Fun fact: 100% of Abu Dhabi’s power infrastructure, except for substations, is excavated, meaning you’ll never see overhead power lines while driving through the city .. this makes transmission and distribution significantly more expensive than in the US or anywhere in the world, which is why the AD government subsidizes electricity to keep it affordable for residents That said, by consuming a substantial % of the under-utilized energy, Zero Two helps increase grid revenue, ultimately reducing the government’s subsidy burden .. We leverage our in-house technology stack to orchestrate energy consumption while mining bitcoin: drawing excess energy when it's available (mostly during winter months) and curtailing operations during peak demand hours, giving power back to the grid .. win win for everyone 🇦🇪 #bitcoin #bitcoinmining

In an alternative reality FPPS style architecture can decentralize mining pools. Historically PPLNS style pools have had trouble gaining users due to cost of variance (unpredictable payouts, bad luck, etc). A PPLNS style pool needs to have a large % of network hashrate and blockfind rate to attract the average miner. PPLNS pools are very difficult to bootstrap for this reason, doesn't matter how much money you have to start a PPLNS pool, it is challenging to grow and maintain users over time. Over the years PPLNS pools have faded away. - CKPool & others couldn't attract users even with zero fees - Braiins had to switch from PPLNS to FPPS in order to keep customers - Many more examples Most miners want fixed, reliable payouts and minimal variance, therefore FPPS style pool architecture. The market demand is clear, FPPS is preferred over PPLNS. An FPPS pool is sustainable, provided the pool fee is high enough to cover the cost of capital of variance / insurance, at least *in theory*. FPPS pools can, in theory, be more effective at decentralizing mining than PPLNS pools because anyone with capital can spool up an FPPS pool and immediately satisfy the user base with reliable income. Capital is relatively easy to find (much easier than finding and maintaining users), and the business of an FPPS pool has a positive 'expected value' provided the pool fee covers the cost of capital of variance / Luck. With an adequate pool fee an FPPS pool is guaranteed to make money over long time horizons... But theory isn't reality. FPPS pools are at risk to block withholding attacks, especially if they are publicly accessible. Competitors and bad actors are incentivized to block withhold public FPPS pools to bankrupt the operator and put it out of business and maintain their market share / agenda. Therefore it is basically impossible, regardless of funding, to bootstrap an *independent* AND public FPPS pool. Emphasis on "independent" - meaning not reliant on Antpool, or related provider, to maintain / finance the back end. In a perfect world anyone should be able to finance and offer an FPPS pool that is publicly available to everyone, however this is not possible today. Due to block withholding threats, an *independent* FPPS pool start-up has no choice but to offer the pool privately, with KYC and related controls on its miners to verify there is no block withholding occurring (intentional or unintentional). In a future scenario where mining pools start censoring bitcoin, likely due to State order, there is no ability right now for new FPPS pools to spin up publicly to offer an alternative to miners. Unlike public FPPS pools, private FPPS pools are hard to coordinate and attract users, especially in the scenario of State attack. This is unfortunate and concerning. Many will say "to hell with FPPS pools", but FPPS is what is scaling bitcoin mining, just like custodians are scaling the bitcoin transaction layer. What is needed is the ability for start-ups to offer publicly accessible FPPS pools safely, but this is not possible due to block withholding risks. The only known solution to block withholding requires a hard fork, so until then there doesn't appear to be a pathway here. Some will say that Ocean and similar SV2 initiatives relating to user-based block template creation is the answer, but it is not. Not only do these pool operators still control payouts, but the market demand is for *fixed reliable payouts*, not variable payouts. More optionality is a good thing. It sort of sucks that new competitive *independent and public* FPPS pools are not possible to do safely today. Bitcoin block creation and mining pool operator centralization may stay that way for a long time to come.