> The article doesn't mention any of that though. It says that the miners got cut off (rationed) because 3 coal plants were offline. The regulator is stepping i

> The article doesn't mention any of that though. It says that the miners got cut off (rationed) because 3 coal plants were offline. The regulator is stepping in to make sure regular people and industries are prioritized. The regulator has stepped in to ration to avoid cryptominers competing with the Kazakh poor for the electricity that is left over. That sounds like the power supply is less robust to me. (A quick google suggests the power companies are claiming the shutdowns were scheduled but the recent demand spikes weren't part of the plan...) > Investments and innovation follow demand so now that demand has risen and assuming demand stays high, what should we expect will happen? This is not unique to crypto, it just happens to be the driving force here. Of course other industries can lead to similar outcomes. If you think this will not lead to innovation and investments, you are basically saying that cryptomining deviates from the norm and you would need to justify this claim. I'm not sure why you're pretending I haven't already observed what's different about POW cryptomining (unlike other industries which tend to increase yields by consuming less energy per unit of output than the competition, miners seeking block rewards maximise yields by consuming more energy, which means they are highly incentivised to consume all increases in energy output at a given price) or indeed why you are claiming that the norm is for increase in demand to result in something becoming cheaper and more widely available (it invariably has the opposite effect in the short term, and usually in the long run too) in an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto me, but doesn't exactly create the impression that you are arguing in good faith.