Here's the deal, Jack. Bitcoin uses as much energy per year as Australia.

After some quick maths: in a single year, our credit card usage will burn through as much energy as Uganda - somewhere in the ballpark of 3.5k GWh/yr. Bitcoin is something around 260k GWh/yr, putting it in the top 20 energy consumers when lined up with entire COUNTRIES.

That's fucking asinine.

Let's take a look at transaction capabilities: Visa claims something ~150m transactions per day, which comes down to about 1,700 transactions per second. Bitcoin can process only seven transactions per second. SEVEN transactions, and it consumes more energy than most countries. Ethereum is hardly any better, performing 15 transactions per second with just a tiny bit less energy consumption than Bitcoin.

Enter: Solana.

Solana? Why, it's a measly 804 GWh/yr. That's less power than Barbados. On top of this, Solana is capable of performing FIFTY THOUSAND TRANSACTIONS PER SECOND. That's 75% less energy than major credit-card processors AND nearly THIRTY TIMES the number of transactions in the same timeframe. With all that said, I can't understand why Solana doesn't become the de-facto for financial transactions, at least as far as crypto is concerned.

The environmental implications that BTC/ETH alone have on our planet should be enough to convince anybody that has a waning interest in living healthily in the next 30 years, but I digress. Web3 might be the future of the web, but our planet will barely have a future if we build Web3 on something so incredibly inefficient.

Anyway, if you enjoyed the rant and you're feeling generous - here's my Solana tag if you wanna leave a tip. I'm working on a project on Solana, so any contributions would greatly help.