That's roughly what I got out of the article as well, I'm just not sure it actually holds water. Sure, Bitcoin is less expensive to mine where energy is cheape

That's roughly what I got out of the article as well, I'm just not sure it actually holds water. Sure, Bitcoin is less expensive to mine where energy is cheaper, so if I happen to want some Bitcoin anyway I should try and purchase it from a miner somewhere with low cost electricity. That still doesn't tell me why I should consider buying it at any price. Let me see if I can demonstrate my objection: Kangaroos aren't very common here in America. In order to acquire a one pound box of kangaroo feces domestically, I would need to find a rare animal collector to negotiate with and may expect to end up paying, say, $100. An Australian, on the other hand, might well be willing to send me a box for barely more than the shipping costs, leading to a total cost to me of only $20. I suppose I could choose to describe the shipper as wrapping up the difference between their kangaroo availability and mine into a security, but that doesn't by itself make paying $20 for a literal box of crap a "good deal". Obviously Bitcoin at least appears to have some intrinsic value, since it's currently being actively traded. And obviously energy prices serve to set an upper bound on that value. I just don't see how energy prices could serve to also set a lower bound and, therefore, can't be the source of that intrinsic value.