a) You have to have a location for each machine. I'm not giving you that. Even for those willing to give you a location for their HOME, that does not mean all of their systems are in this location. Many of us run cloud instances that are not even on the same CONTINENT as our homes. I run "real" systems at three locations; you would need to track each machine individually, some of which are laptops which might move around the world... IP addresses would have to be tracked, and that is not reliable due to the use of VPNs.

b) Cloud instances in particular are minimally affected by the season outside - I would find it very difficult to believe that BOINC users have ANY effect on the amount of air conditioning consumed in any given AWS datacenter. Likewise they may be in widely varying time zones, and utilize electricity generated by widely varying fuel sources. Penalizing participants for running BOINC on a cloud server at a "undesirable" time or season is a non-starter.

c) The entire concept is based on there being wind/solar in the mix at all! A participant using nuclear energy should theoretically receive a HIGHER "clean bonus" than for wind/solar, one using coal a lower bonus, and yet both of these sources are constant, not dependent on either time of day or season. Plus there is the impossibility of knowing the energy source in use to begin with. At my home location, I can choose to buy energy from "clean" providers or from low-cost providers - even knowing my machine's location wouldn't tell you my energy source. I could also be "off grid" with my own batteries, which would be solar 24/7 - why would I be rewarded/penalized for running at noon vs. midnight? The current "reward/penalty" for running at the "wrong" time or season already exists (for many) - increased electric cost. Adding another level to this is impractical and unnecessary.

d) There is reference to rewarding the use for BOINC of "lower power consumption" CPUs and GPUs. I run both high-end Xeon servers and Amazon Fire Tablets (ARM) - obviously right now I receive a FAR higher return (in credits) for the high-end CPUs. The value to me of the low-end ARM devices is in WuProp hours, not Credits. My personal goals and BOINC project preferences are unrelated to credits in any event. If implemented, this would have the effect of lowering the number of high-end systems in use for BOINC - very counterproductive.

e) Some participants are not at all concerned with these "societal goals" to begin with - either because they do not directly pay for the electricity used (many people in apartments, or using cloud resources); because the amount used for BOINC is trivial in comparison to other uses; or because they have decided that they disagree with the goal. Incentivizing compliance with your chosen goals as an organization is fine, but BOINC is not an organization, but a collective of self-selected participants. Therefore DISincentivizing non-compliance by giving reduced rewards at certain selected times/seasons will get quite a backlash.

4) The centralized database of machines discussed is both in some ways a replication of the database held by WuProp, and at the same time a potential massive invasion of privacy (location), and a source for "cheating" that was not addressed. It is trivial for a participant to spoof the specifications of an individual machine - I could have my Ryzen 3600 tell BOINC that it was a Xeon or a Threadripper. There is also an existing flaw in BOINC that would have to be addressed, which is correctly reporting GPUs present when there is more than one.

5) There is a philosophical objection to the entire idea. You are paying people in cryptocurrency, transferrable to "real money" (or between participants - "credit trading?"), for participation in a volunteer computing system. MANY of us flat refuse to join/use/acknowledge GridCoin simply because they "pay" for service. We choose to use BOINC BECAUSE it does not "pay". If I wanted cryptocurrency, my systems would be mining, not running BOINC. If there was a cryptocurrency that contributed to distributed computing - fine. Those who wish to use it may do so. (ala GridCoin.) Changing BOINC into yet another cryptocurrency however will be fought against by MANY participants. If the goal of all of this is to increase the number of participants, where is the analysis of how many new people will join BOINC as opposed to just mining something else, and the analysis of how many of us would leave BOINC altogether? That seems far more important to me than analyzing ways of standardizing benchmarks, etc.

6) There is a PRACTICAL objection to the idea also. Every BOINC project and participant (again, unless I misunderstand the implementation) would be forced to move to a completely new build of server and client code, and potentially to new builds of every application as well. This is not a "new credit reward" system, it is a complete redesign and rework of BOINC from the ground up.