As long as punitive taxation is applied to energy consumers/polluters , I would remind you that the mining activity of cryptos-actives (bitcoin, ether, lumen, monero... and 2,500 others) uses the equivalent of the electrical energy consumed every day by a country like Austria.

Except that one out of every two crypto units created was created via carbon energy, notably coal-fired electricity in China, Russia, Mongolia, the former Eastern European countries, etc.).

This represents a carbon footprint equivalent to that of vehicles circulating in France... except that the energy to produce 1 bitcoin did not allow anyone to heat anyone, nor to bring someone closer to his work, nor to temper a greenhouse to produce more food, etc.
What value creation behind cryptocurrencies?

In the absence of a central server (Bitcoin does not depend on a state or a central bank but is a decentralized currency), the global architecture is based on the principle of "peer to peer", like the "torrents" that allow Internet users to exchange music and videos on exchange platforms. Most of the servers, members of this global network, are located in China, which is a bit tricky when you consider that the Chinese central bank has demanded the closure of sites offering to acquire bitcoins from Chinese citizens. The Chinese datacenters that "mine" this cryptomonnaise alone consume nearly 6 TWh/year to do so. Far ahead of the United States, Russia, India, Japan, Germany, Canada, Brazil, South Korea and France (No. 10 in this ranking).

And if the cryptos fall back to zero (they have already lost 80% of their value, or $750 billion), their mining will have represented one of the most fantastic waste of energy in modern history. The only "objective" value associated with them is the energy cost of their extraction... Cryptos will not leave any material traces in the world heritage (because even an abandoned industrial wasteland is a testimony to our past, structural metal can be recycled, etc.).

Cryptos could have just increased the pollution of the planet without ever having been used for anything to protect it.

But taxing crypto-minors is impossible.... fortunately there is still the taxpayer!

As the first generation to have grown up with these virtual currencies, millennials have different ways of thinking by default. New technologies are part of their daily lives and it seems quite natural to them. This generation does everything differently from their parents: booking a taxi, ordering pizzas, looking for a job or planning a vacation. And cryptomonnaies are obviously part of all this.

Millennials are particularly open to the adoption of new technologies to create their own opportunities. The Blockchain is in this spirit and the millennia welcome it with open arms.Young people are in a good position to take risks in a sector known for its volatility.

I think the cryptomone market is attractive for millennia because it is a space with a lot of growth and risks. People over the age of 40 already have a career and a family and are less inclined to enter a sector of rapid and volatile growth; moreover, it was the same for start-up founders over the past 20 years. Millennials are much more familiar with new technologies than Generation X or the baby boomers.

However older generations who want to get involved should not see their age as an obstacle. Most people who get into cryptomonnaies are between 22 and 40 years old. But anything is possible and there are many exceptions.

Rather than imposing a ban, or imposing strict regulation on crypto-currency trading, the government would do better to cooperate with the community in order to better collect taxes related to the income generated by this activity.

Look at what's happening right now. As China and South Korea impose stricter rules, with the threat of a ban - or the implementation of a ban - other countries could intervene. Yet, if we look at Japan, it is becoming a paradise for crypto-currencies, due to a favourable framework. Even the Philippines is in favour of cryptocurrencies.

I am not so sure.. For the folllowing reasons.

Limit: "truly operational use cases are rare," the report points out. Why? Why? First of all, there are "technical" brakes. An example to illustrate this: the Bitcoin network processes a handful of transactions per second, compared to several thousand for a credit card operator. "The historical validation mechanism of the blockchain, with its cryptographic processes, is a source of slowness. "A change of scale therefore seems problematic as it stands. Other technical limits: the electricity consumption of cryptographic operations (huge), the question of the electronic identity of the goods or persons whose transactions are recorded in the blockchain or quite simply that of the "choice of consensus protocol", i.e. the modalities of access to the blockchain.

The second type of limits listed in the report are those related to monetary and financial issues. There are currently 1,500 cryptomones built on blockchains for a total capitalization of more than 300 billion euros, but still no regulations to curb their speculative dimension (as there are typically for financial markets). However, blockchain and cryptomonnages are difficult to separate since the validation operations that secure the network are "remunerated" by issuing digital assets. Hence the idea in the debate of a digital central bank currency that would give cryptomonnaies the necessary institutional, legal and budgetary support. "Cryptomonnaies are also known for their ability to allow fraudulent payments (drugs, weapons, money laundering) or tax evasion," the report points out. These are obvious security issues that go beyond the usual cybersecurity issues (protection against piracy).

There remains the legal and fiscal question. Since the blockchain claims total reliability without the intervention of a trusted third party, the certifications it registers must have a proven probative value. Without "a blockchain-type right of evidence", legal uncertainty may hinder the development of technology. The same lack of regulation on the tax side: "the legal nature of digital assets remains unclear" - which explains why banks refuse to manage the accounts of companies with e-currencies in their assets; "a clear tax policy adapted to cryptomoney is lacking".