pull down to refresh
I'm shocked that the Economist magazine would be so careless. They usually do a better job of repeating anti bitcoin mining talking points.
reply
If they continue their operations (which they will) that's a distinction without a difference. Getting money or paying less for expenses - distinction without a difference.
That's very misleading.
The money they "make" from curtailment is not a payment made to Riot for curtailing power usage. Rather, it's effectively a discount on their power bills. What's really happening is Riot is getting discounted electricity because unlike other power users, they're willing to shut off when electricity demand is really high; no-one is going to cut you a check worth more than your power bill simply for turning off your miners. Riot is still spending a substantial net amount of money on power.
It's likely that the $8.6m number in that article is nonsense, based on some misunderstanding of Riot's business figures. Eg that might simply be the raw amount of Bitcoin Riot happened to sell that month. Or it might be the profit margin they made that month.