There are various methods available to approximate Bitcoin’s geographical hashrate distribution, each having their own set of trade-offs and limitations. We opted for the top-down mining pool approach because it provides the right balance between data availability and robustness on one hand, as well as data granularity and confidentiality on the other hand.
Maintaining a bottom-up list of individual mining facilities is cumbersome, prone to error and/or omission, requires constant monitoring and updating, relies on a combination of different data sources that tend to be difficult to verify, and exposes individual facility operators to potential privacy risks. In contrast, the top-down pool approach eliminates much of the overhead associated with data collection (by significantly reducing the amount of data that needs to be collected), uses a single, consistent methodology throughout the process (thereby reducing the risk of incompatible or otherwise conflicting data points), and protects the privacy of both individual mining facility and pool operators (thanks to the double aggregation performed by different parties).