← All ratings
Bitcoin
27.0 /100
Why this tierAmber: 0–39
Bitcoin grades Amber with a CicadaX Score of 27.0, the mean of its three lens scores. Its lens profile is uneven (6.8-pt spread), pointing to where it is strong versus where it lacks. Data completeness is 87%, so a transparency discount applies.
Energy-intensive or extractive, with no offsetting real-world impact.
Top strengths
I1Sustainability purpose (additionality)40
G1Decentralization (Nakamoto coefficient)71
S1Community / labor / accessibility55
Where it most lacks
E1Consensus mechanism10
E2Energy intensity4
I2Verified impact10
Five pillars
Three lensesdiscount ×0.97
23.1weakest
29.9strongest
28.0
A 6.8-point spread between lenses shows an uneven profile — the diagnostic value of scoring under all three.
Per-indicator breakdownStandard v1.0 · config-2026-05-25
| Indicator | Value | Norm. | Confidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1Consensus mechanism | pow-sha256 | 10 | high | CicadaX consensus map — Nakamoto 2008 whitepaper; Cambridge CBECI methodology (Proof-of-Work (SHA-256)) |
| E2Energy intensity | 130 | 4 | high | Cambridge CBECI/CBNSI (CBNSI — hashrate x hardware-efficiency mix x location-based grid intensity; as of 2026-05-01) |
| E3Carbon intensity | 65000 | 1 | high | Cambridge CBECI/CBNSI (grid-adjusted; as of 2026-05-01) |
| R1Hardware lifecycle / e-waste | 32 | 2 | medium | CicadaX resource model (consensus=pow-sha256) — SHA-256 ASIC churn; ~30-35 kt/yr e-waste (Cambridge / de Vries 2021) |
| R2Embodied footprint | low | 30 | medium | CicadaX resource model (consensus=pow-sha256) — embodied footprint by hardware class |
| G1Decentralization (Nakamoto coefficient) | 11 | 71 | medium | CicadaX decentralization map (public Nakamoto-coefficient trackers) (Nakamoto coefficient (min entities for >33% control), public trackers — calibration snapshot; as of 2026-05-01) |
| G2Disclosure quality | partial | 55 | medium | Bitcoin public on-chain data; no formal issuer disclosures — fully on-chain + open-source; no issuer/energy disclosures |
| G3Security / audits / reliability | good | 78 | medium | Bitcoin public on-chain data; no formal issuer disclosures — battle-tested since 2009, high uptime; no formal smart-contract audits |
| G4Regulatory & treasury transparencyself_reported | partial | 55 | low | Bitcoin public on-chain data; no formal issuer disclosures — no treasury; mixed/uncertain regulatory posture |
| I1Sustainability purpose (additionality) | neutral | 40 | medium | Bitcoin public on-chain data; no formal issuer disclosures — general-purpose settlement L1, no sustainability function |
| I2Verified impact | none | 10 | medium | Bitcoin public on-chain data; no formal issuer disclosures — no verified green impact |
| S1Community / labor / accessibilityself_reported | partial | 55 | low | Bitcoin public on-chain data; no formal issuer disclosures — large open community; little formal labor/accessibility reporting |
Sources used: cbeci, consensus-map, resource-map, decentralization-map, coingecko, disclosures.