We refine a bottom-up, quantity-clearing framework of Bitcoin price formation that couples its fixed 21-million-coin cap with plausible demand growth and execution behavior. This approach relies on first-principles economic supply-and-demand dynamics rather than assumptions about anticipated Bitcoin price appreciation, its price history, or its potential effectiveness in demonetizing other asset classes. We considered five key high-level factors that may affect price determination: level of market demand; intertemporal investment preferences; fiat-denominated withdrawal sensitivity; initial liquid supply; and daily withdrawal levels from liquid supply. With a goal of both increasing understanding of the impacts of price drivers and developing probabilistic forecasts, we show two models: (1) a baseline to assess the impacts of parameter changes, alone and in combination, on Bitcoin price trajectories and liquid supply over time and (2) a Monte Carlo simulation that incorporates uncertainty across a range of uncertain parameterizations and presents probabilistic price and liquid supply forecasts to 2036. Our baseline model highlighted the importance of liquid supply and withdrawal sensitivity in price impacts. The Monte Carlo simulation results suggest a 50% likelihood that Bitcoin price will exceed USD 5.17 M by April 2036. Generally, prices from the low single millions to the low tens of millions per Bitcoin by 2036 emerge under broad parameter sets; hyperbolic paths to higher price levels are relatively rare and concentrate when liquid supply falls near or below BTC 2 M and withdrawal sensitivity is low. Our results help locate where right-tail risk and disorderly market outcomes concentrate and suggest that policy tools are available to help guide trajectories.

We develop a flexible supply and demand equilibrium framework that can be used to develop pricing models to forecast Bitcoin’s price trajectory based on its fixed, inelastic supply and evolving demand dynamics. This approach integrates Bitcoin’s unique monetary attributes with demand drivers such as institutional adoption and long-term holding patterns. Using the April 2024 halving as a baseline, we explore model scenarios with varying assumptions about growth in adoption and supply-side constraints, calibrated to real-world data. Our findings indicate that institutional and sovereign accumulation can significantly influence price trajectories, with increasing demand intensifying the impact of Bitcoin’s constrained liquidity. Forecasts suggest that modest withdrawals from liquid supply to strategic reserves could lead to substantial price appreciation over the medium term, while higher withdrawal levels may induce volatility due to supply scarcity. These results highlight Bitcoin’s potential as a long-term investment and underline the importance of integrating economic fundamentals into forward-looking portfolio strategies. Our framework provides flexibility for testing different market scenarios, demand curve functional forms, and parameterizations, offering a tool for investors and policymakers considering Bitcoin’s role as a strategic asset. By advancing a fundamentals-based approach, this study contributes to the broader understanding of how Bitcoin’s supply–demand dynamics influence market behavior.

This paper pioneers a novel integration of artificial intelligence with horizon scanning and key questions methodologies to navigate the complex landscape of Bitcoin and its multifaceted implications on society. By analyzing 1667 Bitcoin-related social media broadcasts from 2023, this study identified Bitcoin-oriented threats and opportunities, and generated 40 high-level research questions that offer a foundation for a comprehensive, policy-salient Bitcoin research agenda. These questions span a wide spectrum, addressing societal and cultural impacts, technological advancements, macroeconomic influences, and the intricacies of politics, policy, and regulation within the Bitcoin ecosystem. The study's methodological innovation not only showcases the potential of AI-assisted horizon scanning methodologies in enriching research and policy analysis but also underscores the necessity for a dynamic, adaptable approach in understanding and responding to the rapid evolution of disruptive technologies like Bitcoin. As the digital landscape continues to transform, this paper provides a structured path forward for policymakers, academics, and industry practitioners to collaboratively develop a well-informed, proactive, and responsive strategy for navigating the future of Bitcoin and its integration into the global economy.

This study introduces a novel model assessing the integration of bitcoin mining with a landfill gas to energy (LFGTE) project for methane mitigation. By utilizing a Monte Carlo simulation, we explore the economic viability of coupling bitcoin mining's financial incentives with methane capture at landfill sites. Our findings reveal that lower electricity costs and Bitcoin hashprice fluctuations significantly impact the financial outcomes of such integrations, underscoring the potential of bitcoin mining to serve as a sustainable economic model for methane mitigation. The study demonstrates that modern, energy-efficient mining rigs can substantially enhance profitability and act as a buffer against financial losses, highlighting the importance of technological advancements and efficient energy use in maximizing the integration's benefits. Furthermore, we estimate a 1.14 MW facility could mitigate 2,187 mt CH4, valued at $7.6-million, offering significant CO2e reductions from previously undeveloped landfills. The scalability of this approach suggests transformative possibilities for global methane mitigation initiatives, extending beyond landfills to sectors like agriculture, food processing, wastewater treatment, and energy. By providing a flexible framework for evaluating various scenarios, this research contributes to the broader discourse on sustainable energy and the Bitcoin network, proposing a novel, market-driven strategy to help mitigate methane emissions and improve environmental sustainability. Code for reproducing model and figures available at: https://github.com/murrayrudd/landfill-gas-bitcoin-model

This paper explores possibilities for integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into horizon scanning and key question exercises to navigate the challenges posed by emerging technologies. It demonstrates, using Bitcoin mining as a case example, how AI-assistance can enhance information accessibility, knowledge integration, and research agenda refinement. By leveraging AI, scientists can efficiently identify threats and opportunities, generate high-quality candidate research questions, and prioritize them based on novelty, impact, feasibility, or other relevant factors. While technical limitations persist, ongoing advancements in AI technology hold promise for overcoming obstacles. Integrating AI into horizon scans and key question exercises is essential for addressing the implications of rapidly evolving technologies, fostering timely and focused research, and providing credible scientific evidence to inform policy-making.

Bitcoin's diverse impacts point to the urgent need for transdisciplinary research to support evidence-based policy-making. Although anecdotal evidence suggests potential benefits to human and societal well-being, rigorous peer-reviewed research on Bitcoin’s impacts remains scarce, creating knowledge gaps. A Bitcoin science roadmap could identify research priorities and capacity-building opportunities across environmental, social, financial, economic, and security dimensions. Collaboration among researchers, industry, government, and investors is essential to pinpoint research needs, secure funds for high-impact projects, and advance societal interests. This proactive, evidence-based policy approach will help navigate the complex Bitcoin space, ensuring well-informed decisions that balance potential risks and rewards.

Bitcoin has been embraced by many individuals with strong right-leaning views on freedom, property rights, and self-sovereignty. Among left-leaning progressives, Bitcoin is often quickly dismissed as irrelevant or a major source of carbon emissions. Bitcoin seems, however, to be full of surprises. A rapidly advancing body of anecdotal evidence suggests that its adoption may affect causes important to progressives, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, accelerating electrification of economies, alleviating poverty, and supporting human rights for people living under political repression, even though scientific confirmation is lagging. In this paper, I highlight how a Pragmatist perspective can be applied to Bitcoin, a technological and financial innovation that may well reshape how humans perceive and use money, preserve wealth, and structure governance. I first cover Bitcoin’s technological and financial fundamentals and some core concepts of Pragmatism, before outlining how Bitcoin might surprise progressives. Pragmatism offers a philosophical and political grounding for left-leaning “progressive Bitcoiners” who prioritize environmental and social well-being and view inclusive deliberative democracy as the preferred form of governance.

In this study, we used a combination of AI-assisted analysis of social media discourse and collaboration with industry experts to delve into the key research needs associated with the Bitcoin mining industry. We identified primary threats, opportunities, and research questions related to the Bitcoin mining industry and its wider impacts, focusing on its energy use and environmental footprint. Our findings spotlight the industry’s move towards increasingly greater energy efficiency and an emerging commitment to renewable energy, highlighting its potential to contribute to the coming energy transition. We underscore the transformative potential of emerging applications in the Bitcoin mining sector, especially regarding demand response, grid flexibility, and methane mitigation. We suggest that targeted research on Bitcoin can serve policymakers, private sector decision-makers, research funding agencies, environmental scientists, and the Bitcoin industry itself. We propose that filling key information gaps could help clarify the risks and benefits of Bitcoin mining by encouraging collaboration among researchers, policymakers, and industry stakeholders and conducting research that provides baseline peer-reviewed evidence surrounding Bitcoin’s production and impacts. A collaborative approach could help mitigate the risks and realize the benefits of Bitcoin mining, including potentially positive and substantive contributions in alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals.

The United States, the EU and Canada established a trilateral working group on the ecosystem approach to ocean health and stressors under the Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance. Recognizing the Atlantic Ocean as a shared resource and responsibility, the working group sought to advance understanding of the Atlantic Ocean and its dynamic systems to improve ocean health, enhance ocean stewardship and promote the sustainable use and management of its resources. This included consideration of multiple ocean-use sectors such as fishing, shipping, tourism and offshore energy. The working group met for 4 years and worked through eight steps that covered the development of common language as a basis for collaboration, challenges of stakeholder engagement, review of the governance mandates, exploring the links between sectors and ecosystems effects, identifying gaps in knowledge and uptake of science, identification of tools for ecosystem-based management, customary best practice for tool development and communication of key research priorities. The key findings were that ecosystem-based management enables new benefits and opportunities, and that we need to make the business case. Further findings were that adequate mandates and effective tools exist for ecosystem-based management, and that ecosystem-based management urgently requires integration of human dimensions, so we must diversify the conversation. In addition, it was found that stakeholders do not see their stake in ecosystem-based management, so greater engagement with stakeholders and targeting of ocean literacy is required and a sustainable future requires a sustained investment in ecosystem-based management, so long-term commitment is key.

Bitcoin critics have argued that energy-intensive Bitcoin production and adoption will exacerbate global warming. Conversely, Bitcoin advocates have been dismayed by critics’ apparent lack of willingness to scrutinize Bitcoin’s potential role in helping to improve the economics of renewable energy investments, reduce net emissions from methane venting and flaring, increase electricity grid efficiency, and provide higher-order environmental, social, and governance (ESG) benefits. Given the disparate views, there is a pressing need to identify key knowledge needs regarding Bitcoin’s net energy use, carbon emissions, and direct and indirect ESG impacts. I used a variation on the ‘key questions’ horizon scanning approach to identify 100 questions that, if answered, could help provide credible evidence to support policymakers’, investors’, and research funders’ decision-making on issues relating to the impact of Bitcoin production and adoption. The questions are distributed across 13 themes (ranging from energy use to social impacts). The breadth of knowledge required to answer key questions highlights the need to build research capacity, encourage collaborative cross-sectoral and -disciplinary research, and develop a prioritized research agenda. Defensible evidence for investors, regulators, and policymakers needs to consider Bitcoin’s complex net impacts on energy use and environmental, social, and governance benefits.

Purpose The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) framework, a systematic tool that can link available mechanistic data with phenotypic outcomes of relevance to regulatory decision-making, is being explored in areas related to radiation risk assessment. To examine the challenges including the use of AOPs to support the radiation protection community, an international horizon-style exercise was initiated through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency High-Level Group on Low Dose Research Radiation/Chemical AOP Joint Topical Group. The objective of the HSE was to facilitate the collection of ideas from a range of experts, to short-list a set of priority research questions that could, if answered, improve the description of the radiation dose-response relationship for low dose/dose-rate exposures, as well as reduce uncertainties in estimating the risk of developing adverse health outcomes following such exposures. Materials and methods The HSE was guided by an international steering committee of radiation risk experts. In the first phase, research questions were solicited on areas that can be supported by the AOP framework, or challenges on the use of AOPs in radiation risk assessment. In the second phase, questions received were refined and sorted by the SC using a best-worst scaling method. During a virtual 3-day workshop, the list of questions was further narrowed. In the third phase, an international survey of the broader radiation protection community led to an orderly ranking of the top questions. Results Of the 271 questions solicited, 254 were accepted and categorized into 9 themes. These were further refined to the top 25 prioritized questions. Among these, the higher ranked questions will be considered as 'important' to drive future initiatives in the low dose radiation protection community. These included questions on the ability of AOPs to delineate responses across different levels of biological organization, and how AOPs could be applied to address research questions on radiation quality, doses or dose-rates, exposure time patterns and deliveries, and uncertainties in low dose/dose-rate effects. A better understanding of these concepts is required to support the use of the AOP framework in radiation risk assessment. Conclusion Through dissemination of these results and considerations on next steps, the JTG will address select priority questions to advance the development and use of AOPs in the radiation protection community. The major themes observed will be discussed in the context of their relevance to areas of research that support the system of radiation protection.

Environmental and human health challenges are pronounced in Asia, an exceptionally diverse and complex region where influences of global megatrends are extensive and numerous stresses to environmental quality exist. Identifying priorities necessary to engage grand challenges can be facilitated through horizon scanning exercises, and to this end we identified and examined 23 priority research questions needed to advance toward more sustainable environmental quality in Asia, as part of the Global Horizon Scanning Project. Advances in environmental toxicology, environmental chemistry, biological monitoring, and risk-assessment methodologies are necessary to address the adverse impacts of environmental stressors on ecosystem services and biodiversity, with Asia being home to numerous biodiversity hotspots. Intersections of the food-energy-water nexus are profound in Asia; innovative and aggressive technologies are necessary to provide clean water, ensure food safety, and stimulate energy efficiency, while improving ecological integrity and addressing legacy and emerging threats to public health and the environment, particularly with increased aquaculture production. Asia is the largest chemical-producing continent globally. Accordingly, sustainable and green chemistry and engineering present decided opportunities to stimulate innovation and realize a number of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Engaging the priority research questions identified herein will require transdisciplinary coordination through existing and nontraditional partnerships within and among countries and sectors. Answering these questions will not be easy but is necessary to achieve more sustainable environmental quality in Asia. Environ Toxicol Chem 2020;39:1485-1505. © 2020 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

In order to inform decision making and policy, research to address sustainability challenges requires cross-disciplinary approaches that are co-created with a wide and inclusive diversity of disciplines and stakeholders. As the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development approaches, it is therefore timely to take stock of the global range of cross-disciplinary questions to inform the development of policies to restore and sustain ocean health. We synthesized questions from major science and policy horizon scanning exercises, identifying 89 questions with relevance for ocean policy and governance. We then scanned the broad ocean science literature to examine issues potentially missed in the horizon scans and supplemented the horizon scan outcome with 11 additional questions. This resulted in an unprioritized list of 100 general questions that would require a cross-disciplinary approach to inform policy. The questions fell into broad categories including: coastal and marine environmental change, managing ocean activities, governance for sustainable oceans, ocean value, and technological and socio-economic innovation. Each question can be customized by ecosystem, region, scale, and socio-political context, and is intended to inspire discussions of salient cross-disciplinary research directions to direct scientific research that will inform policies. Governance and management responses to these questions will best be informed by drawing upon a diversity of natural and social sciences, local and traditional knowledge, and engagement of different sectors and stakeholders.

Mandates to execute ecosystem-based management exist but are not implemented sufficiently enough to reap the benefits of a growing blue economy.

Anticipating, identifying, and prioritizing strategic needs represent essential activities by research organizations. Decided benefits emerge when these pursuits engage globally important environment and health goals, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. To this end, horizon scanning efforts can facilitate identification of specific research needs to address grand challenges. We report and discuss 40 priority research questions following engagement of scientists and engineers in North America. These timely questions identify the importance of stimulating innovation and developing new methods, tools, and concepts in environmental chemistry and toxicology to improve assessment and management of chemical contaminants and other diverse environmental stressors. Grand challenges to achieving sustainable management of the environment are becoming increasingly complex and structured by global megatrends, which collectively challenge existing sustainable environmental quality efforts. Transdisciplinary, systems-based approaches will be required to define and avoid adverse biological effects across temporal and spatial gradients. Similarly, coordinated research activities among organizations within and among countries are necessary to address the priority research needs reported here. Acquiring answers to these 40 research questions will not be trivial, but doing so promises to advance sustainable environmental quality in the 21st century. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:1606-1624. © 2019 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

Environmental challenges persist across the world, including the Australasian region of Oceania, where biodiversity hotspots and unique ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef are common. These systems are routinely affected by multiple stressors from anthropogenic activities, and increasingly influenced by global megatrends (e.g., the food-energy-water nexus, demographic transitions to cities) and climate change. Here we report priority research questions from the Global Horizon Scanning Project, which aimed to identify, prioritize, and advance environmental quality research needs from an Australasian perspective, within a global context. We employed a transparent and inclusive process of soliciting key questions from Australasian members of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Following submission of 78 questions, 20 priority research questions were identified during an expert workshop in Nelson, New Zealand. These research questions covered a range of issues of global relevance, including research needed to more closely integrate ecotoxicology and ecology for the protection of ecosystems, increase flexibility for prioritizing chemical substances currently in commerce, understand the impacts of complex mixtures and multiple stressors, and define environmental quality and ecosystem integrity of temporary waters. Some questions have specific relevance to Australasia, particularly the uncertainties associated with using toxicity data from exotic species to protect unique indigenous species. Several related priority questions deal with the theme of how widely international ecotoxicological data and databases can be applied to regional ecosystems. Other timely questions, which focus on improving predictive chemistry and toxicology tools and techniques, will be important to answer several of the priority questions identified here. Another important question raised was how to protect local cultural and social values and maintain indigenous engagement during problem formulation and identification of ecosystem protection goals. Addressing these questions will be challenging, but doing so promises to advance environmental sustainability in Oceania and globally.

The Global Horizon Scanning Project (GHSP) is an innovative initiative that aims to identify important global environmental quality research needs. Here we report 20 key research questions from Latin America (LA). Members of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) LA and other scientists from LA were asked to submit research questions that would represent priority needs to address in the region. One hundred questions were received, then partitioned among categories, examined, and some rearranged during a workshop in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Twenty priority research questions were subsequently identified. These research questions included developing, improving, and harmonizing across LA countries methods for 1) identifying contaminants and degradation products in complex matrices (including biota); 2) advancing prediction of contaminant risks and effects in ecosystems, addressing lab-to-field extrapolation challenges, and understanding complexities of multiple stressors (including chemicals and climate change); and 3) improving management and regulatory tools toward achieving sustainable development. Whereas environmental contaminants frequently identified in these key questions were pesticides, pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors or modulators, plastics, and nanomaterials, commonly identified environmental challenges were related to agriculture, urban effluents, solid wastes, pulp and paper mills, and natural extraction activities. Several interesting research topics included assessing and preventing pollution impacts on conservation protected areas, integrating environment and health assessments, and developing strategies for identification, substitution, and design of less hazardous chemicals (e.g., green chemistry). Finally, a recurrent research need included developing an understanding of differential sensitivity of regional species and ecosystems to environmental contaminants and other stressors. Addressing these critical questions will support development of long-term strategic research efforts to advance more sustainable environmental quality and protect public health and the environment in LA. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:344-357. © 2018 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Climate change has far-reaching effects on human and ecological systems, requiring collaboration across sectors and disciplines to determine effective responses. To inform regional responses to climate change, decision-makers need credible and relevant information representing a wide swath of knowledge and perspectives. The southeastern U. S. State of Georgia is a valuable focal area for study because it contains multiple ecological zones that vary greatly in land use and economic activities, and it is vulnerable to diverse climate change impacts. We identified 40 important research questions that, if answered, could lay the groundwork for effective, science-based climate action in Georgia. Top research priorities were identified through a broad solicitation of candidate research questions (180 were received). A group of experts across sectors and disciplines gathered for a workshop to categorize, prioritize, and filter the candidate questions, identify missing topics, and rewrite questions. Participants then collectively chose the 40 most important questions. This cross-sectoral effort ensured the inclusion of a diversity of topics and questions (e.g., coastal hazards, agricultural production, ecosystem functioning, urban infrastructure, and human health) likely to be important to Georgia policy-makers, practitioners, and scientists. Several cross-cutting themes emerged, including the need for long-term data collection and consideration of at-risk Georgia citizens and communities. Workshop participants defined effective responses as those that take economic cost, environmental impacts, and social justice into consideration. Our research highlights the importance of collaborators across disciplines and sectors, and discussing challenges and opportunities that will require transdisciplinary solutions.

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals have been established to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all. Delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals will require a healthy and productive environment. An understanding of the impacts of chemicals which can negatively impact environmental health is therefore essential to the delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, current research on and regulation of chemicals in the environment tend to take a simplistic view and do not account for the complexity of the real world, which inhibits the way we manage chemicals. There is therefore an urgent need for a step change in the way we study and communicate the impacts and control of chemicals in the natural environment. To do this requires the major research questions to be identified so that resources are focused on questions that really matter. We present the findings of a horizon‐scanning exercise to identify research priorities of the European environmental science community around chemicals in the environment. Using the key questions approach, we identified 22 questions of priority. These questions covered overarching questions about which chemicals we should be most concerned about and where, impacts of global megatrends, protection goals, and sustainability of chemicals; the development and parameterization of assessment and management frameworks; and mechanisms to maximize the impact of the research. The research questions identified provide a first‐step in the path forward for the research, regulatory, and business communities to better assess and manage chemicals in the natural environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:2281–2295. © 2018 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) necessarily requires a degree of coordination across countries that share ocean ecosystems, and among national agencies and departments that have responsibilities relating to ocean health and marine resource utilization. This requires political direction, legal input, stakeholder consultation and engagement, and complex negotiations. Currently there is a common perception that within and across national jurisdictions there is excessive legislative complexity, a relatively low level of policy coherence or alignment with regards to ocean and coastal EBM, and that more aligned legislation is needed to accelerate EBM adoption. Our Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance (AORA) task group was comprised of a small, focused and interdisciplinary mix of lawyers, social scientists, and natural scientists from Canada, the USA, and the EU. We characterized, compared, and synthesized the mandates that govern marine activities and ocean stressors relative to facilitating EBM in national and international waters of the North Atlantic, and identified formal mandates across jurisdictions and, where possible, policy and other non-regulatory mandates. We found that irrespective of the detailed requirements of legislation or policy across AORA jurisdictions, or the efficacy of their actual implementation, most of the major ocean pressures and uses posing threats to ocean sustainability have some form of coverage by national or regional legislation. The coverage is, in fact, rather comprehensive. Still, numerous impediments to effective EBM implementation arise, potentially relating to the lack of integration between agencies and departments, a lack of adequate policy alignment, and a variety of other socio-political factors. We note with concern that if challenges regarding EBM implementation exist in the North Atlantic, we can expect that in less developed regions where financial and governance capacity may be lower, that implementation of EBM could be even more challenging.