The energy measurement argument returns
CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju brought back the “Bitcoin equals energy” discussion this week. He suggested that proof-of-work mining is becoming something like a settlement layer for an AI-driven economy. In this view, power availability—not narratives or sentiment—is what really matters.
Ju posted on social media that Bitcoin can price energy with a precision traditional commodities can’t match. “Energy is money,” he wrote. “Bitcoin precisely measures the value of energy.” He contrasted this with gold, which he said also contains embedded energy but can’t be measured accurately because it’s not digital.
From moral debate to grid economics
Ju’s comments appeared alongside a longer analysis from Hashed CEO Simon Kim. Kim’s piece argued that the old criticism about Bitcoin “wasting” energy is being overtaken by practical realities. The AI data center buildout is changing how people value mining infrastructure, he suggested.
Kim thinks the conversation has shifted. It’s less about morality now and more about grid economics and industrial pragmatism. “The oldest criticism of Bitcoin has always been about energy,” he noted. But by 2026, he believes this debate has moved beyond simple moral condemnation.
Capital flows might tell part of the story. Kim pointed to Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala sovereign wealth fund allocating $437 million to BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF in late 2024. Then came a partnership with Oman’s fund to back Crusoe Energy, launching the Middle East’s first flare-gas mining operation.
In October 2025, Mubadala co-led Crusoe’s Series E funding round with $1.375 billion. That pushed Crusoe’s valuation above $10 billion. Interestingly, Crusoe said it would then divest its Bitcoin mining division to focus fully on AI infrastructure.
Miners did the groundwork AI needs
Kim’s thesis suggests miners have already done difficult work that AI companies now need. They’ve secured power access, mastered thermal management for high-density computing, and built operational flexibility around variable loads.
He referenced an Elon Musk quote from late 2025: “Energy is the true currency. This is why I say Bitcoin is based on energy. You can’t just pass a law and suddenly have a lot of energy.”
A recurring theme in Kim’s analysis is electricity’s physical constraints. Energy has locality issues, immediacy requirements, and transmission losses. These constraints make flexibility economically valuable, he argued.
Early examples include Sichuan’s hydropower curtailment exceeding 20 billion kWh by 2020. Miners became buyers of last resort for energy that couldn’t be stored or sold elsewhere.
Globally, Kim claimed curtailed renewable energy exceeds 200TWh annually. That represents more than $20 billion in economic losses. Bitcoin mining offers an instant monetization path for this surplus generation, he suggested.
Grid stability and environmental shifts
In Texas, ERCOT classifies mining as a controllable load resource. Kim cited Riot Blockchain cutting power usage by 98–99% during the 2022 winter storm. During an August 2023 heatwave, the company received $31.7 million in power credits—more than it would have earned from mining that month.
The framing is changing, Kim argued. It’s less about “miners versus data centers” and more about “premium uptime workloads versus interruptible demand that stabilizes the grid.”
Environmental criticisms are also evolving at the margins, he suggested. The industry’s energy mix is shifting. Kim claimed more than half of mining now comes from sustainable sources, exceeding 52%. Coal dependence fell from 36% to under 9%, he said.
On methane, flare-gas mining represents an emissions arbitrage opportunity. Methane has about 80 times the greenhouse effect of CO2. Flaring combusts 93% with 7% escaping, while using gas for mining combusts over 99%. This cuts CO2-equivalent emissions by over 60% compared to flaring, Kim explained.
The forward-looking implication of Ju’s framing is interesting. If AI accelerates the premium on reliable power and buildout speed, Bitcoin’s value proposition might increasingly be argued in energy market terms. Measuring, monetizing, and transporting scarcity becomes the language.
Kim’s closing challenge was direct: shift the question from consumption totals to system outcomes. The next phase of debate will likely center on where miners fit in AI-era infrastructure stacks, not whether they should exist at all.
“AI operates where continuous uptime is essential; Bitcoin operates where flexibility has value,” Kim wrote. “Governments can print money, but they cannot print energy. Bitcoin’s proof-of-work is the mechanism that brings this physical reality into the digital economy.”
At the time of reporting, Bitcoin traded around $86,779. The conversation about energy, value measurement, and digital infrastructure continues to evolve, perhaps in ways earlier critics didn’t anticipate.
