The Biden administration has recently revived the discussion surrounding the proposed 30% Digital Asset Mining Energy (DAME) tax on cryptocurrency miners. This tax aims to address the environmental impact and social consequences of the crypto-mining industry. First introduced in President Joe Biden‘s FY2024 budget on March 9, the tax has faced significant criticism and opposition from various stakeholders in the crypto-mining sector.

Council of Economic Advisers’ Statement

The White House’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) issued a statement on May 2, reiterating their support for the DAME tax. According to the CEA, cryptocurrency miners contribute to increased local pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and higher energy costs. The agency believes the DAME tax will encourage crypto-mining firms to take responsibility for the environmental and social harms they impose on society.

Industry Response and Potential Consequences

Many within the crypto-mining community have criticized the proposal, arguing that it unfairly targets the industry and could lead to an exodus of mining companies from the US. Dennis Porter, CEO of the Satoshi Action Fund, warned that imposing such a tax would suppress the US Bitcoin mining industry, potentially driving innovation and capital to other jurisdictions. Others fear that the tax could push mining activities to countries with fewer regulations, exacerbating the environmental impact.

The Debate Over Environmental Impact

While the CEA cites concerns about pollution and energy consumption, some in the crypto community argue that the proposed tax is based on misinformation and exaggerates the industry’s environmental impact. Critics assert that many mining operations are already transitioning to cleaner energy sources and that the tax would not effectively address the underlying environmental concerns.


The renewed push for the DAME tax by the Biden administration has rekindled debates over the environmental impact of cryptocurrency mining and the role of government in regulating the industry. As the discussion continues, stakeholders on both sides will need to consider the potential consequences of implementing such a tax and explore alternative solutions for addressing environmental concerns.