There’s been a lot of media coverage lately claiming that Gridless is “bringing energy to Africa,” but how profitable is this initiative really?
According to various reports, each machine in the Gridless mining setup generates around $4 per day, which often isn’t even enough to cover the purchase and shipping costs of the units. What’s more, as the hash rate increases over time, the earnings per machine continue to decrease, making this a less viable income source.
For example, a BBC article mentioned that each machine makes about $5 a day, more if the hashprice is high, and less if it drops. But since that report, the situation has worsened. According to f2pool, each machine now generates only about $3.56 per day, significantly lower than before.
Moreover, only 30% of the earnings go to the energy suppliers, further limiting the potential for profit. This lack of profitability is a key factor preventing Gridless from expanding on its own. While the company isn’t a charity, they argue that the long-term economic viability of developers and investors can only be secured through Bitcoin mining. However, with earnings per machine declining and the high upfront costs, it’s unclear whether this model will ever become truly sustainable.
According to f2pool, it would take over 415 days just to pay off the initial cost of the unit — and that’s assuming the electricity is free and the machines are running 100% of the time. This raises the question: Is Gridless really a sustainable model for Africa, or is it just a greenwashing effort, promoted by figures like Jack Dorsey, to make Bitcoin look more eco-friendly and beneficial to underdeveloped regions? The pictures and videos Gridless shares even reveal the model details of the mining units, showing the technology is not exactly cutting-edge.
The numbers don’t seem to add up, and it seems that Gridless may not be providing the economic relief it claims. What do you think?
Here are some sources for more context: