In this regard the key factor determining the success of the mining industry is the cost of electricity. By understanding the risks associated with crypto mining industry. The method is based on systemic literature review and bibliometric analysis exploring keyword “bitcoin mining”. This review paper studies 50 papers for the period of 2019–2023. The results propose recommendations for crypto miners. Currently, the results confirm that bitcoin mainly depends on the consumption of inexpensive electricity. Consequently, the bitcoin network predominantly uses energy in regions where it is abundant and cannot be stored or exported. Most miners rely on electricity generated from hydroelectric power plants, geysers and geothermal sources, which are not easy to transport or store. Bitcoin will continue to look for such cost-effective and underutilized energy sources, as mining in urban areas or industrial centers will remain financially unviable. If the price of bitcoin stabilizes and a sufficient number of miners enter the market, it is quite possible that in the near future we may witness a fivefold increase in their energy consumption.

Background: Bitcoin mining, an energy-intensive process, requires significant amounts of electricity, which results in a particularly high carbon footprint from mining operations. In the Republic of Kazakhstan, where a substantial portion of electricity is generated from coal-fired power plants, the carbon footprint of mining operations is particularly high. This article examines the scale of energy consumption by mining farms, assesses their share in the country’s total electricity consumption, and analyzes the carbon footprint associated with bitcoin mining. A comparative analysis with other sectors of the economy, including transportation and industry is provided, along with possible measures to reduce the environmental impact of mining operations. Materials and methods: To assess the impact of bitcoin mining on the carbon footprint in Kazakhstan, electricity consumption from 2016 to 2023, provided by the Bureau of National Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, was used. Data on electricity production from various types of power plants was also analyzed. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology was used to analyze the environmental performance of energy systems. CO₂ emissions were estimated based on emission factors for various energy sources. Results: The total electricity consumption in Kazakhstan increased from 74,502 GWh in 2016 to 115,067.6 GWh in 2023. The industrial sector’s electricity consumption remained relatively stable over this period. The consumption by mining farms amounted to 10,346 GWh in 2021. A comparative analysis of CO₂ emissions showed that bitcoin mining has a higher carbon footprint compared to electricity generation from renewable sources, as well as oil refining and car manufacturing. Conclusions: Bitcoin mining has a significant negative impact on the environment of the Republic of Kazakhstan due to high electricity consumption and resulting carbon dioxide emissions. Measures are needed to transition to sustainable energy sources and improve energy efficiency to reduce the environmental footprint of cryptocurrency mining activities.

Decentralized cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin, use peer-to-peer software protocol, disintermediating the traditional intermediaries that used to be banks and other financial intermediaries, effectuating cross-border transfer. In fact, by removing the requirement for a middleman, the technology has the potential to disrupt current financial transactions that rely on a trusted authority or intermediary operator. Traditional financial regulation, primarily based on the command-and-control approach, is ill-suited to regulating decentralized cryptocurrencies. The present paper aims to investigate the policy option most suitable for regulating decentralized cryptocurrencies. The study employs content analysis method to effectuate the purpose of the study. The paper argues that the combination of both direct and indirect regulatory approaches would be a feasible option for regulating decentralized cryptocurrencies. The absence of centralized authority and the borderless nature of decentralized cryptocurrencies would make them antithetical to centralized direct regulation. Therefore, the findings of the study suggest that regulators should focus on regulating intermediaries bridging the connection between the online world (crypto ecosystem) and the physical world (the point of converting crypto into fiat money). These intermediaries can work as passive actors or surrogate regulators who are indirectly responsible for implementing policy options on behalf of the central authority.