>> I find it frustrating that crypto-currencies are judged by their energy usage, meanwhile traditional fiat currencies are secured by massive banking industrie

>> I find it frustrating that crypto-currencies are judged by their energy usage, meanwhile traditional fiat currencies are secured by massive banking industries, governments, and militaries. The total energy required to maintain a secure and stable fiat currency is likely orders of magnitude greater than that of Bitcoin today. 1. By that logic bitcoin is also supported by the military, education system, banking industries etc. It relies on a secure society that has power and internet and computers and wealth for citizens to have and use these things as a prerequisite. 2. The military etc you mention actually is the basis of alot more in society than just fiat currency. So your formula "Energy used / total value secured". If you want to include those things in "energy used" then under "total value secured" you need to include basically all value ever created by humans in western countries which is in the hundreds of trillions (if not more). Not just fiat currency. And actually if we went back to the gold standard all those institutions would still need to exist to secure society. (banks, governments, and militaries existed long before we abandoned the gold standard.) Overall its a silly concept/argument.