, one of the most popular images on the market. Scott
Beale/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND
Although DeFi only launched in 2017, its value already hit £85 billion in November 2021.
And NFTs’ total sale value grew from £74 million in 2020 to £29.6 billion in 2021.
Also, since NFTs are most commonly created on the Ethereum blockchain – which uses proof of
work to verify transactions – it takes a lot of energy to create one. And as NFTs feature
prominently in the growing metaverse, their energy demand is only set to increase.
It sounds contradictory, but adopting blockchain technology could actually have a positive
effect on the environment over the long term. This is because it could allow companies to
automate many of their complex payment systems, reducing the number of commuting
employees and resulting in fewer transport-related emissions.
While the extent of this transformation is very hard to predict, it’s becoming clear that as
blockchain technology grows, its benefits will too. For example, as developments in blockchain
continue to break new ground in business and finance, we’re seeing cryptocurrency
accelerate financial inclusion for those who’ve historically been excluded from participating in
formal financial systems.
As more businesses enter the metaverse, governments and regulators should aim to ensure that
environmental implications are minimised without stifling innovation. Requiring blockchains to
adopt proof of stake would be a good start.
Salami, N. 2022 The Conversation 8 February 2022
a. What, do you think, the crypto industry remains heavily committed to highly polluting
processes, despite the costs entailed?
b. Do you think the solutions proposed above are feasible? What alternatives are there?
Case study 2: Behind the crypto hype is an ideology of social change
Ads for blockchain, NFTs and cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin seem to be everywhere. Crypto
technologies are being promoted as a replacement for banks; a new way to buy art; the next big
investment opportunity, and an essential part of the metaverse.
To many, these technologies are confusing or risky. But enthusiasts ardently promote them.
As a cybersecurity and social media researcher, I’ve found that behind the hype is an ideology
about social change: Hardcore enthusiasts argue that crypto will get people to trust in technology
rather than government, which they see as inherently untrustworthy. This ideology leads people
to encourage its use while downplaying its risks.
The true believers
My colleagues and I studied almost three months of discussions on Reddit forums about
cryptocurrencies to try to understand how people talk about crypto and Bitcoin. The loudest
voices on the forum were a group of crypto enthusiasts who called themselves “True Bitcoiners.”
Unlike technology enthusiasts or crypto marketers, “true bitcoiners” didn’t talk about
technology, or about their own use of crypto. Instead, they talked about trust and corruption.
These crypto enthusiasts often cite examples of what they see as government corruption and
corporate corruption. They recognize that society depends on governments and corporations
setting and enforcing rules, and they complain that people are stuck with these “corrupt”
institutions. Corruption, they say, is an inevitable flaw in humanity and leads to trying to control
and mistreat others.
The enthusiasts see Bitcoin, blockchain and other crypto technologies as providing an alternative
to the corruption. They argue that these new technologies are “trustless” and don’t depend on
institutions. You can buy and sell things using bitcoin without checking with a bank or using
government-issued cash.
These two beliefs – that governments are corrupt and that crypto avoids that corruption – are
common among the crypto enthusiasts we studied. But enthusiasts go one step further. They seek
change. They want to change who has power and who doesn’t.
They argue that crypto is how that change will happen. For crypto enthusiasts, using crypto isn’t
just a way to buy and sell things. By using crypto technologies, they argue, society will become
less dependent on governments and corporations. That is, using crypto – and getting as many
people as possible to use it as much as possible – is a way to change the world and take power
away from governments.
Pushing an ideology
These beliefs about who should and should not have power in society embody an ideology. An
important part of the crypto ideology is that this change can’t happen unless people use crypto.
The technology and the ideology are tied together.
For many of these enthusiasts, recommending crypto to other people is not just a technology
recommendation. To them, buying and selling crypto is a form of political and social activism.
They argue that buying crypto will remove corruption and change society to trust technology
over government.
This ideology is a more extreme version of technolibertarianism, which seeks to replace
government with technology. Like technolibertarians, true bitcoiners want technology to control
society. But they focus on financial and economic control more than civil liberties. And because
promoting crypto is part of this ideology, crypto has often been compared with a religion.
Crypto dangers
An important aspect of any ideology is the way it emphasizes some dangers and downplays
others. True bitcoiners emphasize the problems with government corruption. But they downplay
the financial risks of crypto. The price of Bitcoin fluctuates wildly, and many people have lost
money buying crypto. Crypto wallets are difficult to understand and use, and fraudulent
transactions are difficult to reverse.
Crypto enthusiasts frequently downplay the technology’s risks to people and society. They also
dismiss the valuable role that governments and corporations play in protecting people’s
money, providing insurance for bank accounts and returning money that’s been stolen.
Beliefs in crypto’s ability to create social change are also overstated. Crypto technologies don’t
necessarily eliminate corporations or avoid government control. There are private, corporate
blockchains and many government regulations about cryptocurrencies. As I see it, simply using
the technology doesn’t necessarily lead to the social change these enthusiasts seek.
Questions
1. Do you think the concerns expressed above are legitimate? Justify the argument.
2. Present a counter argument that crypto currencies are a social and economic good.
(Source: Wash, R. 2022. The Conversation, 31 March, 2022).
Case Study 2:
Crypto platforms say they’re exchanges, but they’re more like banks
There is a well-known saying shared by both crypto experts and skeptics: “Not your keys, not
your coins.” The phrase, popularized by Bitcoin entrepreneur Andreas Antonopoulos, refers to
how the contents of a crypto wallet are the property of whoever has access to that wallet’s digital
“keys.”
This means that unless you personally have the keys to your crypto assets and store them offline,
you are vulnerable to hacks, scams and bankruptcies. The endless stream of crypto scams has
been well documented. So have the security breaches — and not to mention the eye-popping
carbon emissions.
Of course, offline storage requires an extra level of understanding, technological sophistication
and inconvenience. Enter crypto exchanges like Coinbase and Crypto.com, which offer simple,
convenient platforms for users to buy and sell cryptocurrencies and NFTs.
However, the crypto crash has revealed that these firms are not just exchanges — they are more
like banks. Except defunct crypto exchanges like Celsius Network and Voyager Digital were
only banks if you read the fine print. Most customers, of course, did not.
Who needs deposit insurance?
Until very recently, crypto exchanges were all the rage. They had A-list celebrity
spokespeople, stadium naming rights and public endorsements by major politicians.
Crypto exchange companies market themselves as platforms for users to buy and sell crypto. But
they also function like stockbrokers and, more concerningly, their core business models quite
closely resemble banking.
Traditional exchanges, like the New York Stock Exchange, rarely go bankrupt. And since they
do not offer account services, if they do go bankrupt their clients are not on the hook for any
losses. Brokerage firms, like Wealthsimple, do sometimes go bankrupt, but their clients’
portfolios are held in the client’s own name and, accordingly, may simply be transferred to a
different broker. In the event of fraud, both Canada and the United States provide automatic
insurance for lost assets.
Banks, like the Royal Bank of Canada, take on more risks and fail more often. Because banks
use customer deposits to make loans, banks are vulnerable to runs. This is why most highincome countries — including Canada — have deposit insurance and regulate banking more than
other financial services.
Herein lies the problem. Companies like Celsius and Voyager marketed themselves as both
exchanges and brokers, so that is how their apps appeared. But if anyone were to read the terms
and conditions, it would be clear that they were actually uninsured, quasi-banks.
Risks in crypto-banking
In companies like Celsius and Voyager, customers’ accounts were not held separately in their
own wallets, but rather held in a pool owned by the platform. The platform would use this pool
of money to make loans (often to other crypto firms) or to engage in its own speculative
investing (often in crypto assets). When depositors cashed out, they were paid from the pool,
which was able to cover normal on-demand withdrawals, but did not have enough cash to handle
everyone pulling out simultaneously.
When crypto prices collapsed, these firms’ loans went belly upand some were forced to suspend
withdrawals. When Celsius filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, their depositors learned their
accounts were worthless, having been gambled away by the company.
These firms deliberately obscured this reality to their clients. In Voyager’s case, they outright
lied about being FDIC-insured. Snake-oil salesmen from these companies convinced their
customers that regulated banks were the problem, only to learn exactly why those regulations
exist in the first place.
To make matters worse, the lack of transparency in crypto markets makes it quite easy for
executives and developers to dump their positions long before they suspend withdrawals. By the
time customers realize their money is gone, those responsible have cashed out with a tidy profit.
The future of decentralized finance
So where do we go from here?
At the micro level, the answers are obvious. Crypto exchanges should be regulated in the same
manner as brokers. Client assets must be held separately and securely, with clear rules on risk
exposure in the firms’ own trading.
Crypto assets themselves should be clearly designated as securities, and therefore subject to
oversight. Exchange platforms should be required to hold sufficient cash in government-issued
currency. If this sounds like it violates the ethos of decentralized finance, that’s because it
should.
The macro level is trickier. Post-2008, we have demonized the big banks and fetishized
technology. Crypto enthusiasts claim Wall Street is only in it for itself, and they are right. But
they’ve recreated the same system, only it’s even riskier.
The late arrivals to the crypto party — the ones now holding the bag — are not the wealthy
investing class. They are regular people, rightly distrustful of banks and, by extension, our
institutions, and are desperately searching for ways to shield themselves from skyrocketing
inflation.
Rebuilding that trust takes time and energy. It takes a willingness to deal with the inequities
caused by a rising cost of living and an extractive financial system. And, crucially, it takes
effective regulation. If it looks like a bank and behaves like a bank, it needs to be treated like a
bank.
Source: O’Connell, W. 2022. The Conversation, 11 August 2022.
Questions
1. What are the implications of crypto for the traditional banking sector.
2. How and can regulators respond to the risks entailed by the operation of crypto
exchanges.
Case study 3: Behind the crypto hype is an ideology of social change
Ads for blockchain, NFTs and cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin seem to be everywhere. Crypto
technologies are being promoted as a replacement for banks; a new way to buy art; the next big
investment opportunity, and an essential part of the metaverse.
To many, these technologies are confusing or risky. But enthusiasts ardently promote them.
As a cybersecurity and social media researcher, I’ve found that behind the hype is an ideology
about social change: Hardcore enthusiasts argue that crypto will get people to trust in technology
rather than government, which they see as inherently untrustworthy. This ideology leads people
to encourage its use while downplaying its risks.
The true believers
My colleagues and I studied almost three months of discussions on Reddit forums about
cryptocurrencies to try to understand how people talk about crypto and Bitcoin. The loudest
voices on the forum were a group of crypto enthusiasts who called themselves “True Bitcoiners.”
Unlike technology enthusiasts or crypto marketers, “true bitcoiners” didn’t talk about
technology, or about their own use of crypto. Instead, they talked about trust and corruption.
These crypto enthusiasts often cite examples of what they see as government corruption and
corporate corruption. They recognize that society depends on governments and corporations
setting and enforcing rules, and they complain that people are stuck with these “corrupt”
institutions. Corruption, they say, is an inevitable flaw in humanity and leads to trying to control
and mistreat others.
The enthusiasts see Bitcoin, blockchain and other crypto technologies as providing an alternative
to the corruption. They argue that these new technologies are “trustless” and don’t depend on
institutions. You can buy and sell things using bitcoin without checking with a bank or using
government-issued cash.
These two beliefs – that governments are corrupt and that crypto avoids that corruption – are
common among the crypto enthusiasts we studied. But enthusiasts go one step further. They seek
change. They want to change who has power and who doesn’t.
They argue that crypto is how that change will happen. For crypto enthusiasts, using crypto isn’t
just a way to buy and sell things. By using crypto technologies, they argue, society will become
less dependent on governments and corporations. That is, using crypto – and getting as many
people as possible to use it as much as possible – is a way to change the world and take power
away from governments.
Pushing an ideology
These beliefs about who should and should not have power in society embody an ideology. An
important part of the crypto ideology is that this change can’t happen unless people use crypto.
The technology and the ideology are tied together.
For many of these enthusiasts, recommending crypto to other people is not just a technology
recommendation. To them, buying and selling crypto is a form of political and social activism.
They argue that buying crypto will remove corruption and change society to trust technology
over government.
This ideology is a more extreme version of technolibertarianism, which seeks to replace
government with technology. Like technolibertarians, true bitcoiners want technology to control
society. But they focus on financial and economic control more than civil liberties. And because
promoting crypto is part of this ideology, crypto has often been compared with a religion.
Crypto dangers
An important aspect of any ideology is the way it emphasizes some dangers and downplays
others. True bitcoiners emphasize the problems with government corruption. But they downplay
the financial risks of crypto. The price of Bitcoin fluctuates wildly, and many people have lost
money buying crypto. Crypto wallets are difficult to understand and use, and fraudulent
transactions are difficult to reverse.
Crypto enthusiasts frequently downplay the technology’s risks to people and society. They also
dismiss the valuable role that governments and corporations play in protecting people’s
money, providing insurance for bank accounts and returning money that’s been stolen.
Beliefs in crypto’s ability to create social change are also overstated. Crypto technologies don’t
necessarily eliminate corporations or avoid government control. There are private, corporate
blockchains and many government regulations about cryptocurrencies. As I see it, simply using
the technology doesn’t necessarily lead to the social change these enthusiasts seek.
Questions
1. Do you think the concerns expressed above are legitimate? Justify the argument.
2. Present a counter argument that crypto currencies are a social and economic good.
(Source: Wash, R. 2022. The Conversation, 31 March, 2022).
Case Study 4: Should we embrace crypto?
Ankit sighed. Thorsten was a brilliant technologist who had started and sold DayTradz, one of
the first online retail trading platforms, before he was even 30. Ivory Tower was his second, also
hugely successful, venture—one that was disrupting higher education by offering high-quality
college and graduate-school courses to students around the world. Some, such as the intro to
economics class taught by a Nobel Prize winner donating his time, were extremely affordable,
while others, such as classes on personal branding with Kris Jenner and on M&A with Carl
Icahn, were obscenely expensive. The idea was to have the platform’s wealthiest users subsidize
its poorest. The impact Ivory Tower had achieved in the five years since its launch—and in the
13 months since its IPO—was amazing. But sometimes being the CFO of a fast-moving
company led by a “crazy genius” was exhausting.
For months now Thorsten had been talking about integrating cryptocurrency into the business.
He was a huge proponent of Bitcoin1and had put about 5% of his own portfolio into it. Several
weeks ago the CEO had asked Ankit to have his team look into accepting tuition payments and
keeping some of Ivory Tower’s cash reserves in crypto. In media interviews, Thorsten had also
started alluding to “our crypto future,” sparking speculation that he would build or buy a crypto
trading platform.2 But Ankit knew that Thorsten was committed to Ivory Tower for at least the
next few years; he just wanted to combine it with his new passion.
To Thorsten, taking fees and making investments in Bitcoin were simple matters—akin to doing
business in euros as well as dollars, which Ivory Tower already did. Bitcoin adoption could
allow the U.S.-based company to further hedge itself against dollar inflation.3
Ankit knew that things were much more complicated. Although cryptocurrencies were gaining
mainstream appeal, even established ones like Bitcoin were highly volatile, with value swings
that made them look more like speculative stocks. Sure, it was possible to take payment in
Bitcoin and then convert it to dollars, but the company had to figure out whether it made sense to
build the internal capability needed or to hire a third-party vendor to handle transactions. And
investing earnings in crypto was another thing entirely. Ankit’s head hurt just thinking about the
financial-reporting challenges. Then there was his fiduciary responsibility as CFO: Did
shareholders really want Ivory Tower to bet on crypto if doing so might risk the capital needed
down the road for developing better technology and courses and expanding the company’s
reach?
Unfortunately, Thorsten rarely took no for an answer. So Ankit rolled out of bed and texted his
teammates. “Morning. T asking about crypto again. Zoom at 8 to discuss? He’ll join at 8:30.”
Within a minute, he’d received two thumbs up. By now everyone was used to Thorsten’s
impromptu meetings. Ankit just hoped this one wouldn’t end with an edict.
Evaluating the Options
“I mean we can accept tuition payments in Bitcoin.” Paul Abebe, Ivory Tower’s controller, had
jumped in immediately on the Zoom call. Everyone had been working from home since the start
of the pandemic, and the company had decided it wouldn’t require anyone to return to its
Manhattan headquarters. “It’s annoying—not as liquid as nondigital currencies, obviously. There
would be IRS reporting and anti-money-laundering compliance issues to consider. But the
question is: Why should we do it?”
“Thorsten says it fits with our ethos: embracing the future, spearheading new technologies,
shaking up the stodgy educational community,” Shira Peretz, Ankit’s deputy, said. “Edo loves
the idea too.” She was referring to Edo Sanger, Ivory Tower’s CMO. “He thinks it will make for
great press.”
“And will that translate into more users and revenues?” Paul asked skeptically. “What percentage
of our students even care about this?”4
“Well, our blockchain and crypto courses are actually some of our most popular, but Thorsten
admits that at this point most people probably won’t pay in Bitcoin,”5 Ankit said. “He’s more
interested in investing our excess cash in it. Thoughts?”
“It’s a terrible idea,” Paul said.
“Agree,” Shira said. “There’s no GAAP guidance on how to account for this stuff yet.6 But the
AICPA says Bitcoin isn’t considered cash or a cash equivalent, inventory, or a financial
instrument, so it needs to be treated like an intangible asset, which means that if its value falls,
we have to mark it down on our balance sheet. But if it goes up, we report those gains only when
we sell. So if we’re meaningfully invested, we could be taking big, random hits to our net
income for no business-related reason. Communicating the company’s performance will get
more complicated.”
“But if Bitcoin goes up in the long run, could it give us gains that smooth out or boost
profitability?” Ankit asked. “Our shareholders aren’t looking for perfect quarterly results. They
want us to invest wisely to grow the company.”
“I’m sorry, but an asset that goes from a valuation of $60K to $30K in one month cannot be
considered a prudent investment,” Paul countered. “How do we know that Bitcoin will be worth
as much next year as it is now? And will we use just Bitcoin or also Ether or any of the
thousands of other cryptocurrencies?”
“For now, Thorsten’s talking only about Bitcoin,” Ankit said. “It has the largest user base and
longest history. And he’s convinced it will go up in value.”
“If our shareholders want to bet on crypto, they can do it directly,” Paul said. “When we filed our
S-1 for the IPO, we didn’t say anything about a Bitcoin treasury.”
“Well, we’d disclose it, and investors could sell if they’re not on board,” Shira said. Then she
shook her head. “But I agree that it’s too soon, too volatile. I vote for accepting Bitcoin
payments—if it’s doable without too much compliance and IT complications. Investments, no.”
“I’m a no and a no,” Paul said.
Just then, Ankit saw that Thorsten was in the Zoom waiting room. “OK, guys, here comes T,” he
said, letting the CEO in.
“Hello, friends!” Thorsten said as his face popped up on-screen. “What a fabulous day to be
talking about the future. Catch me up on our crypto plans.”
Ankit took the lead. “We’ve evaluated our options, and while we appreciate the potential benefits
of Bitcoin, we’re going to advise against—”
“Aha! I knew you guys would say this. Your job is to worry about the spreadsheets. I understand.
But that’s why I’m here: to help you see the big picture. Bitcoin is the future. There is no world
in which it underperforms relative to major currencies over the next decade.7 We have so much
cash in reserves. Why wouldn’t we put some of it into assets that produce high returns we could
invest in the company? We could get appreciation up to 10 times what we’d otherwise see. We’ll
help propel Bitcoin forward and democratize the movement of money, just as we’re
democratizing education. We must do this!”
Ankit could tell that Paul and Shira were deflated, if not surprised. This did seem like a fait
accompli. What Thorsten wanted, Thorsten usually got.
The Board’s Concerns
After setting his team to work figuring out how to take crypto payments and spending a few
hours modeling various levels of investment in Bitcoin, Ankit checked his email. Cindy Yu, the
company’s newest director and the head of its audit committee, had sent a message asking him to
call her.
“Cindy, hi! I just saw your message. What’s up?”
“Hi, Ankit. Thanks for getting back to me. I’m calling with some board concerns. Can we speak
off the record?”
“Of course.”
“Thorsten has mentioned to several directors that he’s interested in making Bitcoin a bigger part
of Ivory Tower’s business. At the same time, he’s personally—and not insignificantly—invested
in Bitcoin. Some of us are worried that this at least has the appearance of a conflict of interest.” 8
“I see.”
“More important, some of us have questions about the wisdom of taking our treasury into crypto.
Obviously, I expect that we’ll discuss this at the board meeting next week, but I wanted to give
you a heads-up. I suspect that Thorsten has asked you to present a plan to us. However, we want
your candid opinion. He has his allies, of course. But as nonexecutive directors, we have to make
decisions in the company’s best interest, and we expect the finance team to make
recommendations based on the same criteria.”
“Of course.”
“I know Thorsten is a force of nature and doesn’t make it easy to disagree with him.9 But if you
do, the board needs to hear it, and you will have our support.”
Case Study Classroom Notes
Bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency, created in 2009. Users on its network can send Bitcoins to one
another ...
Pressure from the CEO
At 7, Ankit was out for a jog when his phone rang: Thorsten.
“Ankit. Hope I didn’t catch you at a bad time. I wanted to reconnect on crypto.”
“Just on a run. No problem.”
“Ah, keep running. I can talk as you go,” Thorsten said. “I want you to know that I understand
your hesitancy. And we can take it slow. But I have a track record of knowing what’s next in
business. First DayTradz, now Ivory Tower—both big successes, though many didn’t believe
they could be. You can trust me again now. Bitcoin has outperformed the dollar since its
inception, is gaining popularity with our user base, and in my opinion will be more efficient and
secure than regular currencies. Other cutting-edge companies are already starting to jump in.
Now is the time for us to as well. Our support will help the crypto movement. We’ll take power
from large institutions and put it into the hands of the people. This fits perfectly with our
mission.”
Ankit wasn’t sure how to reply, but Thorsten didn’t press any further. “OK, continue your
exercise, my friend. And tomorrow we’ll run toward the future together!”
After the call, Ankit picked up his pace and tried unsuccessfully to zone out to his iPhone music.
Was Thorsten right? If monetary exchange was going to move toward crypto, Ivory Tower
should certainly get ahead of the shift. But what if governments clamped down on
cryptocurrency? If Bitcoin lost all its value? The board members were right to ask hard
questions. And Ankit wasn’t at all sure how to answer them.
(Source: Wang, C. 2021. Harvard Business Review Cases. November)
Questions:
1. From a sustainability perspective, should Ankit back Thorstein’s Bitcoin plans?
2. And, why not?