Texas Governor Greg Abbott has put another obstacle in the path of the data center boom President Donald Trump wants to accelerate.

On September 21, Abbott directed the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to halt permits sought by data centers until the state’s grid operator completes an audit. His directive also said state agencies should not advance related regulatory approvals before obtaining the information needed to assess the projects.

“Simply put, Texans must come first,” Abbott said.

The move followed an August directive requiring scrutiny of projects seeking connections to the Texas grid and a September crackdown on failures to report water use. Developers face questions about their electricity demand, cooling systems, tax incentives, ownership, and effects on surrounding communities.

In essence, a Republican governor is using state approvals to impose conditions on infrastructure that a Republican president has made a national priority.

Trump’s administration has sought to ease federal permitting and make federal land available for AI development. Its argument is that building computing capacity strengthens American economic and national security. Abbott’s directives reflect another political calculation: the communities supplying the land, electricity, and water want assurances about what they receive in return.

That tension is dividing the coalition behind the AI buildout. It is also expanding a conflict bitcoin miners already know well.

The opposition increasingly draws on concerns that fit comfortably within conservative politics: property rights, local autonomy, household bills, and distrust of large corporations.

Molly McCann Sanders, president of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, illustrated the divide in a recent WIRED interview. A conservative Trump supporter who describes herself as a “crunchy MAHA mom” said she disagreed with the president on data centers and wanted development to proceed more cautiously.

Polling suggests that division reaches well beyond individual activists. A September New York Times/Siena survey found that 61% of likely voters opposed data center construction. Republicans were almost evenly divided, with 49% supporting construction and 47% opposing it.

Republican campaign advisers are responding. In a September memo reported by Axios, Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio warned that “unqualified support for building more AI data centers is a losing position.” His recommended approach emphasized enforceable protections for voters, rather than leading with promises about jobs or competition with China.

Utah offers evidence of the electoral stakes. State Senate President Stuart Adams lost his June Republican primary after becoming associated with a controversial data center proposal in Box Elder County. Local reporting identified the project as a significant factor in his defeat and those of two county commissioners, although the results cannot be attributed to a single issue.

The conflict extends beyond the Republican Party. Across states, residents and officials are disputing who has the authority to approve projects—and who can challenge the terms.

In Port Washington, Wisconsin, voters approved an April referendum requiring public approval for future tax-increment financing districts with project costs or a base value of at least $10 million. The measure followed controversy over financing for Vantage’s Lighthouse data center campus and passed with 66.4% support.

It did not stop the already-approved campus. It changed the rules for future financing decisions, giving residents a direct role in commitments previously made by local officials.

In Michigan, Attorney General Dana Nessel is challenging the utility commission’s approval of electricity contracts for a 1.4-gigawatt data center in Saline Township. Her appeal seeks a contested hearing, questioning both the approval process and the evidence supporting it. Those arguments remain legal claims, but the dispute shows how data center development can divide institutions within the same state.

West Virginia has taken a different approach. Its 2025 framework for certified microgrids and high-impact data centers curtailed local authority over qualifying developments, including restrictions involving noise, lighting, and zoning. The policy sought to attract investment, while communities around Thomas and Davis pushed back over their diminished influence.

The debate also follows developers beyond the electricity grid.

In June, the Justice Department sought to intervene and dismiss a lawsuit over gas turbines powering xAI infrastructure in Mississippi. The department argued that state authorities had determined no permit was required and invoked the facility’s economic and military importance. Community and environmental groups allege violations of air-pollution requirements.

The implication is uncomfortable for developers. Building dedicated generation may address concerns about drawing power from the grid, while introducing disputes over emissions, noise, and the location of power plants.

But there is an important distinction between the intensity of this political conflict and its effect on construction.

SemiAnalysis’s recent research counted more than 300 adopted local moratoriums and bans. Yet it estimated that only 1.525 GW of capacity was actually delayed by local restrictions, out of roughly 20 GW located within affected boundaries.

Its explanation was practical: many projects already held the necessary approvals, lay outside the jurisdiction imposing a restriction, or would not need the affected permit until after a temporary pause expired. Including New York’s intervention, the firm estimated about 2.3 GW of delays.

Those are proprietary analyst estimates, and the research predates Abbott’s September 21 permit halt. Yet, it provides a useful counterweight to the impression that every new moratorium removes another project from the construction pipeline.

However, political resistance can change the economics of development even when construction continues.

Ohio’s dedicated AEP data center tariff requires large new customers to pay for at least 85% of contracted capacity, with commitments extending up to 12 years. The framework aims to protect other customers from infrastructure costs associated with demand that fails to materialize.

The same argument has reached Congress. On September 16, the House passed the Ratepayer Protection Act, H.R. 9340, by 417–3, demonstrating overwhelming bipartisan support for addressing the infrastructure costs associated with large electricity users.

The bill would require state utility regulators to consider standards under which large-load customers pay the full incremental cost of the generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure needed to serve them. There’s a catch: requiring regulators to consider a standard does not require them to adopt it.

The measure stalled the following day when Republican Senator Jon Husted of Ohio sought passage by unanimous consent. Democratic Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico objected that the protections were too weak, arguing that Congress should require data centers to pay for grid connections rather than leave adoption of the proposed standards to states.

Heinrich proposed his GRID Savings Act instead, but Republican Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio blocked that request. The competing objections prevented expedited passage of either proposal; they were not Senate votes defeating the bills.

Trump’s administration has separately promoted a Ratepayer Protection Pledge, calling for developers to fund the energy and infrastructure their facilities require. The congressional impasse exposes the unresolved question behind that promise: how much protection should depend on corporate commitments and state decisions, and how much should federal law compel?

For communities facing new projects, a nearly unanimous House vote has yet to produce an enacted federal safeguard. For developers, the debate adds uncertainty over who will ultimately bear the costs of connecting their facilities to the grid.

Regulation News

• Data Center Power-Cost Bill Stalls in Senate Over Enforcement Dispute

• Pushback against AI data centers emerges as central issue in Michigan elections

• Poway City Council unanimously advances AI data center ban

• Virginia Curbs State Support for Large Data Centers, Plans Tighter Rules

• Texas Governor Orders Data Center Permit Halt Pending Grid Review

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• CleanSpark Names Meta as Tenant Behind $6.6 Billion Data Center Lease

• Fluidstack Starts $4 Billion Texas AI Campus Phase Planned for 1.5 GW

• New Era Energy Signs 207 MW Vistra Power Deal for Texas Data Center

• Hut 8 Wins Poolin Auction With $140 Million Bid as AI Fuels Race for Power

Corporate News

• Anthropic, OpenAI hunt for smaller data center deals in race to deploy AI capacity

• GlobalFoundries, Marvell expand chip capacity deal for AI data center connectivity

• Nscale’s IPO Filing Reveals $103B in AI Contracts with Heavy Funding Needs

• Cypherpunk Names Amanda Fabiano to Board as Zcash Mining Commences

• Nscale founder Joshua Payne in line for near $500m IPO pay day

• TeraWulf CEO Moves to Monetize 3 Million Shares Tied to Land Lease

Financial News

• Crusoe Secures $3.9B Series F at $30.9B Valuation to Scale AI Factory Operations

• Oracle-Linked $18B AI Data Center Loans Come Under Pressure, FT Reports

• Big Tech uses guarantees to keep $300bn of AI exposure off balance sheets

• Fortitude Upsizes DCG Credit Facility to $50M, Plans $31M Draw in ZEC to Fund Hardware and Infrastructure Expansion

Email us

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s weekend proposal to pace frontier model development drew support from Sam Altman and Elon Musk, putting the speed of AI advancement under scrutiny from the executives driving it. Amodei explicitly distinguished pacing capabilities from halting model training or technical progress.

Investors nevertheless reassessed the infrastructure trade. The AI Infrastructure Growth Index tracked by TheEnergyMag plunged to 5,774 on Tuesday, down 9% since the market’s close on Friday before Amodei’s remark.

For public miners and AI infrastructure peers, the financial consequences turn on a different clock. The industry has raised and spent substantial capital against expectations of future AI demand. Money already spent cannot be recovered simply by slowing the next project. Interest on outstanding borrowing continues to accrue under its contractual terms, even if the revenue expected to service it takes longer to arrive.

Fourteen companies tracked by TheEnergyMag generated $48.24 billion of net financing cash inflows in their latest six-month periods, exceeding $35.03 billion in the 2025 annual comparison periods. Net debt supplied $35.09 billion, or 72.7%, of that financing. Disclosed cash-interest payments reached $1.5 billion, despite gaps in reporting. The financing wave is concentrated. CoreWeave, Nebius, Hut 8 and IREN together accounted for roughly 76% of the net inflow.

A previous Miner Weekly issue examined the $30 billion capex already being committed to the buildout. Those expenditures have already occurred. Future projects can be deferred, but doing so does not erase existing debt or automatically release companies from signed construction and equipment commitments.

The carrying cost is already visible. CoreWeave paid $982 million in cash interest during the first half, including $176 million capitalized into assets. Excluding capitalized interest, payments more than doubled to $806 million from $362 million a year earlier. Applied Digital paid another $242.8 million during its latest six-month period.

Meanwhile, headline AI revenue does not always represent recurring income. Applied Digital’s $203 million in quarterly HPC Hosting revenue included just $44.1 million in base rent; most of the remainder came from tenant fit-out services. Construction-related revenue can be substantial before recurring rent reaches scale.

That distinction matters when assessing the cash available to service borrowing. Colocation providers need completed facilities to produce tenant receipts; cloud operators need installed GPUs to become billable usage and collections.

CNBC’s reporting this week put the potential consequences of an AI slowdown for the buildout under scrutiny. The financing risk can emerge before physical demand weakens: greater uncertainty about future cash flows could prompt lenders to demand more equity, stronger protections or higher returns on new funding.

The Federal Reserve has now added to the financing pressure, raising its benchmark target range by 25 basis points to 3.75%–4% on Wednesday. The unanimous decision cited elevated inflation and the need to return it to the central bank’s 2% goal. For AI infrastructure builders, the hike can increase costs on floating-rate debt as benchmarks reset and put pressure on new borrowing and refinancing, depending on market rates, loan terms and hedges.

A slower frontier does not necessarily mean declining compute demand. Existing models can keep attracting users, inference workloads can grow, and contracts can protect revenue. Future capex can also be deferred.

But with nearly three-quarters of this financing wave supplied by net debt, the industry has less room for revenue to arrive late. AI developers can debate the pace of advancement. Infrastructure owners still need to turn the capacity they have financed into cash.

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• Global AI Wins Colorado Data Center Permit Amid Power, Water Disputes

• Ethiopia Cuts Bitcoin Miners’ Power Supply as El Niño Hurts Dams

• Wood County residents rally against Jon Husted as $800 million Meta data center rises near Bowling Green

• Constellation agrees to purchase Rhode Island power plant from Shell for $715 million

• Fluidstack Gets Site-Work Permit for $4 Billion Texas AI Data Center

• Bitdeer Secures 65.1MW Malaysia AI Facility as Sales Pipeline Tops $7 Billion

• Hut 8 Files $399 Million Building Project at Beacon Point AI Campus

• Blockfusion Signs CoreWeave to 15-Year Niagara Falls Data Center Lease

• Bitdeer Expands AI Infrastructure with Bhutan Agreement and Increased Bitcoin Output

Corporate News

• Core Scientific Gets Conditional ERCOT Status for 1 GW at Texas Sites

• Nebius Sued Over Alabama AI Land Deal Allegedly Costing Regions $66 Million

• Sangha Texas Campus Gets ERCOT Base Load Status for 110.4 MW Plan

• Soluna Says Dorothy’s 100 MW Gets Conditional ERCOT Base-Load Status

• Cipher, Fluidstack and Anthropic Pledge $10M for Texas Town’s Water System

• MARA’s 2 GW Texas Project Gets Conditional ERCOT Study Status

• HIVE’s BUZZ Partners With ProCogia to Expand Canadian AI Services

• Cipher Details Conditional Texas Grid Status for 3.2 GW of Projects

Financial News

• Pentagon in Talks to Get Into AI Infrastructure Funding With a $5 Billion Loan

• AI Stocks Slide as Anthropic Chief Calls for Slower Development

• OpenAI Discusses Funding at $1.2 Trillion Valuation Ahead of IPO: Report

• Wall Street weighs prospect of an AI slowdown on data center buildout

• CleanSpark Plans $2.2 Billion Debt Sale for Georgia Data Center

• CoreWeave Plans $3B Debt Sale, Opens 35 Million-Share ATM Program

Feature

• In Virginia’s Data Center Hub, a County Fights to Reclaim Control

Email us

In 2021, they competed on mining machine preorders and exahashes promised. In 2024 and 2025, the contest shifted toward HPC contracts: who could sign a major customer and announce the biggest deal. Now the competition reaches further upstream, to the electricity those computing ambitions require.

Over the past week, a flurry of ERCOT Batch Zero announcements shows how a power arms race is playing out, with companies turning their standing in the Texas interconnection process into a public measure of competitive strength.

IREN highlighted conditional Base Load status for its 2 GW Sweetwater hub. Hut 8 flagged the designation for Beacon Point. Soluna announced it for the full 166 MW Kati campus. A technical grid classification has become something to put in a headline—a way to show that a company’s power plans have substance behind them.

But as in the hashrate race, the largest number does not tell the whole story. The classifications distinguish capacity that retains its position based on earlier studies from requests still awaiting allocation. Behind similar announcements, companies—and projects within the same company—can be at very different stages.

Got insights? Message TheEnergyMag

Galaxy’s September 8 disclosure illustrates the distinction. Five projects received conditional classifications covering approximately 4.2 GW. Of that, 1.63 GW at Helios I and II was classified as Base Load. Another 2.6 GW across Caspian, Selene and Helios III was classified as Studied Load, leaving it subject to capacity allocation.

One detail deserves particular attention: Galaxy submitted the 700 MW Caspian project as Base Load. ERCOT provisionally classified it as Studied Load. Even within one company, the headline gigawatts carry different levels of certainty.

The industry’s arms race has acquired a new scoreboard

In December 2021, MARA’s operating update offered a sharp distinction between current output and future capacity. It reported an active fleet producing approximately 3.5 EH/s, alongside purchases expected to bring its fleet to 23.3 EH/s by early 2023, which didn’t fully materialize until mid-2024.

The parallel today is the use of future capacity to establish competitive standing. Power always mattered to mining. What has changed is the prominence of grid access in the expansion story—and the possibility of using that access to serve a different computing market.

A machine order and a grid classification are different commitments, with different risks. Yet both invite the same analytical mistake: treating a milestone toward future production as though it were production already secured.

ERCOT’s predicament explains why a technical classification has become announcement-worthy.

When Texas regulators approved Batch Zero in June, ERCOT reported more than 438 GW of large-load connection requests, nearly 89% from data centers. By August 3, Governor Greg Abbott’s office cited more than 474 GW of requests, roughly 90% from data centers and more than five times ERCOT’s record peak demand. These figures measure proposed connections, not a forecast that every requested megawatt will materialize.

Studying projects individually becomes difficult when multiple campuses rely on the same transmission infrastructure. Batch Zero is the transitional group in ERCOT’s shift toward evaluating large loads together, assessing their combined effects and allocating available transmission capacity. The process generally concerns facilities of at least 75 MW with sufficient prior study work and development commitments.

Within that process, Base Load projects enter the study’s starting model without undergoing a new Batch Zero capacity allocation. Studied Load projects qualify for inclusion but still face evaluation and allocation. Projects that fail to qualify must proceed through a future interconnection process.

That makes Base Load a meaningful advantage. It also explains why “included in Batch Zero” is too broad a description for comparing developers.

CleanSpark, for example, disclosed conditional classifications for 585 MW as Base Load and 300 MW as Studied Load, a split it said was expected. Those numbers belong in separate columns when assessing its Texas portfolio.

Ionic Digital offered a more specific disclosure on Thursday. The company said its transmission provider, Texas-New Mexico Power, informed it that ERCOT had provisionally classified the remaining 466 MW requested at its Ward County campus as Base Load. Energizing that tranche would bring the campus’s total demand to 700 MW. Ionic continues to target completion by the end of 2027, subject to verification, the audit process and ERCOT’s final classification determination.

Cipher’s post on X, on the other hand, shows how much a headline number can leave unanswered. The company said initial feedback from its transmission service providers resulted in 3.2 GW of conditional Batch Zero classifications. It did not disclose how much was Base Load and how much was Studied Load, saying it was reviewing site-specific designations and would provide further details next week.

That missing breakdown is central to interpreting the announcement. Base Load capacity retains its position without a new Batch Zero allocation; Studied Load capacity remains subject to that exercise. Cipher’s 3.2 GW establishes the scale covered by its conditional classifications, but does not tell readers how much falls into each category.

The distinction also captures the dynamics of the new power arms race: companies can announce a large number before investors have the information needed to compare it with competitors’ portfolios. Cipher’s promised follow-up will help establish what sits behind the total.

The word “conditional” adds another layer.

Abbott’s August directive required verification and an audit of data centers advancing through the interconnection process. ERCOT subsequently issued provisional classifications. Its September 3 notice identifies possible conditions including successful verification, corrections to technical modeling data and regulatory exceptions where eligibility requirements were not met. Failure to satisfy an applicable condition can disqualify a project.

The companies’ disclosures do not consistently identify which conditions apply to each site. A project awaiting verification and one requiring an eligibility exception have different unresolved issues, even if both describe their status as conditional.

For readers following the mining industry’s AI expansion, the useful comparison is therefore project by project: capacity already operating, capacity preserved as Base Load, requested capacity still awaiting allocation, and the remaining steps before customers can use it.

The 2021 announcements asked investors to look forward from machine orders to future hashrate. Today’s power announcements ask them to look forward from grid access to future computing revenue. Batch Zero makes some of those paths clearer. The next test is how many of the headline megawatts become operating facilities—and when.

Regulation News

• Weld County officials will vote on whether to approve a controversial data center on Wednesday

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• Zcash Tops $1,000, But Rising Computing Power Blunts Mining Windfall

• IREN’s 2GW Sweetwater Hub Gets Conditional ERCOT Base Load Status

• Soluna Completes Kati 1, Gets Conditional ERCOT Status for 166 MW

• Galaxy’s Texas Expansion Faces Hurdle After Missing Base Load Status

• Ionic Gets Provisional ERCOT Status for 466-MW Texas Expansion

Corporate News

• Argo Blockchain CEO Justin Nolan Steps Down as Firm Shifts Toward AI Infrastructure

• HIVE Tops $1 Million in Daily Revenue, Names BUZZ Sales Chief

• TSMC and Samsung are committing to ASML’s most advanced chip-making machines for AI

• Keel Taps PowerSecure for Backup Power at Moses Lake Data Center

• Sphere 3D Prices $5M Financing, Sells Mining Assets to Fund AI Push

Feature

• Questionable data center forecasts are driving up Ohio power bills

• Pennsylvania residents appeal second data center approval, but developer claims it has ‘no merit’

Email us

Public miners analyzed by TheEnergyMag shed an estimated 56 EH/s of realized hashrate over the first half of 2026—a 15% contraction compared to the 10% drop across the Bitcoin network. Much of that power was not leaving compute altogether. It was being redirected toward the AI retrofit.

The change has appeared in the income statement. Directly reported HPC and AI revenue among the comparable miners rose 52% from the first quarter. For the companies furthest into the transition, Q2 also marked the first time that HPC colocation or AI-cloud revenue overtook the mining revenue being wound down.

The conversion is expensive. A previous Miner Weekly analysis tracked roughly $30 billion of capex by public miners and AI peers. PwC now estimates that the broader AI data-center buildout could require $31.6 trillion through 2050.

The 14 companies in TheEnergyMag’s latest comparison spent $18.6 billion in one aligned quarter. Among the six infrastructure providers already reporting recurring HPC revenue, companywide capex was nearly 15 times their combined period revenue.

That spending-revenue gap leads to the question at the center of this issue:

What is an AI megawatt-hour actually worth—and how does it compare with digital mining compute right now?

For the six comparable AI power shell providers, TheEnergyMag estimated their recurring HPC revenue ranged from approximately $86 to $300 per MWh. The median was about $180.

These figures divide recurring HPC, colocation or base-rent revenue by estimated billable megawatt-hours. Fit-out reimbursements and construction-related revenue are excluded where separable.

The estimates are sensitive to timing. A facility delivered halfway through a quarter cannot be treated as though it operated for all 91 days. Straight-line lease accounting may also recognize revenue before cash is collected.

Even with those limitations, the landlord-like models cluster in a relatively narrow range of approximately $140 to $200 per MWh.

The economics change when a company sells compute instead of powered space.

CoreWeave deployed $6.42 billion in the quarter. Based on its data center cost of revenue and estimated active power, we calculate that it was paying approximately $322 per MWh for hosting, with a range of $268 to $403 depending on the capacity-ramp assumption.

That cost includes more than the rent received by a data center landlord. It helps explain why a neocloud can spend more than $300 per MWh on infrastructure while a miner-turned-landlord initially recognizes only $150 to $200 per MWh.

Full-stack operators report still higher revenue. IREN produced an estimated $807 per MWh of AI-cloud revenue, HIVE approximately $924, WhiteFiber $958, and Bitdeer about $1,213.

Those figures are not comparable to rent. They include the value of GPUs, networking, software and orchestration. They also transfer utilization and hardware-obsolescence risk to the operator. Bitdeer demonstrates the distinction particularly well: its AI-cloud revenue density was the highest in the group, but the segment’s reported costs exceeded its revenue.

How it compares with mining

But still, AI cloud remains in a different revenue league. Its estimated median of $940.74/MWh is more than five times the $179.13/MWh generated by Bitmain’s latest-generation Antminer S23 Hyd. and more than eight times the $113.45/MWh from an S21 Pro.

The more interesting comparison is between bitcoin mining and HPC colocation. TheEnergyMag’s estimated median of $174.90/MWh is almost identical to the S23 Hyd.’s current mining revenue. But the underlying economics are very different: colocation revenue is generally contracted for years and may pass electricity costs through to the customer, while bitcoin revenue changes continuously with bitcoin’s price, network difficulty and transaction fees.

Zcash mining sits between those extremes. A Z15 Pro—rated at 840 KSol/s and 2.78 kW—currently generates an estimated $585.61/MWh. That is roughly three times the revenue density of an S23 Hyd., although it comes with substantially greater volatility. Just a little over a week ago, the revenue was sitting at over $700/MWh for Zcash mining.

That makes Zcash mining temporarily more revenue-dense than most colocation agreements and competitive with lower-end GPU-cloud revenue.

But the word “temporarily” is doing considerable work. A miner can install ASICs quickly and sell production into a liquid market, but the revenue can fall overnight. An HPC campus can require years of capital deployment and construction, but a creditworthy tenant may then provide contracted payments for a decade or longer.

Revenue per MWh explains why miners want AI tenants. Capex explains why only some of them will create attractive returns.

Regulation News

• Texas regulators approve two massive West Texas transmission lines amid outcry from landowners

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• Nvidia Backs MediaTek With $3.5B in Expanded AI Chip Pact

• Bitdeer AI Secures $800M in Offtake Commitments for Malaysia Data Center

• Anthropic’s $35B Lambda Deal Connects Nvidia to Hut 8’s Texas AI Data Center

• Bitdeer Acquires 200 Acres in Texas for $100 Million to Expand AI/HPC Infrastructure

• AI Data Centers to Draw $31.6 Trillion Through 2050, PwC Says

• Cipher Begins Pipeline Development for 2.5 GW On-Site Power Generation

Corporate News

• Cango Targets Bare-Metal and Colocation Revenue at 3 MW Site Following Mining Optimization

• Nscale Secures $3 Billion Debt Package for US AI Data Centers

• NVIDIA Reaches $11.9 Billion Deal to Acquire AI Platform Hugging Face

Financial News

• IREN AI Cloud ARR Hits $1B and Secures $2.8B in GPU Debt

• Bitzero Repays $22.4M Loan as Nordic AI Data Center Plans Advance

• Nvidia-Backed Nscale Touts $103 Billion Contract Book Ahead of IPO

Feature

• Swedish Tax Scrutiny Shadows Crypto Miners’ Pivot to AI

Email us

Bitcoin gained 22.49% over the month through early August 26, according to the TradingView comparison supplied by TheEnergyMag. Among the tracked equities, only Canaan, American Bitcoin and Cango did better, rising 66.99%, 53.71% and 40.96%, respectively. CoreWeave gained 21.45%, Nebius 17.10% and IREN 14.63%, while several miners that have emphasized AI and high-performance computing finished flat or lower.

The divergence is striking because capital had flowed the other way for much of 2026. Investors rewarded contracted AI capacity, power pipelines and data-center development while bitcoin struggled through a bear market. The latest rally reversed that hierarchy: direct exposure to bitcoin suddenly outperformed the promise of future AI revenue - at least for now.

The move began with a macro catalyst, but its speed came from positioning.

On August 19, the U.S. Treasury said it would at least double the maximum size of buybacks for older 10- to 30-year government securities, to $4 billion per operation from $2 billion, starting September 9. The stated aim was to support liquidity in the long end of the bond market. Yields initially fell, helping scarce assets including bitcoin and gold. A White House meeting with crypto executives the same day added a policy tailwind as President Donald Trump urged Congress to advance digital-asset market-structure legislation.

Bitcoin had spent weeks compressed near $62,000 to $65,000 while derivatives open interest climbed. When the catalyst arrived, that crowded setup unwound violently. More than $1.6 billion of crypto positions were liquidated over 24 hours, including more than $800 million of shorts in a single hour, according to Coin Metrics. Bitcoin rose as much as 23% during the week and reached its highest level in three months.

That makes the first leg of the rally easy to explain: it was a short squeeze. The more important question is why the move held initially.

The answer, so far, is spot demand. U.S. spot-bitcoin exchange-traded funds took in a net $1.92 billion from August 17 through August 21, their strongest week in roughly 10 months. Another $651.9 million arrived on August 24 and 25, bringing the seven-session total to about $2.57 billion, though the pace has notably decelerated.

The sub-$1 comeback

The three stocks that beat bitcoin were also three of the most stressed direct bitcoin exposures.

Canaan received a Nasdaq deficiency notice in January after staying below the exchange’s $1 minimum bid requirement. In July, Nasdaq transferred the listing to its Capital Market and granted the mining-machine maker and miner another 180 days, until January 11, 2027, to regain compliance.

Cango received an NYSE notice in March after its average closing price remained below $1 for 30 trading days. The company was given six months to cure the deficiency.

American Bitcoin did not receive the same formal sub-$1 deficiency notice. But the company preempted the move with a 1-for-15 reverse split in July.

Their rebound is therefore both a comeback and a warning about leverage. Low-priced mining stocks can move much faster than bitcoin because a higher bitcoin price can expand mining margins, lift the value of coin holdings and reduce immediate listing pressure at the same time.

What would confirm a cyclical bottom

One month of outperformance does not establish a paradigm shift. The coming weeks and months should provide a clearer test across several areas.

Spot demand must outlast the squeeze. ETF flows should remain positive on a multiweek basis after derivatives positioning normalizes. A rally led by spot buying is more durable than one driven by forced short covering. Renewed exchange inflows and repeated ETF outflow days would weaken the case.

Bitcoin needs to turn resistance into support. The $62,000-to-$65,000 area became a large on-chain cost-basis cluster during the summer. A constructive pattern would be a higher low above that base, followed by sustained trading above the August breakout zone. A rapid return into the old range would suggest the move was mainly mechanical.

On-chain profitability should recover without euphoric distribution. Watch realized capitalization, MVRV, adjusted spent-output profit ratio and the behavior of long-term holders. The healthier sequence is rising realized capital, spending at modest profits and enough new demand to absorb sales from older holders. A surge in coins moving to exchanges alongside extreme unrealized profits would raise late-cycle risk.

Leverage should rebuild slowly, if at all. Futures open interest reached about 220,000 bitcoin before the August squeeze. Funding rates, options skew and the futures-to-spot volume ratio should cool while price holds. If open interest races back to its prior high and perpetual funding becomes expensive, the rally will again be vulnerable to liquidation rather than supported by cash buyers.

For now, the evidence is stronger than it was during bitcoin’s failed rebound in May: ETF demand is greater, exchange balances are moving in a constructive direction and the market has reclaimed levels lost during the spring decline. But the rally began with an official bond-market intervention and a historic short squeeze. That is a catalyst, not yet proof of a cycle change.

Regulation News

• Kentucky Clears 482 MW AI Power Deal for TeraWulf’s Anthropic Campus

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• Zcash Rally Widens Mining Revenue Lead Over Bitcoin and AI HPC

• Bitdeer to Deploy 28 MW at Soluna’s Texas Wind-Powered Bitcoin Mine

• Anthropic Secures 460 MW at Nscale Campus in $45 Billion Deal: Report

• NVIDIA Discloses $105B Liability Cap for 4.25 GW Ohio Data Center Project

• AWS and NVIDIA to Deliver 2 Million Additional GPUs and Next-Generation Infrastructure for Agentic and Physical AI

Corporate News

• Tether’s $120M Uruguay Bitcoin Mining Bet Ends in Power Dispute

• Bitdeer Nears 9% of Bitcoin Block Rewards After Sixfold Share Gain

• Rescale Expands Cloud Ecosystem with CoreWeave for Engineering and AI Workloads

• SpaceXAI Adopts NVIDIA Vera CPU to Accelerate Agentic AI at Massive Scale

Financial News

• Nebius Group Closes $5.75 Billion Private Offering of Convertible Senior Notes

• NVIDIA Q2 Revenue Hits $96.2B as Data Center Surges 117% and Vera Rubin Ramps

• Core Scientific Adds $600M Credit Facilities as AI Buildout Accelerates

Feature

• The multiplying risks of financing data centres - FT

• Data Centers Are Driving an Alarming Gas Power Expansion in the US

• Iconic Bitcoin mine pivots to AI as industry turns back on crypto - BBC

Email us

A dozen public mining companies tracked by TheEnergyMag recorded $6.87 billion of net cash spending on capital assets in the first half of 2026, with IREN contributing only its March quarter because a June-period cash-flow statement was not available. That compares with $6.50 billion for all of 2025.

Adding Applied Digital, AI-native CoreWeave and Nebius to the basket, a total 15-company cohort spent $30.7 billion, which was 42.6% more than the $21.53 billion recorded for the entirety of 2025.

The calculation measures cash purchases and deposits for hardware, property, plant, equipment and other directly identified productive assets, less cash proceeds and refunds received from asset disposals. It excludes finance-lease principal and noncash equipment additions.

AI-native companies set the scale

CoreWeave and Nebius accounted for almost three-quarters of the 15-company total.

CoreWeave paid $14.12 billion for property and equipment, including capitalized internal-use software, during the six months ended June 30. That already exceeded its $10.31 billion expenditure for all of 2025.

Nebius spent $8.13 billion on property, equipment and intangible assets during the first half, net of $5.2 million in disposal proceeds. Its comparable 2025 spending was $4.07 billion. The company said the investment primarily covered GPUs, related hardware and data-center expansion for its AI cloud business. Nebius’s second-quarter results show that its first-half capital purchases were roughly double the entire prior-year figure reported in its Form 20-F.

Among the miners and former miners, TeraWulf spent $1.61 billion, Applied Digital $1.58 billion, Core Scientific $1.18 billion and Cipher $911.5 million.

This concentration illustrates what the AI pivot entails. Power contracts and available land may give miners a starting advantage, but converting those assets into AI-ready capacity requires substations, buildings, cooling systems, networking equipment and, in some business models, GPUs. Much of the cash leaves before the first corresponding dollar of revenue can be recognized.

Revenue is accelerating — from a much smaller base

The revenue side is beginning to respond.

Across nine miners present in both quarters of the supplied revenue schedule, directly reported HPC, AI cloud and colocation revenue increased 52% to $205.8 million in the second quarter from $135.4 million in the first. Including estimates for MARA and Hut 8, the comparable totals were $215.8 million and $140.3 million.

Core Scientific supplied most of the absolute increase. Its colocation revenue rose to $136.7 million from $77.5 million. TeraWulf’s HPC leasing revenue increased to $31.9 million from $21 million, while Bitdeer’s AI Cloud revenue climbed to $14 million from $3.7 million.

The acceleration nevertheless remains small beside the construction bill. Those nine comparable miners generated $341.2 million of directly reported HPC and AI revenue during the first half while spending $5.11 billion on capital assets — about 15 times the revenue.

The same pattern is visible at the AI-native companies, although their revenue bases are considerably larger.

CoreWeave’s revenue increased 24% to $2.58 billion in the second quarter from $2.08 billion in the first. Its $4.65 billion of first-half revenue was equivalent to about one-third of its $14.12 billion of cash capital spending.

Nebius recorded $582.3 million of second-quarter revenue, up 46% from $399 million in the first quarter. First-half revenue reached $981.3 million, compared with $8.13 billion of net capital spending.

These ratios are not conventional measures of project profitability. Capital spending builds assets intended to generate revenue over several years, while quarterly revenue only captures capacity that has been delivered, accepted and placed into service. Customer advances can also finance construction without immediately appearing as revenue.

Still, the gap captures the central risk of the transition: expenditure is immediate and largely irreversible, while revenue conversion depends on construction schedules, grid connections, customer acceptance and sustained demand.

For the rest of 2026, the key question is not whether AI-related revenue will grow. The filings already show that it is growing. The question is whether that revenue can begin catching up with the unprecedented amount of cash already committed to produce it.

Regulation News

• Pennsylvania Enacts Strict Data Center Mandates: Curtailment Priority, Ring-Fenced Grid Costs, and an End to Secret Deals

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• Arkansas AI Data Center Site Emerges With 200 MW Plan

• HIVE Signs $350M AI Cloud Deal for NVIDIA Blackwell GPUs

• NVIDIA, SB Energy Partner for 8 GW AI Data Center Campus in Ohio

• WhiteFiber to Buy Two North Carolina AI Data Centers for $60M

• Bitcoin production slips again in July for CleanSpark, BitFuFu and Canaan

• Cypherpunk Buys $33M Zcash Mining Fleet From Winklevoss Affiliates

• Bitdeer Secures $400M Malaysia AI Contract, Targets 350 MW by 2028

Corporate News

• Soluna Reports Q2 2026 Financial Results and Debt Prepayment Agreement

• Core Scientific Closes Polaris Deal to Expand Oklahoma AI Campus

• With AI Deals in Focus, Keel CEO Buys $200,000 of Stock on Dip

• Bitdeer Strategy Chief Buys $221,000 of Stock After 20% Slide

• Velaura AI Raises $110M After Auradine Rebrand, Bitcoin Miner Pivot

• Ionic Revenue Rises 31% as AI Leasing Replaces Bitcoin Mining

• Fortitude Reports $20.9M Revenue as Zcash Rally Boosts Mining Backdrop

Financial News

• Mike Alfred’s Alpine Fox Adds Soluna, Trims Cipher in Second Quarter

• Riot Secures $573 Million Loan Facility for Rockdale AI Data Center

• HIVE Reports $79M Fiscal Q1 Revenue as AI Cloud Services Scale

• Anthropic-Tied Data Center Inks $1.3 Billion Private Credit Loan

• Nebius Upsizes Convertible Note Sale to $5 Billion for AI Buildout

Feature

• Inside Big Tech’s Frantic Race to Quell the Growing Backlash to AI - WSJ

Email us

The analysis found a notable redistribution beneath an apparently stable aggregate: Core Scientific, IREN, Cipher Digital, TeraWulf and Keel Infrastructure were giving up bitcoin production, while Bitdeer, MARA, Riot Platforms and American Bitcoin absorbed much of the displaced network share.

At the time, the system remained roughly balanced.

The second quarter earnings suggest that balance is beginning to break.

The miners reducing bitcoin exposure continued to unplug machines, but fewer operators expanded enough to compensate. At the same time, colocation revenue rose sharply among the companies furthest along in their conversions.

Core Scientific generated $136.7 million of colocation revenue in Q2, almost five times its $27.5 million of bitcoin mining revenue. Colocation supplied 83% of quarterly sales, up from 67% in Q1, according to the company’s second-quarter results.

TeraWulf followed the same trajectory. HPC lease revenue increased to $31.9 million, or 71% of total revenue, compared with $12.8 million from bitcoin mining. Its HPC share had already reached 62% in Q1 as contracted capacity at Lake Mariner began generating revenue.

For several miners, colocation is becoming a material contributor. At Core Scientific and TeraWulf, it has already overtaken mining.

The rest of the sector remains earlier in the conversion. Riot Platforms reported $23.2 million in data center revenue against $113.7 million from mining. Bitdeer generated $14 million from AI cloud services compared with $197.1 million from mining-related activities. Hut 8 and MARA reported smaller compute contributions, while Cipher and Keel Infrastructure had yet to recognize HPC revenue.

The offsets are no longer keeping up

Using an expanded cohort and updated network series, TheEnergyMag estimates that the public miners tracked for this analysis produced a combined realized hashrate of 368.3 EH/s in Q4 2025, 344.4 EH/s in Q1 2026 and 319.0 EH/s in Q2.

That represents a 13.4% decline in six months.

The Bitcoin network’s quarterly average fell from 1,071 EH/s to 993 EH/s and then to 957 EH/s over the same period, a 10.6% reduction. The public company cohort therefore contracted faster than the network.

In Q1, expansion by a handful of miners largely obscured the scale of the shutdowns elsewhere. By Q2, even those additions were no longer sufficient to keep the cohort stable.

Bitdeer remained the largest offset. Its realized hashrate increased 44% from Q4 to Q2, reaching 63.0 EH/s. Excluding Bitdeer, the rest of the cohort’s realized hashrate fell 21.2%, from 324.6 EH/s to 255.9 EH/s.

Bitdeer’s expansion comes from its own SEALMINER production pipeline. By June, the company reported 73 EH/s of self-mining capacity and 15.9 EH/s of co-mining capacity. It produced 990 bitcoin during the month, 388% more than a year earlier.

MARA and American Bitcoin also continued expanding, but their additions were not enough to counter reductions across Cango, Cipher, Keel, Core Scientific, TeraWulf and IREN.

Cango provides the sharpest example of how quickly mining economics have changed.

The company entered bitcoin mining in late 2024 and reached 50 EH/s of deployed capacity during 2025, only to begin decommissioning inefficient machines, leasing out hashrate and moving capacity toward lower-cost regions.

Its realized hashrate fell from 44.8 EH/s in Q4 2025 to 31.3 EH/s in Q1. TheEnergyMag estimates its Q2 capacity would decline to 16.5 EH/s—a 63% reduction in six months.

Keel Infrastructure has taken the transition further. During Q2, it completed the decommissioning of all U.S. bitcoin mining operations in preparation for data center construction. Mining continues in Canada during the phased transition. Meanwhile, the replacement revenue has not yet arrived.

The post-China arms race unwinds

The longer-term context also looks more striking after Q2.

China’s 2021 mining ban briefly removed roughly half the Bitcoin network’s computing power. Hashrate bottomed at 57.5 EH/s in June 2021, but miners relocated and the network had almost fully recovered by December. The United States emerged as the largest mining hub.

That recovery helped trigger the institutional expansion race TheEnergyMag has tracked over the ensuing years. Public miners raised capital, acquired power sites and ordered successive generations of ASICs, eventually pushing the network beyond one zettahash per second.

Only one halving has occurred since that expansion began.

Now, machines and electrical infrastructure accumulated during the post-China race are being idled, impaired or depreciated faster so their power can be reassigned to GPUs. The industry collectively expanded at enormous cost, only for some of its most visible operators to begin dismantling that capacity after one halving cycle.

Unlike the China ban, the current contraction has no single headline trigger. It is a combination of weak mining economics and a competing use for capital and electricity.

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• Bitcoin ‘Anti-Spam’ Fork Sputters to a Halt After Mining Just Two Blocks

• Nvidia, Wall Street Firms Target $500 Billion for AI Infrastructure

• CenterPoint Ties $5B Savings Forecast to Texas Data Center Power Boom

Corporate News

• MARA Pledges 18,750 BTC for $600 Million New Bitcoin-Backed Loans

• Bitdeer Revenue Jumps 47% as Bitcoin Production Surges Nearly Fivefold

• Keel Falls 10% as Revenue Halves, Shuts Bitcoin Mines for AI Data Centers

• MARA Holdings Reports $611 Million Net Loss for Q2 2026

• CleanSpark Secures $6.6 Billion Lease and Reports Third Quarter 2026 Financials

• Bitdeer Slides 14% on $1B ATM Plan to Fund AI, HPC Expansion

• Riot Jumps 20% on Anthropic AI Deal as Bitcoin Sales Surge 56%

• CoreWeave Closes $2.6 Billion AI Loan at Wider Spread

• CoreWeave Reports $2.58 Billion Q2 2026 Revenue Amid Infrastructure Expansion

• HIVE Digital Delays Quarterly Report Over Swedish Tax Accrual

• WhiteFiber Shares Jump as Contract Exit Payment Lifts Revenue

• Nebius Revenue Jumps Fivefold as AI Cloud Deals Fuel Expansion

• Cerebras Systems Details Q2 2026 Results, Reaching 600 MW of Contracted Data Center Capacity

Email us

Sign a lease. Name-drop an AI tenant. Add a few hundred megawatts. Watch the chart go vertical.

That trade is not dead, but it is getting harder to impress the market.

TheEnergyMag’s analysis of 25 AI and high-performance-computing infrastructure announcements from June 2024 through Aug. 4, 2026 found an interesting split. The deals are arriving faster and carrying slightly richer revenue per megawatt. At the same time, the stocks announcing them are moving less.

The best-fit absolute announcement-day move—the size of the move, regardless of direction—falls from 32.5% at the start of the period to 6.3% at the end. The first eight announcements in the sample produced an average absolute close-to-close move of 24.1%. The median was 14.8%. For the last eight announcements, the average dropped to 10.2% and the median to 7.3%.

Meanwhile, annualized base-term revenue per contracted megawatt for colocation and build-to-suit leases inches up from roughly $1.67 million to $1.90 million.

In other words, the contracts got fatter while the candles got shorter. It is not to suggest that the market is shrugging these deals off. But it appears to be reacting with a polite nod instead of spraying champagne around the room like it used to.

Back when an AI lease could rewrite the whole story

The first wave of deals did something genuinely new. They showed that bitcoin miners and other power-rich operators could turn substations, land and grid connections into credible AI infrastructure businesses.

When Core Scientific announced roughly 200 MW of hosting contracts with CoreWeave in June 2024, the stock jumped 40.2% from the prior close. That agreement did more than add revenue. It gave investors a new way to value the entire company.

Applied Digital’s first 250 MW CoreWeave lease produced a 48.5% move in June 2025. Then TeraWulf’s initial 200-plus MW Fluidstack agreements sent its shares up 59.5% in August.

Those were not ordinary contract announcements. They were corporate identity changes delivered by press releases.

Fast-forward to this summer. TeraWulf signed a $19 billion, 401 MW lease with Anthropic. The stock gained 4.9% on a close-to-close basis. CleanSpark landed a $6.6 billion, 175 MW lease. Its shares rose 8.8%. Bitdeer’s new $4.7 billion, 121 MW Tydal agreement initially pumped its stock by 12% on Tuesday before all of those gains were erased at the market’s close.

These are still enormous contracts. A year earlier, any one of them might have blown the doors off the stock. Now the market wants to see the wiring diagram.

Everyone has an AI pipeline now

Scarcity creates excitement. Familiarity turns excitement into a spreadsheet.

TheEnergyMag’s sample contains just two announcements in 2024, followed by 12 in 2025 and another 11 in the first seven months and four days of 2026. This year’s deals already cover 2,039 MW—slightly more than the 2,001 MW announced during all of last year.

At this point, an AI strategy is no longer a surprise. For many of the miners and power-to-compute companies, it is practically part of the dress code.

That does not mean every announcement is equal. The fitted revenue-per-megawatt line rises over time, but only modestly, and the relationship is noisy. The median 2026 deal is actually below the 2025 median on that measure.

The strongest conclusion is therefore not that lease pricing is marching relentlessly higher. It is that the industry is signing more large deals—and investors have developed a longer checklist for deciding which ones deserve a rerating.

Who is the tenant? Is there an investment-grade backstop? Who pays for the build? When does revenue start? What happens if construction slips? And after debt, equity issuance and project costs, how much of the economics actually reaches each share?

A lease can validate a site while leaving all of those questions open.

The index has a hangover too

The TEM AI Infrastructure Growth Index closed at 6,384 on Aug. 5. It had bounced 23% over the previous seven days after hitting a local low near the end of July.

That sounds healthy until you zoom out. The index remained roughly 28.5% below its June peak and was still down 9% over one month.

That is not a market abandoning the AI infrastructure story. It is a market trying to decide how much of the story it already paid for.

The sector has traveled a long way from the days when access to power and an AI press release were enough. Investors now have a growing stack of signed leases to compare. They can separate scarce sites from ordinary ones, funded projects from financing plans and near-term rent from revenue that may not begin for another two years.

Two years ago, a major AI/HPC agreement could create an entirely new equity story overnight. Today, it is more likely to become another row in the model.

The megawatts are still growing. The easy multiple expansion may be what is running out of fuel.

Regulation News

• Texas pauses AI data center power hookups amid grid fears

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• Crusoe Plans $1B Texas AI Data Center Expansion, Pursues Nuclear Power

• Sphere 3D Plans 50 MW Kentucky Data Center as City Weighs Zoning Rules

• Nexus Seeks $15B for Anthropic Texas AI Data Center With Google Backstop

• DeepSeek Plans 1-Gigawatt AI Data Center in Inner Mongolia

• Bitdeer Signs $4.7 Billion Norway AI Data Center Lease With Volta

• Anthropic Deal Underpins Bitdeer’s $4.7 Billion Norway AI Lease

• CoreWeave Plans 360MW Indonesia Expansion in First Asia AI Data Center Push

Corporate News

• Southern Company Plans $2.15B Raise via Convertible Bond

• American Bitcoin Names Paul Sacks Interim CFO as Matthew Prusak Departs

• Matthew Prusak joins Giga Energy as Chief Business Officer and Interim CFO

• MARA Adds Power, Data Center Veterans to Board Amid AI Push

• NRG Energy Reports $7.48 Billion Q2 2026 Revenue, T.H. Wharton Peaker Plant Begins Operations

• IREN Completes Acquisition of Mirantis

• Nebius appoints Lindsey Irvine as Chief Marketing Officer

• CoreWeave Signs Multi-Year Agreement With Solidigm to Strengthen Its Integrated AI Cloud Platform

Financial News

• Aschenbrenner’s $24B AI Hedge Fund Unwinds Trades After Losses: Report

• Bitzero Secures $25M Through Warrant Issuance for Infrastructure and Debt Reduction

• TeraWulf’s AI Leasing Revenue Reaches 71% as Data Center Shift Accelerates

• Galaxy Digital Reports $85 Million Q2 2026 Net Loss and 526 MW CoreWeave Lease

• Fluence Energy Reports $44.3 Million Net Loss for Q3 Fiscal 2026

• Solaris Energy Infrastructure Reports $219 Million Revenue for Q2 2026

• Canaan Inc. to Repurchase Shares Using Portion of Digital Asset Treasury

Email us

The AI Infrastructure Growth Index tracked by TheEnergyMag fell 11.13% on Wednesday alone, extending its one-month decline to 34%. The index has now retreated about 42% from its record high in June, as selling spreads across chipmakers, neoclouds, power companies and former bitcoin miners recast as data center developers.

The immediate catalyst was a renewed debate over how the AI boom is being financed. Nvidia was reported this week to be considering a guarantee of up to $250 billion to help OpenAI lease a planned 10-gigawatt data-center campus in Ohio, along with separate financing of up to $350 billion for Nvidia chips used at the site.

The discussions revived concerns about "circular financing": chipmakers and hyperscalers invest in AI laboratories or cloud providers, which then spend some of that capital on equipment or computing capacity supplied by their investors.

Such arrangements do not by themselves show that demand is artificial. They can help customers finance infrastructure whose cost and construction timelines would otherwise make development difficult. But they also concentrate risk. If AI laboratories cannot generate enough revenue to honor their commitments, the pressure could flow back through neoclouds, data-center developers, lenders and ultimately chip suppliers.

Other pressures intensified the retreat. Reports of progress in China’s domestic chipmaking industry and the blockbuster debut of memory producer CXMT raised fears of greater competition. Oil prices and Treasury yields also jumped Wednesday, increasing financing costs for a sector whose projected revenue often sits years in the future.

Few examples capture the reversal as clearly as Situational Awareness, the hedge fund founded by former OpenAI employee Leopold Aschenbrenner.

The roughly $20 billion fund recently held discussions with existing investors and lenders about raising fresh capital after suffering losses in the AI-stock rout, the Financial Times reported, citing people briefed on the matter. It also offered some investors the opportunity to buy assets from its portfolio, although one source described the outreach as ad hoc rather than a coordinated fundraising effort.

Situational Awareness had gained 439% on a net basis during the first half of 2026, according to an investor letter reviewed by the FT. The fund used borrowing to magnify its exposure, a strategy that amplified returns during the rally but increased the potential damage when the trade reversed.

Aschenbrenner presented the downturn differently. In the July 24 letter, he argued that the selloff had created some of the most attractive opportunities since early 2025 and invited investors to add capital on Aug. 1. The fund’s fundraising can therefore be read both as a response to pressure and an attempt to buy into the decline.

For mining investors, the broader question is how far the unwind will extend into companies whose valuations increasingly depend on AI rather than bitcoin production.

A 30-day comparison through Wednesday shows bitcoin gaining about 6.84%, while every AI-infrastructure and HPC-related equity included in TheEnergyMag’s comparison declined. CleanSpark, the best performer among the displayed stocks, fell roughly 9%. Cipher Digital and MARA dropped about 16%, while IREN lost 25%, TeraWulf declined 31%, and American Bitcoin slid 46%.

The divergence is striking because mining stocks have historically traded as high-beta bitcoin proxies. That relationship weakened as investors began assigning greater value to miners’ electricity contracts, land, substations and grid connections—all assets that could be redeployed for AI computing.

Multibillion-dollar AI agreements then pushed some miners further away from their original business. Their shares became increasingly sensitive to hyperscaler spending, chip availability, construction financing and the valuations of AI laboratories and neocloud companies.

That shift worked in both directions. Only last week, mining and data-center stocks outperformed during a Nasdaq selloff as investors rewarded new AI contracts. The subsequent rout suggests that the group’s brief insulation from the technology market was less durable than it appeared.

Bitcoin’s relative strength raises the possibility that capital is beginning to rotate back from AI equities to the big orange. Earlier this summer, the movement appeared to run the other way. K33 Research said in June that investors were leaving bitcoin for higher-flying AI stocks, pointing to 62,794 bitcoin of outflows from exchange-traded products over three weeks, the second-largest such streak on record at the time. K33 warned that the opportunity cost of holding bitcoin had become difficult for investors to accept while AI-related equities were soaring.

The latest price action may indicate that dynamic is reversing, but relative performance alone does not establish a capital rotation. Investors selling AI stocks could be moving into cash, bonds or less volatile equities rather than bitcoin. For now, the evidence more clearly supports a decoupling: bitcoin has held its value while the companies that increasingly traded on AI expectations have not.

Mike Alfred, founder of Alpine Fox and a longtime investor in mining infrastructure, offered the countercase at the Energy Investors Forum last week.

“There’s no bubble, so you don’t have to ask,” Alfred said, arguing that demand for power, cooling, land and data-center capacity could expand for another 20 to 30 years. He acknowledged that the buildout would include crashes and downturns, but said those interruptions would not invalidate the longer-term demand for computing.

His exposure is material. Alfred is an IREN director and told the forum that roughly 80% of his fund was concentrated in IREN and Cipher. Both stocks are down around 30% over the past month.

The selloff does not resolve whether AI infrastructure is overbuilt. It does, however, raise the standard for what investors are willing to finance. Signed contracts, creditworthy tenants and funded construction plans are likely to matter more than undeveloped power capacity or prospective AI demand.

Bitcoin may be regaining some independence from the AI trade. For miners that spent the past year persuading investors they were no longer merely bitcoin companies, however, a rotation back to the cryptocurrency would be an awkward kind of victory.

Regulation News

• Russia detains crypto mining firm BitRiver founder on fraud charges

• Hopkinsville weighs limits on data centers as crypto mine proposes expansion

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• Nebius Details Plans for 1.2GW Data Center Campus in Pennsylvania

• NAVER, NVIDIA, and Brookfield to expand South Korea’s AI infrastructure to 200 MW by 2028

• Bitcoin Power Use Jumps 38% with Greener Energy Mix: Report

• Galaxy Digital Acquires 500-Acre Site for Second Texas AI Data Center

• Core Scientific Pays $42M to Exit Block’s Bitcoin Mining Deal as AI Revenue Surges

• NextEra, Brookfield Plan $100B AI Data Center Campus at Former Kentucky Nuclear Site

• EU lays out $11.4 billion for 7 AI gigafactories as it aims to catch up with US and China

• Dynamix-Led Fund Deploys $95M for Texas AI Data Center Grid Deposits

Corporate News

• Ionic Jumps 26% in Nasdaq Debut, Giving Celsius Claimholders Exit Route

• Core Scientific Lands $14 Billion AMD AI Data Center Deal

• Fortitude Invests $45M in Zcash Mining Infrastructure to Drive Vertical Integration

• Nscale Agrees to Buy Anyscale in Push Into AI Software

Financial News

• Bloom Energy Reports $1.06 Billion in Q2 2026 Revenue

• Bitzero Secures $25M Private Placement for AI Infrastructure and Debt Repayment

• Nvidia in Talks With OpenAI to Guarantee $250 Billion Financing for Data Center

• AI Hedge Fund Situational Awareness Seeks Capital Amid July Market Rout

EIF Recap

• The ‘Mullet’ Mining Pitch Has a Catch: Most Bitcoin Mines Aren’t AI-Ready

• AI Infrastructure Isn’t a Bubble, Mike Alfred Says — But Owning GPUs Is a Bigger Bet

• Soluna CEO Sees Stranded Wind Power as a Shortcut to AI Capacity

Email us

Across the EIF panels, generators, utilities, data-center developers, miners, investors and policymakers repeatedly returned to the same physical constraints: generation, interconnection queues, transmission, substations, cooling, equipment lead times, capital, permits and public support. The demand for compute may begin with models and chips, but delivering it ultimately requires electrons at a specific place, on a commercially useful timetable.

No single part of the energy economy can solve that problem alone. Utilities are being asked to accommodate loads at a scale and speed they were not built to handle. Renewable developers need customers for output that would otherwise be curtailed. Power producers need confidence that new demand will support investment in generation. Data-center operators need firm capacity and redundancy. Investors want contracts capable of supporting billions of dollars in infrastructure. Local officials and residents want credible answers about rates, water, noise, taxes and jobs.

Bitcoin mining entered that wider conversation as one of several bridges between energy and compute. Miners have spent years locating underused power, deploying modular loads and curtailing operations when grids become strained. That experience gives some operators a head start as AI developers search for energized land.

But EIF’s broader message was that controlling a grid connection is only the beginning. A parcel with power does not automatically become a financeable AI campus. It may still lack fiber, high-density cooling, transmission capacity, equipment, permits, a creditworthy tenant or community consent.

That distinction is beginning to sort the market. Some energy projects will support hyperscale AI campuses. Others may be better suited to distributed inference, flexible bitcoin mining, grid services or behind-the-meter industrial demand. Some will remain most valuable as power-and-land assets for another developer to build.

EIF therefore offered less a single forecast than a map of the emerging compute-energy stack — and of the bottlenecks that could determine who captures its value.

Mining’s place in the wider power shift

Alexander Neumüller of the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance previewed preliminary findings from the next edition of Cambridge’s digital-mining research. He said the underlying survey represented more than half of global bitcoin mining activity.

Among the preliminary findings presented at EIF:

• Estimated annual mining electricity consumption increased to about 190 terawatt-hours, from 138 TWh, between June 2024 and December 2025.

• Estimated emissions rose to roughly 48 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent, from about 40 million.

• The estimated low-carbon share of mining’s electricity mix increased to *59.4%*, from 52.4%.

• About 10% of respondents said they had already allocated some power to AI or accelerated computing.

• More than 40% of the remaining respondents said they were actively exploring AI or HPC diversification.

• Nearly nine in 10 respondents expected AI/HPC diversification to become a strategic industry theme.

The presentation captured the industry’s ambivalence. Miners want another source of revenue, but many do not want it to destabilize the mining business that gave them their power portfolio in the first place.

The physical layer is the trade

Mike Alfred, founder and managing partner of Alpine Fox, used his EIF fireside chat to explain why he believes power-rich miners are being recast as AI-infrastructure investments.

"I think we have 20 or 30 really good years for building power, data centers and other capabilities and infrastructure for AI," Alfred said. "I think Texas is Mecca. I think Texas is the most important data-center market in the world."

His argument was that miners that secured land and electricity when those assets were undervalued can now use the same positions to pursue contracted data-center revenue. Referring to companies moving from mining into AI infrastructure, Alfred described the transition as going "from a speculative business on the commodity price of bitcoin to now a contractual, repeatable business based on AI."

Alfred also cautioned that the choice of business model will divide the sector’s winners and losers.

"The big divide in the data-center business amongst the folks who started in bitcoin mining and are now in AI is whether or not to own the GPUs yourself," he said. "If you choose to own them, you better have a good reason why. It’s potentially more lucrative, but also potentially more risky."

For miners seeking a less technology-dependent model, Alfred pointed to colocation: the tenant owns the GPUs, servers and racks, while the infrastructure company supplies power, cooling, connectivity and the building.

"That model looks more like a REIT," he said. "It looks more like a real-estate business. It’s much more conservative. It’s easier to finance."

Megawatts have become the strategic reserve

The clearest point of agreement at EIF was that "speed to power" now determines who can compete for AI projects.

John Belizaire, chief executive of Soluna Holdings, described a model built around locating computing facilities beside renewable-generation assets whose output is constrained or curtailed. Rather than entering a new interconnection queue from scratch, Soluna seeks to modify an existing generation interconnection and add data center load.

Belizaire said that approach can take a fraction of the time required to secure a new grid connection. Soluna’s larger thesis is that curtailed wind and solar generation represents "a source of energy that’s hiding in plain sight": electricity that may not reach the grid but can be monetized by colocated compute.

The value is not limited to electrons. A usable AI site needs transmission or distribution access, fiber, water or an alternative cooling design, permitting, equipment and a credible path to operation. That turns an existing interconnection into a form of strategic real estate.

Several panelists also argued that the next phase may be more distributed than the first wave of enormous AI campuses. Clusters of 10-to-20-megawatt facilities could sometimes connect faster, require less upfront capital and offer geographic redundancy. Smaller facilities may also sit closer to inference customers and avoid some of the transmission upgrades associated with gigawatt-scale campuses.

That model would look familiar to miners. The industry spent years deploying modular data centers wherever power was available rather than waiting for ideal locations.

The “mullet” meets operating reality

One panel reiterated the hybrid strategy with a memorable name: the mullet — AI in the front, bitcoin mining in the back.

The premise is straightforward. Mining can monetize a power position while a developer prepares the site for an AI tenant. If a higher-value lease is signed, the operator converts some or all of the location. Until then, the ASIC fleet generates revenue rather than leaving the interconnection idle.

The strategy has helped public mining companies persuade investors to value them less on hashprice and more on controlled megawatts. A panel moderator pointed to TeraWulf’s Kentucky development and a reported long-duration AI lease as evidence that a former mining site could become a major AI asset.

But the panelists disagreed on whether the mullet is a durable operating model or merely a bridge between businesses. Bitcoin mining and AI place different demands on infrastructure:

• Mining can tolerate interruptions and can often earn money by curtailing when the grid is strained.

• AI customers usually require firm power, tight service-level agreements and substantially greater redundancy.

• Mining containers can be deployed quickly and replaced in modules.

• AI facilities require expensive cooling, networking and electrical systems designed for rapidly increasing rack density.

• A mining site can operate in a remote power pocket with limited connectivity.

• AI workloads often need substantial fiber, skilled labor and access to customers or network hubs.

The practical conclusion was that only a portion of miners’ power portfolios will qualify for high-end AI development. The remainder still has value, but it may be worth more as flexible mining load, grid-balancing capacity or a future development option than as a promised hyperscale campus.

The constraint nobody can engineer away

EIF began and ended with a warning about community acceptance.

Data center projects are encountering questions about electricity prices, water, noise, local hiring, tax incentives and the number of permanent jobs they create. Speakers said developers often arrive too late — after residents have encountered a project through social media or a public-hearing notice.

Curtis Harris of Compass Mining argued that developers should show up in communities “early and often,” well before a formal hearing. “It’s not you, it’s us,” Harris said, directing the criticism at the industry. "We’re the ones who need to be better."

He cited a company outreach effort at an Iowa county fair that emphasized three claims residents could evaluate directly: the operation curtails when requested by the local utility, its mining machines use no water, and it hires local contractors and technicians.

Texas state Rep. Jared Patterson similarly argued that lobbying in Austin is not a substitute for local support. Industry participants need to explain the tax base, school funding, grid relationship and actual water design of a project in terms relevant to residents, he said.

The message was uncomfortable but consistent: the industry cannot assume that a technically sound project will receive political approval. Community engagement is not a communications exercise attached at the end. It is part of development.

That lesson applies equally to mining and AI. Residents may distinguish between the two technologies, but they often experience them in the same way — as large industrial loads seeking land, power and public consent.

What we took away from EIF

The forum did not produce a single blueprint for the mining industry’s next phase. It produced a set of tests.

Power is valuable, but only if it can be delivered on a commercially useful timetable. A mining site can become an AI site, but only if its cooling, connectivity, redundancy and location meet a much higher standard. AI contracts can stabilize revenue, but their financeability depends on the customer. Renewable generation can support compute, but intermittency and curtailment must be designed into the operating model. Texas can remain a compute center, but only if generation, transmission, permitting and local consent keep pace.

The miners best positioned for the next cycle may not be those that declare the largest AI pipeline. They may be the ones that classify their megawatts most honestly:

• which sites should remain mines;

• which can support flexible or distributed compute;

• which justify full AI conversion;

• and which are most valuable as power-and-land assets sold or leased to someone else.

That is a less dramatic story than every miner becoming an AI company. It is also a more investable one.

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• Braiins, Enel Launch Energy Tool as Bitcoin Mining Margins Tighten

• AMD, Anthropic Strike AI Chips Deal with up to 2 GW of MI450 GPU Deployments

Corporate News

• Galaxy Digital secures 15-year naming rights for Texas Tech football stadium

• Big Digital, 10NetZero Acquire Texas AI Data Center Site for $10 Million

• Ionic Digital Set to Begin Nasdaq Trading on July 28

• Ionic Digital Forecasts up to $195M in 2026 Revenue Ahead of Nasdaq Debut

• Bitdeer’s Bitcoin Output Climbs to 990 as AI Cloud Run Rate Reaches $76M

• Poolin Files Chapter 11, Lines Up $52M Sale of Texas Bitcoin Mining Assets

Financial News

• Nebius Secures $775M GPU-Backed Loan to Fund AI Cloud Expansion

• Hut 8 Jumps 14% on $9.8 Billion Lease to Fully Commercialize Texas AI Campus

• Greenidge Rebrands as Vulcan After $39.4M Raise to Fund AI Data Center Pivot

• Galaxy Targets $3.5B Notes Sale to Fund Texas AI Data Center Expansion

• Bitcoin Miners Defy Nasdaq Rout as AI Infrastructure Deals Fuel Gains

• Galaxy Locks In 9.875% Rate on $3.5B AI Data Center Bond Sale

Email us

Energy Investors Forum is a high-signal, curated conference convening leaders across energy, compute infrastructure, and capital to map the next decade of power and data center buildout.

Get your tickets today and use code MNRW30 for 30% off exclusively for Miner Weekly subscribers.

For much of the AI infrastructure boom, the industry’s power problem sounded like something that would arrive in the future.

Utilities warned about rising demand. Grid operators pointed to crowded connection queues. Developers talked about waiting years for transmission upgrades.

That future is beginning to arrive.

New York this week became the first US state to impose a statewide moratorium on certain new large data center projects, pausing incomplete state permit applications while regulators develop rules governing how the facilities should be powered, what they should pay for grid access and what benefits they must provide to host communities.

Also this week, PJM Interconnection, which operates the power grid across all or parts of 13 states and the District of Columbia, saw its latest capacity auction reach a federally approved price ceiling of $325 per megawatt-day. Even at that price, PJM still failed to secure enough power resources to meet its reliability target.

Across the Atlantic, Nscale’s planned £2 billion AI data center in Essex reportedly lost its expected grid-connection timeline, forcing the company to explore generating electricity on site.

Taken together, these developments show that the grid constraint is no longer just a risk hanging over the AI infra boom. It is beginning to act as a real brake on it.

New York wants more than jobs

New York Governor Kathy Hochul described the recent rush of data center proposals as an attempt to “flood the zone.”

Her concern is straightforward: the state must keep the lights on while also keeping electricity affordable for households and businesses.

A 50 MW data center, Hochul said in an interview on Bloomberg’s Odd Lots podcast, can consume roughly as much electricity as 50,000 homes. When several large projects arrive at once, they begin competing with residents, manufacturers and other businesses for the same limited power supply.

New York had nearly 12 GW of data center requests in its grid-connection queue as of May, including more than 8 GW added during 2025.

The state’s response is not intended to be a permanent ban, Hochul said. The one-year pause is meant to give regulators time to establish what she repeatedly called the “rules of the road.”

Her summary of those rules was blunt: Data centers should bring their own power or pay a premium to use New York’s grid.

Hochul said the state is considering several requirements. Developers could be asked to fund new generation, contribute toward transmission upgrades and pay into a larger grid-resiliency fund. They may also be expected to provide direct benefits to the towns and counties hosting their facilities.

That last point matters because many proposed data centers are located in smaller communities that do not have experienced planning departments or teams of lawyers negotiating on their behalf.

Hochul, who previously represented a rural part of upstate New York, said those communities may not know what developers are willing to offer.

She suggested that a locality could seek payments based on the size of a project — giving $1 million per megawatt as an example — alongside investments in the local grid and community.

The figure was not presented as a settled statewide fee. But it illustrates the amount of bargaining power Hochul believes host communities may possess.

The state’s goal is to create a standard framework that local governments can use, rather than leaving each town to negotiate alone with some of the world’s largest technology companies.

Who should pay for the grid?

The New York debate is also about who bears the financial risk of the AI buildout.

Utilities may need to spend billions of dollars on power lines, substations and new generation to serve proposed data centers. But developers often examine several locations before deciding which projects to build.

If a utility upgrades the grid for a campus that is later abandoned, ordinary electricity customers could be left paying for infrastructure that is no longer needed.

New York wants more of that risk to sit with the data center developer.

That could mean larger upfront deposits, dedicated power supplies or other financial guarantees before utilities begin major construction.

The policy would amount to a significant change from the early stages of the AI boom, when states and local governments competed to attract data centers with tax breaks, cheap land and promises of abundant electricity.

New York is still competing for technology investment. But it is making clear that access to the grid will not be free or unconditional.

Data centers must compete with factories

Hochul’s interview also revealed a broader political question: how should governments allocate scarce electricity among competing industries?

She contrasted data centers with Micron’s planned semiconductor manufacturing complex in New York, a project expected to create thousands of direct and indirect jobs.

If she had to choose between powering a “largely vacant data center” and a Micron factory employing thousands of people, Hochul said the choice would be obvious.

That comparison gets to the heart of the challenge facing data center developers.

Data centers can produce substantial construction spending, property-tax revenue and technology investment. But after construction is complete, the largest facilities may employ relatively few permanent workers compared with factories consuming a similar amount of electricity.

As power becomes harder to secure, developers may need to show that a project delivers more than electricity demand and a large building.

They may be asked to fund infrastructure, provide community payments, create training programs or supply their own generation.

Hochul even suggested that future data center operators could arrive with their own small modular nuclear reactors, with New York helping to identify suitable land.

The idea remains speculative, but it captures the direction of travel: the biggest new electricity users may increasingly be expected to bring power with them.

PJM shows the shortage is not theoretical

PJM’s latest capacity auction helps explain why states are becoming more cautious.

Capacity markets pay power plants and other resources to be available when electricity demand is highest. The payment is separate from the price customers pay for the electricity they actually consume.

PJM’s auction for the 2028-2029 delivery year reached its approved ceiling of $325 per megawatt-day. Without that cap, PJM estimated the regional price would have risen to about $555 per megawatt-day.

Even at the ceiling, PJM came up 6,831 MW short of the amount of capacity it says is needed to meet its reliability standard.

The price cap limited how high the auction could go. It did not create more power plants.

PJM’s demand forecast continues to rise, in large part because of new data centers. But building dependable generation and transmission takes far longer than announcing an AI campus.

Only 525 MW of new generation and upgrades cleared the auction, far less than the expected growth in demand.

The result shows that the grid bottleneck is no longer just about waiting in a connection queue. It is also beginning to appear in the cost of keeping enough power available for everyone already connected.

When a data center cannot get electricity

Nscale’s proposed AI campus in Loughton, Essex, shows what happens when the grid cannot match a developer’s schedule.

The company was reportedly told that electricity would not be available in time for the planned £2 billion facility to open next year. It is now considering alternatives, including fuel cells from Bloom Energy that could generate power on site using natural gas.

The project highlights a basic mismatch.

A company may be able to secure land, financing, customers and computing equipment within several years. The transmission infrastructure needed to power the campus can take much longer.

On-site generation can help developers avoid connection delays, but it creates new complications involving emissions, gas supply, environmental permits and community opposition.

The power problem does not disappear. It simply moves somewhere else.

What this means for bitcoin miners

The grid bottleneck strengthens the value of mining sites that already have power.

Keel Infrastructure announced this week that it plans to consolidate electricity from three existing bitcoin mines in Québec into a single 96 MW AI and high-performance computing campus in Sherbrooke. The company is not asking for additional power, only approval to transfer its existing allocation.

CleanSpark’s new 20-year lease in Sandersville, Georgia, shows another path. The company is transforming its long-established mining campus into a data center project expected to generate about $6.6 billion in contracted revenue.

Ionic Digital has already leased 234 MW of energized capacity at its former Ward County mining site to Nscale, although its plans to expand the campus further still depend on utility work and regulatory approval.

The examples point to the same advantage: bitcoin miners may already control the land, substations and grid connections that new data center developers are struggling to secure.

But existing power and future power should not be valued equally. A site that can reuse an established allocation, as Keel is proposing, is different from one that still depends on transmission upgrades or new generation.

As grid constraints begin to slow the AI buildout, the most valuable mining assets may be those that allow developers to avoid asking for new power altogether.

Regulation News

• First Statewide Moratorium on New Hyperscale Data Centers Launched by Governor Kathy Hochul

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• Solo Bitaxe Miner Beats 18,000-Year Odds to Mine Full Bitcoin Block

• Meta Expands Louisiana AI Data Center to 5 GW in $50 Billion Buildout

• Nscale’s £2 Billion UK AI Data Center Reportedly Faces Grid Delay

• CleanSpark Signs $6.6B Data Center Lease, Puts Texas Portfolio Under Exclusivity

• Keel Advances 96 MW Quebec AI Data Center With Sherbrooke Approval

Corporate News

• Sphere 3D Adds Tennessee Lobbying, IR Firms to Advance AI Infrastructure Strategy

• BitFuFu Reports June 2026 Bitcoin Production and Hashrate Metrics

• Galaxy Adds Former Xerox CEO to Board as AI Data Center Push Expands

• IREN Appoints Former Nutanix Executive Eric Hammersley as Security Chief

• Soluna Hires Microsoft Data Center Executive Ryan Carver to Lead AI Buildout

Email us

Energy Investors Forum is a high-signal, curated conference convening leaders across energy, compute infrastructure, and capital to map the next decade of power and data center buildout.

Get your tickets today and use code MNRW30 for 30% off exclusively for Miner Weekly subscribers.

For a brief stretch this year, the market seemed willing to believe that every megawatt with a fence around it could become an AI factory.

Bitcoin miners no longer needed to talk only about hashprice, fleet efficiency or the next difficulty adjustment. They could talk about campuses, lease terms, hyperscalers, neoclouds, inference workloads and “critical IT load.” The same substations that once fed racks of ASICs were reintroduced to investors as scarce energy gateways into the artificial intelligence boom. In a power-constrained market, that story worked.

It worked so well that a new question is starting to matter: who got liquidity while the story was working?

That question is moving to the foreground as the TEM AI Infrastructure Growth Index, a basket tracking bitcoin miners, neoclouds, power suppliers and other companies tied to the physical build-out of AI infrastructure, has fallen 16% over the past month. The pullback does not erase the long-term argument for energy-backed compute. Nor does it suggest that recent insider sales or shareholder trims were improper. Many of the transactions were disclosed as prearranged trades under Rule 10b5-1 plans, which are designed to let insiders sell stock according to instructions set in advance.

But market optics change quickly. A planned sale during a rally can look routine. A planned sale followed by a sectorwide drawdown starts to look like a liquidity window.

The recent tape has given investors several examples to digest. Core Scientific’s legal chief sold shares as the company’s AI data center narrative helped lift the stock. Riot Platforms’ chief executive disclosed a prearranged sale after the miner’s stock rebounded. Tether trimmed Bitdeer exposure after buying during an earlier selloff and selling into a recovery. TeraWulf disclosed a new batch of share sales by its chief shortly before one of the most consequential AI lease announcements in the sector.

And at IREN, the controversy is less about insiders selling than about insiders being paid. The company’s board approved more than 18 million restricted stock units for its co-founder co-CEOs, adding a governance and dilution debate to a stock that had become one of the most visible winners of the miner-to-AI pivot.

Together, these episodes mark a shift in the AI infrastructure trade. Investors are no longer only asking which companies have power. They are asking who captures the economics, who absorbs the dilution, who keeps upside exposure and who monetized the rerating before the trade cooled.

TeraWulf Enters the Spotlight

TeraWulf offers the most vivid case study because the company remains one of the sector’s clearest AI-infrastructure rerating stories.

On June 29, Beowulf E&D Holdings, an entity managed by TeraWulf Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Paul Prager, disclosed a sale of 275,000 TeraWulf shares at a weighted average price of $26.596 per share, generating about $7.3 million in gross proceeds. The sale came one week before TeraWulf announced its 20-year AI infrastructure lease with Anthropic.

That June transaction was part of a broader run of disclosed sales by Prager and Beowulf E&D Holdings since late March. In total, Prager and the entity he manages sold about 1.59 million TeraWulf shares for roughly $32.7 million in gross proceeds, implying a weighted average sale price of about $20.55 per share.

Then on July 6, TeraWulf announced a 20-year lease with Anthropic at its Justified Data campus in Hawesville, Kentucky. The lease is expected to generate about $19 billion of contracted revenue over its initial term and support about 401 MW of critical IT load. TeraWulf also agreed to sell its 50.1% interest in the Abernathy joint venture to a Fluidstack-led investor group, monetizing an investment valued at about $450 million and giving the company capital to redeploy into wholly owned AI infrastructure projects.

That is the sort of transaction investors have been waiting for from power-rich miners: a long-term AI customer, a large contracted revenue figure and an argument that legacy mining infrastructure can be upgraded into a higher-multiple asset base.

It is also the kind of moment that makes insider liquidity worth watching.

Cipher, Riot and Core Scientific Show the Same Pattern

Cipher Digital adds the most recent example to the liquidity-window theme.

On July 8, Cipher CEO Tyler Page filed to sell 112,500 CIFR shares with a market value of about $2.38 million, implying an average price of $21.19. The sale was tied to a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan adopted on Dec. 19, 2025. Cipher previously disclosed that Page’s plan covered potential sales of up to 1.5 million shares through Dec. 24, 2026. The 112,500-share notice was 7.5% of the total 1.5 million-share ceiling under the plan.

Riot Platforms had its own version of the story. In May, CEO Jason Les sold 175,000 shares valued at about $4.2 million under a Rule 10b5-1 plan adopted in August 2025. On June 22, he sold another 250,000 shares with a market value of $7.03 million.

Core Scientific has been another focal point for the AI-mining crossover trade. The company emerged from bankruptcy in 2024 and has since repositioned itself around high-density colocation and AI infrastructure, while continuing to report a decline in self-mining revenue.

Core Scientific’s chief legal and administrative officer Todd DuChene filed on July 6 to sell 140,000 shares with a market value of $3.0 million. The planned sale followed 12 prior 10,000-share disposals since April 13, bringing disclosed sales under the plan to about 260,000 shares and $5.9 million in gross proceeds.

These are important caveats. Rule 10b5-1 refers to prearranged trading plans designed to separate insider transactions from later corporate developments, and sales by executives with large equity holdings can reflect diversification, taxes or personal liquidity rather than a negative view of the company. It is not a confession of bearishness. Executives with large stock-heavy compensation packages often sell even when they remain optimistic about a company.

But public markets do not only process legality. They process alignment. When executives sell after a stock has rerated on AI expectations, and the sector then pulls back, investors start asking whether the balance of risk and reward has shifted from insiders to the public float.

The liquidity-window theme is not limited to executives.

Tether’s recent Bitdeer transactions show how strategic holders also used the AI-mining rebound to reduce exposure. As TheEnergyMag reported, Tether trimmed its Bitdeer positions at an average price of around $20 in early June, after buying into Bitdeer for $8.85 apiece during a market selloff earlier this year. While Tether remained one of Bitdeer’s largest shareholders, the trade still fits the pattern: buy into weakness, trim into the AI rerating, and retain a large enough position to keep participating if the story continues.

IREN Adds the Governance Layer

IREN brings a different but related issue into focus.

The company has become one of the most closely watched AI infrastructure names after moving beyond bitcoin mining and pursuing large-scale AI cloud and data center opportunities. But its latest compensation disclosure triggered a backlash among some retail investors and market commentators.

On June 30, IREN’s board approved grants of 9,099,328 restricted stock units each to co-CEOs William Roberts and Daniel Roberts. The awards are subject to a combined six-year vesting and holding period. The company said neither co-CEO will receive another equity incentive grant until fiscal 2031, and that the awards were designed to retain and incentivize the executives through IREN’s next phase of growth.

That explanation did not quiet the debate. Critics focused on the size of the package, its dilution and the fact that the company is still in the middle of proving that its AI infrastructure strategy can generate durable returns. IREN shares fell sharply as governance concerns met a broader selloff in AI-related stocks.

The IREN episode is not an insider-sale story. It is arguably more important: a debate over how much of the AI infrastructure upside founders and executives should receive before the business model has fully matured.

This is where the AI infrastructure trade begins to resemble other capital-intensive booms. The first phase of the rally was about scarcity. The next phase is about governance, capital discipline and execution. In that phase, disclosed insider sales, strategic-holder trims and large founder equity grants become part of the same story. They tell investors where the private incentives sit inside a public-market boom.

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• TeraWulf Surges on $19 Billion Anthropic AI Lease, $450 Million Fluidstack JV Exit

• Bitzero Secures 33-Hectare Land Reservation in Finland for 60MW Data Center

• Galaxy Digital Completes Phase I of Helios Data Center, Delivers 133 MW to CoreWeave

• Bitdeer Breaks Ground on Nevada Factory Despite Bitcoin Hashprice Squeeze

• MARA Buys Texas Site for AI, Bitcoin Mining in Deal Worth Up to $600M

Corporate News

• Keel Hires Digital Realty Veteran Ganesh Aiyer to Drive AI Infrastructure Growth

• Nscale, Nordkraft Form Venture to Run Narvik AI Data Center

Financial News

• Crusoe Reportedly in Talks to Raise $3 Billion at About $30 Billion Valuation

• Core Scientific Legal Chief Sells $5.9 Million Amid AI Rally Boost

• Nscale Secures $900 Million Credit Line to Fund AI Data Center Expansion

• Cipher CEO Files to Sell $2.4M of Stock as AI Rally Triggers Trading Plan

Feature

• EIF Speaker Series: “Bitcoin Is Becoming Increasingly Boring” with Lisa Hough

• This $13 Billion Georgia Family Is Helping Electrify Data Centers - Forbes

Email us

EIF Dallas (July 23) is a high-signal, curated conference convening leaders across energy, compute infrastructure, and capital to map the next decade of power and data center buildout.

Get your tickets today and use code MNRW30 for 30% off exclusively for Miner Weekly subscribers. You can also explore sponsorship opportunities to elevate your brand and connect with leaders across energy, infrastructure, and capital.

Bitcoin miners have long defended their power use with a simple argument: mining may be energy-intensive, but it is unusually interruptible.

A mining facility can curtail quickly when power prices spike or the grid is under stress. It can monetize surplus electricity when power is abundant, then shut down without disrupting households, factories or customer-facing software. That flexibility has become central to the industry’s pitch to utilities, regulators and investors, especially in markets such as Texas where demand response has become part of the mining business model.

But a new line of research raises a provocative question for the AI-infrastructure boom: what if GPU data centers can learn a version of the same trick?

A paper posted to arXiv in late June, titled “Power-Flexible AI Data Centers: A New Paradigm for Grid-Responsive Compute,” argues that AI data centers should not always be modeled as static, inflexible power loads. The authors describe a software architecture that combines grid signals, workload scheduling and power telemetry to reduce, defer or shift AI workloads in response to power-system conditions.

In a real-world deployment on a 130 kW GPU cluster, the paper says the system demonstrated rapid load reduction, sustained curtailment, carbon-aware operation and geographically distributed load shifting while preserving priority service levels.

The headline results were notable for the speed and range of the claimed response. The authors said the system reached 100% compliance across more than 200 National Grid power events in the UK test environment. In a simulated emergency dispatch modeled on a historical grid contingency, the cluster reduced power use by about 30% within 40 seconds. In another fast-response test, it cut load by 40% within roughly one minute. The paper also reported sustained curtailment of 10% to 40% for periods ranging from two to 10 hours, as well as a U.S. geo-shifting test in which 10% of live inference traffic was shifted from Oracle GPUs in Virginia to Illinois.

The paper is not yet peer reviewed. The arXiv version says it has been submitted to IEEE for possible publication, so its findings should be treated as early technical evidence rather than settled academic consensus. Still, the idea is not emerging in isolation. The June paper builds on a related Nature Energy article, “AI data centres as grid-interactive assets,” which reported a field demonstration of software-based demand response at an AI cluster in Phoenix, Arizona. A Nature Reviews Electrical Engineering summary of that work said the researchers showed that data centers can function as flexible, grid-aware loads by adjusting computing workloads in real time rather than relying on new hardware or on-site batteries.

The Phoenix trial is important because it moves the discussion beyond simulation.

According to the preprint version of the Nature Energy work, the test was conducted at an Oracle Phoenix Region Cloud data center on a 256-GPU cluster built with NVIDIA A100 Tensor Core GPUs. The system used Databricks MosaicML for workload orchestration, Weights & Biases for telemetry, and Amperon’s grid-demand forecasting tools. The project involved Emerald AI, NVIDIA, Salt River Project and the Electric Power Research Institute, and was conducted through EPRI’s DCFlex initiative.

The cluster ran representative AI workload mixes, including training, inference and fine-tuning jobs. The researchers classified jobs into flexibility tiers based on how much performance reduction users could tolerate: strict jobs with no performance reduction, and other tiers allowing average throughput reductions of up to 10%, 25% or 50% over a three- to six-hour period. That matters because the system did not simply shut everything off. It selectively slowed, paused or power-capped jobs depending on their tolerance for delay.

The reported result was a 25% reduction in cluster power usage for three hours during peak grid events while maintaining quality-of-service guarantees. The authors said the reduction was achieved without hardware retrofits or battery storage, using workload orchestration and GPU power-limiting techniques such as dynamic voltage and frequency scaling, combined with job pausing.

That does not mean an AI data center is suddenly as flexible as a bitcoin mine.

The Phoenix test involved a 256-GPU cluster, not a 100 MW or 1 GW AI campus. The later arXiv paper’s 130 kW deployment is also small relative to the scale now being discussed by hyperscalers, utilities and public miners. Scaling this approach from a cluster to an entire campus would require coordination across power delivery, cooling, networking, customer contracts and service-level agreements. It would also depend heavily on workload mix.

The researchers acknowledge that limitation. Not all AI workloads are temporally flexible. Batch training, fine-tuning and some inference jobs may be slowed or paused. But strict “Flex 0” jobs — such as real-time inference, streaming and model serving — were not modified in the Phoenix demonstration. Future flexibility may require geographic load shifting, where workloads move between regions to avoid grid stress without creating unacceptable latency or performance penalties.

Even with those caveats, the research cuts into one of bitcoin mining’s most important narratives.

For years, miners have argued that they are uniquely useful to power grids because they can behave less like a conventional industrial load and more like a controllable energy buyer.

AI data centers are more complicated. They are built around expensive GPUs, customer commitments, uptime expectations and high utilization targets. Operators do not want billions of dollars of accelerators sitting idle. But the research suggests the choice may not be binary. An AI facility may not need to run flat out or shut off entirely. It may be able to preserve high-priority workloads while throttling lower-priority jobs, delaying flexible training runs, power-capping GPUs or shifting traffic to another region.

That is the miner-relevant point. Yet there are still reasons for skepticism.

The research has commercial backers like Emerald AI, NVIDIA, Oracle and power-sector partners, with a clear interest in showing that AI infrastructure can be made more grid-friendly. The evidence remains early, and the field tests are far smaller than the campuses now being planned. Utilities will also need market rules, telemetry standards and compensation structures before AI data centers can become meaningful demand-response resources. Customer willingness is another open question: not every AI user will accept slower jobs in exchange for lower power costs or faster interconnection.

But the debate is worth watching.

Bitcoin miners helped popularize the idea that digital infrastructure could act as flexible load. Now AI data centers are beginning to move into that same communication, policy, and engineering conversation.

If the research scales, mining’s grid edge may not disappear, but it may become less unique. The flexibility pitch is no longer just a bitcoin mining story. It is becoming an AI-infrastructure story too.

Regulation News

• DOE Lets PJM Tap AI Data Center Backup Power During Heat Wave

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• Bitdeer Signs Conditional Lease for Norway AI Data Center Site

• Blockfusion Touts Up to $5.4B From AI Lease as SPAC Deal Advances

• Cargo thieves have set their sights on data center supplies

• Bloom, Brookfield Expand AI Power Financing Partnership to $25 Billion

Corporate News

• IREN, Keel Join Russell Indexes as AI Infrastructure Stocks Draw Broader Attention

• Ionic Digital Raises $400M Ahead of Nasdaq Listing as AI Revenue Overtakes Bitcoin Mining

• Sphere 3D Seeks DarkHorse Rebrand as It Pivots Toward AI Infrastructure

• IREN Adds Oracle, Google Veterans to AI Cloud Leadership Team

Financial News

• Applied Digital Expands Credit Facility to $430M as AI Data Center Buildout Continues

• American Bitcoin Sets Reverse Stock Split as Sub-$1 Nasdaq Risk Builds

Email us

EIF Dallas (July 23) is a high-signal, curated conference convening leaders across energy, compute infrastructure, and capital to map the next decade of power and data center buildout.

Get your tickets today and use code MNRW30 for 30% off exclusively for Miner Weekly subscribers. You can also explore sponsorship opportunities to elevate your brand and connect with leaders across energy, infrastructure, and capital.

There are moments in proof-of-work mining when the market briefly reminds everyone that electricity is not tied to a single digital asset, or even a business model.

The same megawatt can secure bitcoin, mine Zcash, chase Kaspa rewards or support an AI/HPC workload. Which one makes the most sense increasingly depends less on ideology than on a moving set of prices: token values, network difficulty, machine efficiency, hosting rates and power costs.

For the past year, public-market investors have largely rewarded the AI side of that equation. Bitcoin miners with large power portfolios have been repriced on the idea that their sites may be more valuable as data center infrastructure than as pure mining operations.

But Zcash’s rally, after years on the sidelines, has complicated that narrative.

The price appreciation of ZEC since late last year, followed by renewed hashrate momentum on the network, has made Equihash mining economics suddenly relevant again. In some cases, the revenue per unit of power now compares favorably not only with other proof-of-work assets, but also with estimated HPC colocation economics.

That backdrop helps explain why Fortitude Mining’s plan to go public is arriving at an interesting time.

Fortitude, a Zcash-focused digital asset mining platform under Digital Curreny Group, announced this week that it plans to list on Nasdaq through an all-stock merger with HeartSciences. The proposed company would operate under the Fortitude brand and is expected to trade under the ticker TUDE, subject to Nasdaq approval.

The transaction is still light on detailed financial disclosure. But Fortitude has released enough operating data to make the broader point clear: this is not just another crypto miner trying to attach itself to the AI trade. It is a test of whether public investors still have an appetite for a crypto-native compute business when the economics of a non-bitcoin proof-of-work network suddenly improve.

A Revenue-per-Megawatt Lens

TheEnergyMag’s latest analysis compares revenue across several proof-of-work mining rigs and a conservative estimated HPC colocation benchmark on a common basis: dollars per megawatt-hour.

The result is a useful snapshot of the compute market’s current hierarchy.

On the high end, a Zcash-focused Z15 Pro generates an estimated $373 per MWh, far above the $223 per MWh conservative estimate for HPC colocation. A next-generation bitcoin miner, the S23 Pro, comes in at about $133 per MWh, while the S21 Pro produces roughly $84 per MWh. By comparison, the DG1+ and Kaspa-focused KS5 and KS3 models generate about $65, $48 and $19 per MWh, respectively, under the assumptions used in the analysis.

That spread matters because it cuts through the usual framing of bitcoin mining versus AI infrastructure. The more precise comparison is not crypto versus AI. It is compute revenue versus power cost, with different machines and workloads competing for the same scarce input: electricity.

Over the past year, the dominant market narrative has been that bitcoin miners should redirect power toward AI and high-performance computing whenever possible. That logic is easy to understand. AI demand has created a scarcity premium for energized land, grid interconnection rights and large-scale power capacity.

But the revenue comparison shows the decision is not always straightforward.

HPC contracts may offer longer duration, lower volatility and stronger visibility than mining, provided that the business development and execution process is done well. That makes them attractive from a financing perspective, especially for public companies trying to reduce dependence on daily crypto-market swings.

Mining, however, retains optionality. When a proof-of-work asset rallies substantially faster than its network difficulty adjusts, mining revenue can temporarily exceed what infrastructure owners might earn from contracted HPC hosting.

Zcash is currently an example of that dynamic. Zcash has historically occupied a smaller niche than bitcoin, with less liquidity, fewer institutional narratives and a narrower base of industrial-scale miners. But the recent ZEC price rally has changed the revenue math for Equihash ASICs.

That does not mean Zcash mining is more valuable than HPC infrastructure on a risk-adjusted basis. Just search Zcash’s price crash and fast rebound earlier this month. Nonetheless, it perfectly shows that crypto-native compute can still produce bursts of exceptional returns, particularly in smaller networks where price and hashrate can move out of sync.

That creates both opportunity and risk for companies like Fortitude. A Zcash-focused platform may enjoy stronger near-term mining economics when ZEC outperforms, but it is also more exposed to the market volatility and the speed at which network difficulty can adjust and erode those gains.

Fortitude’s Timing

Fortitude’s public-market plan lands directly into that debate.

The company has not yet released detailed financials, leaving investors without a full view of its revenue, cost structure, power contracts or margins. But the operating metrics it has disclosed suggest it is not a small exploratory Zcash operation.

Fortitude said it began mining ZEC, the native token of the Zcash network, in 2019 and has since scaled production to an annualized run rate of 157,000 ZEC. Based on ZEC’s current price of about $400, that production rate implies a static annualized revenue of about $62 million.

Either way, the disclosed production rate gives Fortitude a meaningful operating base in a network that remains far smaller than bitcoin but has recently become more economically attractive for specialized miners. The timing is important: ZEC’s price appreciation has improved mining revenue for Equihash ASICs, while rising hashrate suggests more machines are being pointed at the network to capture those returns.

That dynamic gives Fortitude a more differentiated story than public bitcoin miners that are increasingly trying to convince investors their megawatts can be repurposed for AI. Fortitude is entering the market as a crypto-native infrastructure company with direct exposure to Zcash economics.

That identity may help it stand out, but it also narrows the questions investors will ask. Without detailed financials, the key issues will be how much of Fortitude’s revenue depends on current ZEC prices, how quickly network difficulty is rising, what its power costs look like, and whether its fleet can remain competitive as more Equihash capacity comes online.

In that sense, Fortitude’s planned listing could become a useful public-market test case for non-bitcoin proof-of-work exposure. If Zcash economics remain strong, the company may find investor appetite for a miner tied to a differentiated asset. If margins normalize quickly, the listing may instead reinforce how difficult it is for crypto-native miners to turn cyclical revenue spikes into durable infrastructure value.

Regulation News

• US to Fast-Track AI Data Centers as Power Bottleneck Becomes National Priority

• Texas Regulators Approve ERCOT Batch Process for AI Data Center Power Requests

• Thailand seeks to arrest fugitive Chinese businessman over illegal crypto mining

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• Microsoft to Build 2GW AI Data Center Campus in West Texas With Onsite Gas Power

• Constellation, Walmart Sign Nuclear Power Deal for Illinois Supply Chain Expansion

• Bitzero Adds Finland Land Reservation to Nordic AI Data Center Pipeline

• Galaxy Digital Advances $400 Million AI Data Center Plan in McGregor, Texas

• Sphere 3D Signs 30 MW Bitcoin Co-Mining Deal With Bitdeer

Corporate News

• Hut 8 Investors Reach $2.35 Million Settlement Over US Bitcoin Merger Claims

• Riot CEO Sells Another $7M as Bitcoin Miner Briefly Tops $30 on AI Rally

• DOE Announces $17.5 Billion Loan Commitment to Revive American Nuclear Supply Chain

• CoreWeave Expands Swedish Presence with Conapto Data Center Deal

• Bitcoin Miners Move to Defend Exchange Listings as Sub-$1 Shares Persist

Financial News

• DCG’s Fortitude Mining to Go Public Through HeartSciences Merger

• Cerebras Systems Reports Q1 2026 Revenue of $193.4 Million

• HIVE Lines Up Swedish AI Lease as It Seeks $100 Million Note Offering

Feature

• EIF Speaker Series: ‘AI’s Real Buildout Has Barely Begun’ with NG Zhang

• EIF Speaker Series: ‘Inference Could Shift the AI Compute Mix’ with Paul Golding

Email us

EIF Dallas (July 23) is a high-signal, curated conference convening leaders across energy, compute infrastructure, and capital to map the next decade of power and data center buildout.

Get your tickets today and use code MNRW30 for 30% off exclusively for Miner Weekly subscribers. You can also explore sponsorship opportunities to elevate your brand and connect with leaders across energy, infrastructure, and capital.

Bitcoin’s latest difficulty adjustment was a reminder that the network still runs on a simple rule: when mining economics weaken enough, hashrate leaves.

On June 14, Bitcoin’s mining difficulty fell by 10.09% to 124.93 trillion, one of the largest downward adjustments in the network’s history by percentage terms. The drop followed a two-week period of slower block production, signaling that a meaningful amount of computing power had come offline.

But the scale matters as much as the percentage. Bitcoin’s hashrate had been hovering near the 1 ZH/s mark before the decline. At that level, a 10% drawdown implies roughly 100 EH/s of computing power was taken offline during a single difficulty epoch. For context, Bitcoin’s entire network hashrate was only around 200 EH/s four years ago. What disappeared over the past two weeks was roughly half of the total computing power securing the network at that time.

Several factors likely contributed. Bitcoin’s early-June price decline pushed hashprice back toward levels that leave less-efficient fleets near breakeven. Texas miners entered ERCOT’s 4CP summer season, when curtailing during a few peak-demand intervals can materially reduce annual transmission charges.

And across North America, another structural force is becoming harder to ignore: some of the largest public miners are no longer trying to maximize bitcoin hashrate at all costs. They are trying to decide how much of their power should still be used for bitcoin mining.

That distinction matters. If miners are merely unplugging older ASICs because hashprice is weak, the machines can come back when economics improve. But if a site is being retrofitted for high-performance computing, reserved for an AI tenant or financed as a future data center campus, that power may not return to Bitcoin mining in the next bull market.

The latest difficulty drop is therefore more than a network statistic. It is part of a broader reallocation now underway in the mining sector. Bitcoin miners are losing hashrate in one part of the market while gaining a new valuation framework in another.

The Funding Gap Behind the Repricing

This is where the latest difficulty drop connects with the equity market.

The market has already started to value certain public miners less as pure bitcoin producers and more as owners of scarce power infrastructure. That shift — from hashrate to megawatts — is familiar by now. The larger question is no longer whether miners control assets that AI developers want. Many of them do.

The harder question is who can afford to turn those assets into AI data centers.

That is the reality check behind VanEck’s latest framework for valuing bitcoin miners as AI infrastructure. The report argues that miners pursuing AI/HPC opportunities should be evaluated around energized power, execution risk and tenant quality. It also estimates that miners pursuing the transition face a roughly $50 billion near-term funding gap.

The number captures the central tension of the trade. Public miners have been rewarded for owning scarce power at a time when AI developers are desperate for it. But AI data centers require far more capital than bitcoin mining sites. A bitcoin mine can run with relatively simple buildings, modular infrastructure and ASIC fleets that tolerate fast curtailment. AI and HPC facilities require higher standards for uptime, cooling, electrical redundancy, networking and customer support.

That means the next phase of the trade will likely be more selective. Investors are moving from rewarding AI optionality to underwriting AI execution.

A miner with a large undeveloped power portfolio may still have significant strategic value, but it needs capital, customers and time. A miner with a smaller but contracted and financed project may deserve a different multiple. The distinction is between AI option value and AI execution value — and the gap between the two may be where the next repricing happens.

Why the Index Matters

This is also the backdrop for TheEnergyMag’s AI Infrastructure Growth Index.

The index is being built around a market shift that is already visible but still difficult to isolate. Public bitcoin miners are no longer trading only as bitcoin beta. Some are becoming power-backed AI infrastructure bets. Others remain primarily mining companies with optionality. A few sit in between, with operating hashrate, large power portfolios, early AI contracts and unresolved funding needs.

The point of the index is not to treat every miner with an AI slide deck as an AI infrastructure company. It is to track the companies sitting at the fault line between bitcoin mining, power markets and AI compute demand.

That includes miners with energized sites and credible conversion paths, AI infrastructure platforms whose growth depends on power access, and developers assembling land, substations and interconnection rights ahead of future demand.

The index is less a claim that miners have already become AI companies than a way to monitor how much of the market is starting to value them that way.

The Hashrate Question

There is also a consequence for Bitcoin.

The network does not reward miners for holding future AI development rights. It only rewards active hashrate. If North America’s largest public miners increasingly allocate their best sites to AI or HPC, Bitcoin does not get credit for their power portfolios. It only gets the machines that remain online.

That does not mean the AI pivot caused the latest difficulty decline by itself. It did not. Weak hashprice, older machines, seasonal curtailment and power-market dynamics all played a role. But the AI pivot changes how the next hashrate recovery may unfold.

In previous cycles, weaker mining economics pushed inefficient machines offline. When conditions improved, operators could redeploy capital into new ASICs and bring hashrate back. This cycle is different because the alternative use case for power is more compelling.

AI tenants can support longer contracts and potentially more stable revenue than mining. For public miners under pressure to improve multiples and diversify revenue, the opportunity cost of dedicating power to bitcoin mining has gone up.

That raises a strategic question: if the most institutionally visible North American miners keep shifting toward AI infrastructure, who absorbs Bitcoin’s next wave of hashrate growth, if there’s going to be growth at all?

The answer may be private miners that face less pressure to chase AI narratives. It may be lower-cost international power markets. It may be sovereign-backed or stranded-energy projects. Or it may be hybrid operators that keep mining as a bridge load while waiting for AI development to catch up.

What is clear is that the public-miner cycle is changing. The sector is no longer moving only between bitcoin bull markets and mining-margin downturns. It is being pulled into the larger AI infrastructure cycle, where power access, capital formation and data center execution matter as much as ASIC efficiency.

The market has already started repricing bitcoin miners for the AI boom. The next phase will test whether that repricing is supported by funded projects, contracted tenants and delivered capacity — or whether some of it was simply a higher multiple placed on undeveloped power.

Bitcoin’s latest difficulty decline shows that hashrate remains the foundation of the mining business. But the equity market is increasingly looking beyond hashrate.

Regulation News

• North Tonawanda Extends Data Center Pause as AI Conversion Plan Faces Pushback

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• Bitcoin Mining Difficulty Set for Steep Drop as Hashrate Slides After Price Crash

• Avista Pauses Talks Over 500 MW Data Center Power Request After Community Pushback

• Sovright Launches Zcash Mining Pool Testnet With Shielded Payouts

• Bitdeer’s 750MW Ohio AI Data Center Plan Draws Local Scrutiny

• HIVE Wins Approval to Buy 32 MW Sweden Data Center as AI Push Expands

• HIVE Signs $220M AI Cloud Deal With Bell, Cohere for Canadian Sovereign Stack

Corporate News

• Hut 8 Names Former Merrill Lynch CEO Stan O’Neal as Board Chair

• IREN Completes Acquisition of Spanish AI Data Center Developer Nostrum

• Sangha Renewables Weighs M&A for Texas Bitcoin Mine as AI Demand Lifts Power Assets

• SWI Group Acquires $500 Million Stake in Genesis Digital Assets to Reposition Portfolio for AI

• Northern Data CEO to Step Down as AI Infrastructure Firm Advances Rumble Deal

• Cipher Names Former ERCOT Executive as Head of Grid Strategies

• Oman Launches National Bitcoin Mining Pool Omanhash

Financial News

• Dominion Energy Announces $1.5B Junior Subordinated Notes Offering

• OpenAI’s Spending Reportedly Hit $34 Billion in 2025 as AI Race Intensified

• Tether Trims Bitdeer Stake After AI Push Lifts Bitcoin Mining Stock

• NVIDIA Prices $25B Multi-Tranche Senior Notes Offering

Feature

• Two mayors, one $10 billion AI data center, and a growing divide in small-town Texas - Fortune

• EIF Speaker Series: “Bitcoin the Ultimate Flexible Consumer of Energy” with Sean McDonough

Email us

EIF (July 23, Dallas) is a high-signal, curated conference convening leaders across energy, compute infrastructure, and capital to map the next decade of power and data center buildout.

Get your tickets today and use code MNRW30 for 30% off exclusively for Miner Weekly subscribers. You can also explore sponsorship opportunities to elevate your brand and connect with leaders across energy, infrastructure, and capital.

ERCOT’s Four Coincident Peak (4CP) mechanism is not new. For years, large loads in Texas have been able to lower their transmission cost exposure by reducing demand during four 15-minute intervals: the highest systemwide demand interval in each summer month from June through September.

But the old rule is becoming newly important.

Texas is preparing for a much larger transmission buildout as the grid absorbs unprecedented load growth. As detailed in a previous issue, ERCOT witnessed an exponential volume of interconnection requests from large load customers, in particular, data centers. Meanwhile, according to TheEnergyMag, North American public bitcoin miners alone had more than 5.1 GW of operational power capacity in Texas as of Q1.

For these large-load customers, even a small change in transmission cost exposure can translate into a meaningful sector-wide operating cost swing. That is why operators with large but flexible loads are incentivized to navigate the 4CP intervals by curtailing their activities. But the influx of interconnection requests since 2025 has apparently prompted policymakers to review whether large flexible loads are avoiding too much of the cost by curtailing during a narrow set of summer peaks.

The debate also comes at a difficult point for bitcoin miners, the most natural flexible load operators. Bitcoin’s mining revenue remains compressed as the network difficulty remains high. In that environment, every component of the power stack matters: energy price, uptime, curtailment revenue, demand charges, ancillary-service pass-throughs, and transmission charges.

That is why the 2026 4CP season matters even before Texas finalizes any rule change. And if the state eventually moves from the current 4CP framework toward a 12CP design, the problem could become harder. Instead of defending four summer intervals, miners and other large load customers may have to manage coincident-peak exposure across all 12 months of the year.

What 4CP is

ERCOT’s 4CP mechanism allocates transmission costs to certain large consumers based on their demand during four specific systemwide peaks. The relevant moments are the single highest 15-minute demand intervals in June, July, August and September. A large load’s average demand across those intervals becomes the basis for its transmission cost allocation in the following year.

A facility can run profitably through most low-price hours, but if it is consuming power during the wrong 15-minute interval, that load can become embedded in its fixed-cost structure for the next 12 months. Conversely, if the site is curtailed during the coincident peak, it can sharply reduce that exposure.

That is why 4CP has become a summer ritual in ERCOT. Operators watch heat, system load, day-ahead and real-time demand signals, solar output, battery charging, DC tie flows and ERCOT forecasts. They do not know the official 4CP interval in real time. They only know it after the fact. So the decision is probabilistic: curtail early enough to be offline if the interval becomes the monthly peak, but not so often that the cure becomes more expensive than the disease.

LoD’s review of the 2025 season offers a useful illustration. All four coincident peaks last summer landed on weekdays in a narrow late-afternoon window: June 19 at 5:00 p.m., July 30 at 5:00 p.m., August 18 at 5:00 p.m. and September 4 at 5:30 p.m.

The timing looked predictable in hindsight. The difficulty is that each month contained multiple hot days and broad afternoon demand plateaus where several 15-minute intervals were close enough to plausibly become the peak. “Around 5 p.m.” is not precise enough when a quarter-hour interval can set a year of transmission costs.

The 2026 4CP watch has already started

Luxor said in a LinkedIn update that June’s early high-water mark had reached 81.3 GW on the first day of the season last week, prompting the first curtailment dispatch of 2026 for Luxor Energy members. The next day, ERCOT load peaked near 80.0 GW around 3 p.m. CT, close enough to the prior mark to trigger a second dispatch from Luxor’s 4CP engine.

The next test is coming soon. ERCOT’s public dashboard showed demand forecast at 80,343 MW around 6:00 p.m. CT on June 11.

None of those data points means that any specific interval will ultimately become June’s 4CP interval. The official coincident peak is only known after the fact. But the early-June data shows how quickly the monthly peak-defense problem can become active. Even before Texas reaches the hottest stretch of summer, ERCOT can produce demand levels high enough to force curtailment decisions.

For miners, the decision is not simply whether power prices are high enough to justify shutting down. LoD’s 2025 review showed that the largest demand moment of the year occurred around 84 GW while power at that moment settled near $25/MWh. Prices rose later in the evening. That means the 4CP interval can be one of the most financially important moments of the month even when real-time energy prices are not flashing red.

This is the central 4CP tension. Curtailing for 4CP is not about dodging expensive power. It is about giving up potentially profitable runtime to avoid a transmission charge that may not be confirmed until after the season ends.

Why the rule is under pressure

4CP was designed to give large loads an incentive to reduce demand during the system’s summer peaks. In theory, that reduces the need to build transmission infrastructure that only serves a few extreme demand intervals.

But the Texas grid has changed.

Solar generation has shifted parts of ERCOT’s daily risk profile. The system’s highest demand can occur while solar is still contributing enough generation to keep real-time prices relatively low. The more stressful price intervals can arrive later, as solar output fades and evening demand remains elevated.

At the same time, large flexible loads have become better at predicting and avoiding 4CP intervals. That has raised a policy question: if data centers, bitcoin mines and other large loads are part of the reason Texas needs new transmission investment, should they be able to avoid a large share of transmission charges by curtailing during four 15-minute summer intervals?

That is the backdrop for the 4CP-to-12CP discussion. A 12CP design would generally spread the cost-allocation signal across the highest-demand interval in each month of the year, rather than only the four summer months. Depending on the final design, the proposal could also involve a longer measurement interval.

The policy goal would be to make cost allocation broader and harder to avoid, while preserving some incentive for large loads to reduce demand when the grid is strained.

Why transmission cost matters now

Transmission cost is not the same thing as wholesale energy price. Operators can buy power at attractive headline prices and still carry a meaningful all-in power cost once transmission, congestion, retail adders, ancillary services, demand charges and other pass-through items are included.

LoD estimated full 4CP exposure at roughly $50,000 per MW per year, or about $1.25 million annually for a 25 MW site. For a continuously running load, that converts to roughly $5.70/MWh before considering site-specific tariffs, retail structures, hedges, behind-the-meter arrangements, or curtailment behavior.

That may not sound large in isolation. But it becomes meaningful when scaled across a fleet and when margins are thin, especially for bitcoin miners today.

In a high-hash-price market, operators can tolerate more inefficiency. A miner may still care about 4CP, but a few extra dollars per MWh or some unnecessary curtailment can be absorbed by strong mining revenue.

That cushion is much thinner today with Bitcoin’s mining revenue per unit of compute staying near all-time lows.

The 4CP decision also interacts with hashprice in a direct way. Curtailment is not free. Every hour offline means forgone bitcoin production. When hashprice is high, the opportunity cost of curtailment is high. When hashprice is low, the relative value of avoiding a fixed transmission charge rises.

That creates a narrow optimization problem. Large mining sites are flexible loads, but flexibility only has value if it can be controlled precisely. Shutting down too late misses the transmission benefit. Shutting down too early or too often sacrifices uptime. Repeated stop-start cycles also introduce operational complexity, thermal cycling and potential wear.

In a 12CP world, that only gets more complicated.

For Texas miners, 4CP has always been a hidden margin lever. In 2026, it is becoming something larger: a test of whether operators can monetize load flexibility without sacrificing too much uptime, and whether the Texas market will continue to reward that flexibility under the same rule structure.

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• Nebius to Invest £1.7 Billion in UK AI Compute Expansion

• Applied Digital Signs $5.2 Billion AI Data Center Lease for New Southern Campus

• Soluna Formalizes Metrobloks JV for 350 MW Texas AI Data Center Campus

• Crusoe Touts Contracted AI Infrastructure Capacity Nears 5 GW

• OpenAI Weighs 10-Gigawatt Ohio Data Center Lease in Potential Nvidia-Backed Deal

• Texas Adds 456 MW of Gas-Fired Power in Houston as ERCOT Braces for Summer Demand

Corporate News

• Keel Infrastructure to raise $350 million through convertible debt offering

• Dominion Energy Agrees to $825 Million Senior Notes Issuance

• CoreWeave Files Automatic Shelf Registration for Multi-Security Offerings

• Bitzero Wins Nasdaq Listing Approval as AI Infrastructure Push Expands

• Bitdeer Discloses Leadership Shake-Up Amid Deeper Push Into AI Infrastructure

• OpenAI Files Confidentially for IPO, Following Anthropic’s Move Toward Public Markets

• Sphere 3D Taps EA Advisors as Post-Merger AI Push Takes Shape

• KKR, Nvidia and Vistra Launch $10 Billion AI Infrastructure Platform Helix

Financial News

• Hut 8 Plans $4.25B Debt Raise for Texas AI Data Center

• TransAlta Prices C$350 Million Equity Offering for Colorado Gas Asset Acquisition

• Cipher Digital Seeks $810M Debt Raise to Fund Stingray Data Center

• Applied Digital Secures $350M Revolver as CoreWeave Lease Move Takes Shape

• Applied Digital Seeks $1.59 Billion Debt Raise for Fourth Ellendale AI Data Center

• CoreWeave Eyes $3.5B Debt Raise as AI Buildout Stretches Balance Sheet

Email us

Energy Investors Forum (July 23, Dallas) is a high-signal, curated conference convening leaders across energy, compute infrastructure, and capital to map the next decade of power and data center buildout.

Get your tickets today and use code MNRW30 for 30% off exclusively for Miner Weekly subscribers. You can also explore sponsorship opportunities to elevate your brand and connect with leaders across energy, infrastructure, and capital.

Bitcoin has slumped over the past several days, extending its decline this year. But many of the largest public bitcoin mining stocks have moved in the opposite direction, underscoring a growing split between bitcoin and the companies that were once viewed as one of the most leveraged ways to trade it.

The divergence marks a notable change from the 2021 cycle, when listed miners were largely treated as high-beta proxies for bitcoin. This time, the market is increasingly rewarding miners with credible AI data-center strategies, large power portfolios or sites that can be converted from bitcoin mining to high-density computing.

The irony is hard to miss: bitcoin mining stocks are rallying because investors are starting to care less about bitcoin mining.

A basket of major public miners tracked by TheEnergyMag has broadly outperformed bitcoin since January, with the most notable divergence beginning to emerge in early May. Bitcoin is down about 28% year-to-date, while several mining and mining-adjacent equities are up sharply. Hut 8, Keel, TeraWulf, Riot Platforms, Core Scientific, Applied Digital, HIVE, Bitdeer, Cipher Mining, IREN, CleanSpark and MARA are all trading higher. Hut 8 and Keel have more than doubled.

But the rally is not uniform across the bitcoin mining complex. The market has not stopped treating all bitcoin miners as bitcoin proxies. It has stopped treating some of them that way.

American Bitcoin, Cango and Canaan are all down over the same period, even as many larger mining peers have rallied. These names are still trading more like bitcoin-mining stocks in the old 2021 sense: levered bets on bitcoin and mining economics. When bitcoin falls, their shares fall harder. When hashprice weakens, they have fewer alternative narratives to absorb the pressure. Plus, they have significantly smaller market capitalization, which makes them more vulnerable to bitcoin’s price swings.

The result is a two-speed market. One group is still being valued as bitcoin beta. The other is being recast as a backdoor way to own AI’s physical infrastructure buildout.

The broader equity market backdrop is reinforcing that shift. AI-themed stocks far beyond the mining sector have also surged. Micron, Nebius, CoreWeave and Coherent have all been swept into the same AI-infrastructure rally, reflecting investor demand for exposure to memory, cloud capacity, optical components, data centers and compute supply chains. In that context, the strongest mining stocks are not rallying in isolation. They are being pulled into a much larger trade around the physical bottlenecks of artificial intelligence.

That trade is built on a simple premise: AI needs power, space, fiber, cooling and time-to-market. Bitcoin miners happen to own some of those ingredients.

The result is a strange inversion. Bitcoin miners used to be valued for their ability to turn electricity into bitcoin. Now, some are being valued for their ability to stop doing that.

This does not mean the whole sector has successfully crossed over into AI. The actual conversion from bitcoin mining to high-performance computing remains difficult, expensive and uneven. Some miners may lack the locations, fiber access or reliability profile needed to attract AI tenants. Others may have the power but not the capital required for data-center upgrades. Some may use AI language more aggressively than their actual project pipeline justifies.

That makes the current rally both rational and speculative, and shows why the old sector labels are becoming less useful. Traditional AI indexes tend to be dominated by the largest chipmakers, cloud platforms and established technology names. But the AI buildout is also creating a more specialized group of infrastructure-exposed growth companies: power-rich bitcoin miners, data-center developers, compute providers and other listed names tied to the physical constraints of AI.

The question is not just which companies sell chips or train models. It is which companies control the bottlenecks — power, land, interconnection, cooling and time-to-market — that determine how quickly AI capacity can actually be built.

For now, capital appears to be rotating toward that bottleneck and away from bitcoin itself. That does not mean bitcoin is irrelevant. But in public equities, the center of gravity has shifted. Bitcoin is no longer the only source of excitement, and in recent weeks, it has not been the main one.

The phrase “bitcoin mining stock” may now describe a company’s history better than its valuation.

The final test may come from outside the mining sector altogether. Anthropic said this week it confidentially submitted a draft registration statement for a U.S. IPO, setting up what could become one of the most important public-market tests of the AI boom. The company’s latest funding round valued it at $965 billion, putting it within reach of becoming one of the most highly valued companies ever to enter public markets.

That raises the question hanging over miners, AI infrastructure stocks and the wider equity rally: if a near-trillion-dollar AI IPO finally reaches public markets, will it validate the boom by giving investors the pure exposure they have been chasing — or will it mark the moment when the market has to decide how much of the AI future has already been priced in?

Regulation News

• North Dakota officials say data center concerns fueled by misinformation

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• Core Scientific CEO: AI Data Center Build Costs Climb Toward $12M Per MW

• SoftBank Commits Up to €75 Billion for 5 GW AI Data Center Buildout in France

• DMG Plans 50 MW Bitcoin-to-AI Conversion at Christina Lake Site

• Cango’s Bitcoin Mining Pullback Drove 30% Drop in Realized Hashrate

• Bitdeer Breaks Ground on 100 MW Alberta Site With On-Site Gas Power

• HIVE’s Bitcoin-Backed Bitmain Deal Fueled 18 EH/s Growth Spurt

• IREN Secures Connection for 800MW AI Data Center in South Australia

Corporate News

• NVIDIA Launches DSX Platform to Standardize AI Factory Infrastructure and Grid Interaction

• NVIDIA and Microsoft Launch RTX Spark Superchip for Local AI Agent Integration

• NVIDIA and TSMC Integrate AI and Accelerated Computing into Semiconductor Fabs

• Sphere 3D, Cathedra Complete Merger to Build 53 MW Bitcoin Mining Platform

• Google and Voltus Partner on 100 MW Virtual Power Plant to Support Data Center Growth

• Hut 8 Hires Former NextEra IR Chief as It Pursues Investment-Grade Rating

Financial News

• IREN Secures $3.6B Financing for Microsoft GPU AI Buildout at ~5.9% Cost

• Anthropic Files Confidentially for U.S. IPO Amid Race for Public Market Capital

• TransAlta to Acquire Colorado Natural Gas Assets for US$1 Billion

Email us

EIF Dallas (July 23, 2026) is a high-signal, curated conference convening leaders across energy, compute infrastructure, and capital to map the next decade of power and data center buildout.

Get your tickets today and use code MNRW30 for 30% off exclusively for Miner Weekly subscribers. You can also explore sponsorship opportunities to elevate your brand and connect with leaders across energy, infrastructure, and capital.

For years, the story of Bitcoin mining and power grids was relatively simple: miners wanted cheap electricity, grids wanted flexibility, and the debate centered on whether large compute loads helped or hurt the system.

The AI data center boom is making that conversation much more complicated.

A new first-quarter – and 937-page(!!) – report from Monitoring Analytics, the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) for PJM Interconnection, offers one of the clearest warnings yet about what happens when large compute loads arrive faster than the grid can add a reliable power supply.

PJM is the largest US grid operator, serving all or parts of 13 states and Washington, DC. Its territory includes Northern Virginia, the world’s densest data center market, as well as major demand centers across the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest.

In fact, this report reads like the sequel to PJM’s earlier rule-change proposal, as covered in a previous Miner Weekly issue in March, which detailed PJM’s move to overhaul how large electricity users connect to and pay for the grid. Now the market monitor is putting numbers behind the concern: data center load is not just testing interconnection rules, it is already reshaping capacity-market costs.

Miner Weekly

The Grid Is Drawing a Line: PJM Moves to Rein In the AI Power Boom

Read more

6 months ago · 11 likes · BlocksBridge Consulting

At a high level, the report’s message is blunt but nuanced: PJM’s energy market still worked competitively in the first three months of 2026, but its capacity market is under strain.

That distinction matters.

The energy market is where electricity is bought and sold for near-term use — essentially the day-to-day market for power. The capacity market is different. It pays for power plants and other resources to be available in the future, especially during peak demand or emergencies. In plain English: energy pays for the electricity used today; capacity pays for the insurance policy that enough electricity will be there tomorrow.

That insurance policy is getting much more expensive.

PJM’s total wholesale power cost rose 75.5% in the first quarter from a year earlier, from $77.78/MWh to $136.53/MWh. Wholesale power cost is the all-in market cost of serving electricity demand through PJM. It includes energy, capacity, transmission, ancillary services and administrative fees, but the first three categories dominate the total.

Energy is the cost of the electricity itself. Capacity is the cost of making sure enough power resources are available in the future. Transmission is the cost of moving electricity across the high-voltage grid. Together, those three categories made up 98.3% of PJM’s wholesale power cost in Q1.

Each contributed to the increase. Energy costs rose 78.5%, from $54.67/MWh to $97.56/MWh. Capacity costs jumped 398.1%, from $3.57/MWh to $17.78/MWh. Transmission costs rose 5.3%, from $17.86/MWh to $18.80/MWh. Energy drove the largest dollar increase, while capacity had by far the steepest percentage increase.

That does not mean households will see their electric bills rise by 75.5%. Retail power bills include many other items, including local distribution charges, state-regulated utility costs, taxes, riders and long-term power contracts. Wholesale costs also flow through at different speeds depending on the state, the utility and the type of customer.

But the direction seems clear – at least according to PJM’s IMM – that the cost stack pressure behind customer bills is getting heavier.

Not just “supply and demand”

The most interesting part of the report is not simply that power costs are rising. It is how the Market Monitor explains why.

The report pushes back on two easy explanations at once.

The first is the argument that high capacity prices are just supply and demand: demand is rising, supply is tight, so prices should go up. The second is the opposite argument: that high prices prove PJM’s capacity market is broken.

The Market Monitor’s view is more specific. PJM’s capacity market was designed to handle normal load growth — the gradual increase in electricity demand from homes, businesses, factories, weather and broader economic activity. What it is facing now is different: large data center loads arriving in concentrated blocks, backed by customers with deep pockets and urgent timelines.

In that context, “supply and demand” is true but incomplete. The demand is real, but it is not organic. It is being driven by a new class of power buyer whose need for electricity may look almost unlimited compared with the grid’s ability to add dependable capacity.

The report says current capacity-market conditions are “almost entirely” the result of large data center load additions, both actual and forecast. It also says data center load growth is “unique and unprecedented and uncertain,” requiring a different approach than simply treating the results as ordinary supply and demand.

That is the nuance: the Market Monitor is not saying competitive markets should be abandoned. It is saying the market is being asked to absorb a kind of demand it was not designed for.

The report even argues that, without the “paradigm shift” represented by what it calls the almost inexhaustible demand for power from data centers, PJM’s capacity market would have produced reliability at prices more consistent with normal load growth and the cost of new capacity.

In other words, the issue is not whether data centers should get power. The issue is how they should get power — and who should pay for the reliability cushion needed to serve them.

The $23 billion question

The scale of that cost shift appears to be no longer theoretical.

The Market Monitor estimated that existing and forecast data center load increased capacity-market revenues by a combined $23.1 billion across the 2025/2026, 2026/2027 and 2027/2028 capacity auctions. It also said the inclusion of data center load in the last two auctions increased customer bills by $13.8 billion, even after a price cap under the Pennsylvania-PJM agreement limited the impact.

A capacity auction is the process PJM uses to make sure enough power resources will be available years ahead. Utilities and power suppliers buy capacity obligations, and generators get paid for being available. When large new loads are added to the forecast, PJM needs more capacity to serve them. If supply is tight, prices rise.

It’s important to note that the $13.8 billion figure is not charged to every household as a simple flat fee. Capacity costs flow through utilities and load-serving entities, and the actual impact varies by state, utility, customer class and capacity zone. But as a rough systemwide equivalent, spreading $13.8 billion across about two years of PJM electricity demand works out to roughly 0.85 cents per kWh.

The Market Monitor’s concern is that forecast data center demand is being included in the regular auction before enough new generation exists to serve it. In that setup, other customers can end up paying higher capacity costs created by the arrival of large data centers.

This does not mean data centers are the only reason power costs rose in the first quarter. The report also points to higher fuel costs, transmission constraints and winter weather. PJM’s real-time electricity price, known as LMP, rose 67.8% from a year earlier. LMP stands for locational marginal price. In plain English, it is the wholesale price of electricity at a specific place and time. It reflects the cost of generating power, congestion on the grid, and losses from moving electricity.

Natural gas remained the biggest driver of real-time prices. Gas costs accounted for 47.0% of PJM’s real-time load-weighted LMP in the first quarter, and gas plants were the marginal resource in most real-time intervals. A marginal resource is the last and often most expensive power plant needed to meet demand. That plant often sets the market price.

So the cleaner read is this: AI data centers did not single-handedly cause PJM power costs to rise. But they are becoming one of the biggest reasons the region’s future reliability looks more expensive and politically difficult.

PJM wants data centers to bring their own power

The report’s proposed answer is direct: large new data centers should bring their own new generation or be fully curtailable.

Curtailable means the customer can be required to reduce or shut off load when the grid is under stress. “Bring your own new generation” means a data center would need to contract for new power supply that matches its demand, instead of relying on the existing grid and pushing the cost of new capacity onto everyone else.

The Market Monitor recommends that PJM establish a load queue for large new data centers so they are not added until there is adequate generation capacity to serve them. It also recommends an expedited queue option for data centers that bring their own new generation with location and timing characteristics reasonably matched to their load profile.

That recommendation has obvious implications for the computing industry.

For years, Bitcoin miners have had to think like power developers. They searched for cheap or stranded power, built near substations, negotiated curtailment, managed price volatility and learned that energization matters more than equipment announcements.

AI data centers are now running into a similar reality, but at a much larger scale and with less tolerance for interruption.

The lesson from PJM is not that data centers are bad for the grid. It is that large new loads cannot be treated as ordinary demand growth when they arrive in gigawatt-scale clusters and expect firm service. Someone has to pay for the generation, transmission and reliability cushion needed to serve them.

The fight is over who that someone should be.

Why this matters beyond PJM

PJM is not the only grid facing this issue. Across the US, utilities and grid operators are trying to reconcile three forces that do not move at the same speed.

• AI data center demand is moving fast.

• Generation and transmission development move slowly.

• Customer affordability is becoming politically sensitive.

That mismatch is why the PJM report matters beyond its own footprint. It gives a data-rich version of the same question now emerging in other power markets: when a hyperscale data center wants to connect quickly, should the broader customer base help pay for the system upgrades and capacity needed to serve it?

The Market Monitor’s answer is no — or at least, not without clearer rules. Its view is that data centers should bear their own costs and risks, rather than shifting them to households, small businesses and other industrial customers.

That framing is likely to spread.

For Bitcoin miners, the report is both a warning and an opportunity.

The warning is that large-load scrutiny is intensifying. Mining, AI, cloud and high-performance computing will all face more questions about whether they are adding costs to the grid or bringing real flexibility and power supply.

The opportunity is that miners already understand the power-first playbook. As more mining companies pivot toward AI and HPC, their experience with power procurement, curtailment and interconnection could become a competitive advantage.

The AI boom may have started as a race for GPUs. PJM’s report suggests the next phase will be a race for credible power.

And in that race, the most important question may not be who can build the biggest data center. It may be who can prove they are not leaving everyone else with the bill.

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• New West Data Eyes Alberta Oil Deal to Power AI and Bitcoin Mining Expansion

• Texas Towns Pray To Jesus That Land Will Not Become AI Data Centers

• IREN Signs $1.6 Billion Agreement with Dell for Blackwell AI Infrastructure

• Enlight Secures 200 MW Solar PPA with Google for Oklahoma Data Center Operations

Corporate News

• Bitdeer Brings In Ex-Corsair CFO as Bitcoin Miner Pushes Further Into AI

• TeraWulf Stock Rises After 1 GW Kentucky AI Campus Acquisition

• Core Scientific Adds Former Equinix CEO to Board as AI Buildout Scales

Financial News

• Satoshi-era bitcoin whale moves over $200 million in BTC to FalconX, Cumberland: Onchain Lens

• Nebius Jumps as AI Hedge Fund Situational Awareness Reveals 5.6% Stake

• WhiteFiber Secures $100 Million Credit Facility for Data Center Expansion

Feature

• The Future of Bitcoin Mining Is Bigger Than Bitcoin

Email us

EIF Dallas (July 23-24) is a high-signal, curated conference convening leaders across energy, compute infrastructure, and capital to map the next decade of power and data center buildout.

Apply to speak or explore sponsorships for private meeting rooms, branding & more.

Situational Awareness LP has quickly become one of the more closely watched names in the AI investment world.

Founded by former OpenAI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, the Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)-focused investment firm has drawn attention for both its explosive growth and the controversy surrounding its founder’s dramatic firing from OpenAI and his subsequent polarizing manifesto about the future of AI.

Its latest SEC filing this week only adds to the intrigue.

The fund’s reported 13F portfolio more than doubled in the first quarter, rising to about $13.68 billion from about $5.52 billion at the end of 2025. Much of that increase came from a larger options book tied to semiconductors and AI infrastructure.

But buried inside the direct equity portfolio was another notable trend: Situational Awareness has been loading up on Bitcoin miners – and former miners. Not just any miners, either.

Across the past few quarters, the fund has built or expanded positions in companies that sit near the center of the Bitcoin-to-AI infrastructure trade: Applied Digital, Bitdeer, Keel (formerly Bitfarms), CleanSpark, Core Scientific, HIVE Digital, IREN, and Riot Platforms. Many of these companies are either actively expanding into AI and high-performance computing or are trying to reposition their power and data center footprints for that market.

At the same time, Situational Awareness has not treated the sector as a single basket. In Q1, it exited Cipher Digital and Hut 8 and trimmed Core Scientific. That makes the filing more interesting than a simple “AI fund buys miners” story.

It suggests the fund may be sorting the sector by a sharper question: which companies offer the most attractive exposure to monetized power infrastructure?

The Miners Situational Awareness Bought and Exited

The biggest increases in Q1 came from names that still have large Bitcoin mining footprints but also meaningful AI or HPC optionality.

Situational Awareness increased its Keel position to 19.88 million shares from 6.90 million at the end of 2025. It boosted CleanSpark to 12.28 million shares from 1.64 million, Riot to 11.50 million from 6.17 million, IREN to 11.70 million from 8.70 million and Bitdeer to 3.44 million from 1.79 million. It also opened a new 3.39 million-share position in HIVE Digital.

The fund also added to Applied Digital, raising its stake to 13.48 million shares from 11.34 million, and increased CoreWeave to 7.18 million shares from 6.10 million.

That group spans several versions of the same broader theme.

Applied Digital is increasingly an AI data center developer. IREN is moving deeper into AI neocloud and AI data centers while still operating a large Bitcoin mining base. Bitdeer combines self-mining, hosting, ASIC manufacturing and early AI cloud exposure. HIVE, while still mining-heavy, is also becoming more active on the HPC cloud front through BUZZ HPC, which has announced AI cloud contracts, a fiber upgrade, and a planned 320 MW sovereign AI infrastructure project in the Greater Toronto Area. Riot has moved beyond pure mining after signing AMD as its first hyperscale data center tenant at Rockdale. Keel has laid out plans to convert existing bitcoin mining facilities to HPC data centers and wind down mining operations altogether. CleanSpark remains more mining-heavy, but each controls energized infrastructure that could become more valuable if power remains the bottleneck for compute growth.

In other words, Situational Awareness appears to be buying across the power-to-compute stack, not merely the Bitcoin mining trade. But the fund’s exits and trims make the pattern more nuanced.

Situational Awareness fully exited Cipher Digital after holding 10.47 million shares at year-end. That is notable because Cipher has one of the sector’s most prominent AI/HPC pivot stories, including major contracted data center capacity.

It also exited Hut 8, another company that has attracted attention for its power-first AI data center strategy. Core Scientific, one of the highest-profile Bitcoin-to-AI colocation conversions, was trimmed slightly to 26.01 million shares from 28.76 million.

So the filing does not read like a blanket bet on every miner with an AI narrative. It looks more like a valuation-sensitive rotation within the group.

One Way to Read the Trade: Enterprise Value per Monetized MW

The market has increasingly valued miners based on power access. But “power access” is a loose term. Some megawatts are already energized and producing revenue. Some are contracted but still under construction. Some are tied to future AI leases. Others remain part of a development pipeline that may take years to monetize.

A stricter way to compare these companies is to look at enterprise value against revenue-generating megawatts: capacity that is already energized and producing revenue through Bitcoin mining, hosting, colocation, AI cloud or HPC services.

That lens helps explain why some of Situational Awareness’ largest additions were in names that look relatively cheaper on currently monetized power. The lower end of the table is where the fund did some of its most aggressive buying.

HIVE was a new position and screened as one of the cheapest names on this basis. Bitdeer, Keel, CleanSpark and Riot also had relatively low enterprise value per revenue-generating megawatt. Those are not all identical businesses, but they share one thing: the market was assigning less value to each currently monetized MW than it was for the more AI-branded infrastructure names.

That may be part of the appeal.

For an AI-focused fund, the bet does not have to be that every miner becomes the next CoreWeave. It may be enough that energized power, operating sites and data center know-how become more valuable as AI demand keeps colliding with grid constraints.

The other side: unpriced HPC optionality

There is another layer to the trade.

Situational Awareness may not simply be buying the cheapest revenue-generating megawatts. It may be buying the cheaper megawatts where future HPC conversion has not yet been fully priced in.

That distinction matters. A miner with a low EV per revenue-generating MW can be cheap for two very different reasons. It may be overlooked, or it may lack a credible path to higher-value AI/HPC monetization. The interesting names are the ones that still screen cheaply on current monetized capacity but also have enough power, sites, management credibility or customer pipeline to plausibly become HPC candidates.

Once a miner signs a major hyperscaler contract, the market quickly stops valuing it like a Bitcoin miner and starts valuing it like an AI infrastructure developer. Enterprise value rises, EV per current revenue-generating MW expands and the “cheap power” trade becomes less obvious.

Cipher may be the cleanest example. The company has one of the strongest AI/HPC pivot stories in the group, with hundreds of megawatts already contracted to hyperscale customers. Cipher disclosed a 907 MW current portfolio, including 700 MW of contracted gross HPC capacity and operating Bitcoin mining capacity. It also pointed to about 3.3 GW of grid pipeline capacity expected to be energized across 2027 to 2030 and beyond.

That success may also help explain why Situational Awareness exited the position. By the end of Q1, Cipher’s future HPC capacity was no longer just an idea. It was tied to announced customer agreements, and a large portion of that upside appeared to have been capitalized into the stock. On current revenue-generating MW, Cipher screened as one of the most expensive names in the group.

In other words, the exit may not have been a rejection of Cipher’s AI strategy. It may have been a valuation call after the market had already rewarded that strategy.

The same logic helps explain why lower EV/MW names such as Bitdeer, CleanSpark, Riot, HIVE and Keel may still be attractive to an AI-focused investor. They have large operating power footprints, but many have not yet announced the same scale of investment-grade hyperscaler contracts. If even a portion of those megawatts can be converted from Bitcoin mining to higher-value HPC or AI data center use, the rerating potential could be meaningful.

That may be the optionality Situational Awareness is buying: not just monetized power today, but monetized power that has not yet been fully repriced as AI infrastructure.

Hut 8 shows the risk of reading 13F filings too literally

Hut 8 is the counterexample.

Situational Awareness exited Hut 8 during Q1, before the company announced a major AI data center lease in May. That later announcement changed the way investors could value Hut 8’s power pipeline.

On May 6, Hut 8 said it had signed a 15-year, 352 MW AI data center lease at its Beacon Point campus in Texas with a confidential high-investment-grade tenant. The company said the base-term contract value was $9.8 billion, inclusive of a 3% annual base rent escalator. The market reaction was immediate with Hut 8 shares jumping nearly 30% to all-time highs over $100.

With the benefit of hindsight, Situational Awareness may have exited too early.

Before the Beacon Point contract, Hut 8 may have looked less compelling on currently monetized capacity compared with the lower EV/MW mining peers. After the announcement, the market had a clearer basis to value its development pipeline as contracted AI data center revenue.

That is exactly how the miner-to-AI trade can reprice.

First, companies get credit for energized power. Then they get credit for secured power. Then they get a much larger premium when that power becomes contracted to investment-grade AI/HPC customers.

Cipher appears to have already moved further into the third stage by the end of Q1. Hut 8 arguably moved there after the quarter ended. Some of the lower EV/MW miners remain earlier in that progression.

The bigger signal

The bigger story is that Situational Awareness’ miner exposure has become another sign of how deeply the AI trade has moved into energy infrastructure.

The fund is not just buying chip stocks. It is buying companies tied to the physical bottlenecks of AI growth: power, data centers, substations, energized land and operating compute sites.

Bitcoin miners happen to own a lot of that infrastructure. Some have cheap power. Some have large campuses. Some have interconnection rights. Some have teams that know how to operate high-density electrical load. That makes them relevant to an AI investor even when their core revenue is still Bitcoin mining.

But the Q1 filing also shows that the trade is becoming more selective.

The first phase of the miner AI pivot was about who had power. The next phase may be about whose power is already monetized, whose power can be upgraded for HPC, and whose future AI value has already been priced in.

The market may be buying the miners where the power is already working, the valuation is still reasonable and the AI optionality has not yet been fully priced in. At the same time, Cipher and Hut 8 show what can happen once that optionality becomes contracted AI data center revenue: the rerating can arrive fast, and sometimes after the 13F snapshot has already moved on.

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• LU-VE Expands Texas Cooling Plant as AI Data Centers Drive Demand

• Canaan to Heat 2,800 Nordic Homes With Bitcoin Miners

• Hut 8 to fund $16 million water infrastructure project for Louisiana AI site

• Soluna Buys Out Dorothy 1B as Bitcoin-to-AI Campus Conversion Advances

• Applied Digital Inks $7.5B Lease for 300 MW at Polaris Forge 3, Expanding AI Factory Footprint

Corporate News

• HIVE Plans CAD $3.5B Ontario AI Factory With 320 MW Power Allocation

• NextEra Energy Confirms Deal to Acquire Dominion Energy in $400 Billion Utility Merger Fueled by AI Power Demand

• Bitfury Entities Secure $81 Million Through Cipher Digital Forward Sale Agreements

• Situational Awareness Deepens AI Power Bets, Adds Bitcoin Miners in Q1 Portfolio Shift

• NextEra Energy and Dominion Energy Outline Post-Merger Leadership and Structure

Financial News

• Bitdeer Reports Q1 2026 Revenue of $188.9 Million and Positive Adjusted EBITDA

• IREN Closes $3 Billion Convertible Deal after AI Push Draws Bigger Backing

• Fluence Energy Announces $420 Million Secondary Offering by Selling Securityholders

• CoreWeave’s New $3.1B Loan Tests Wider Market for AI Infrastructure Debt

• Canaan Posts $62.7M in Q1 Revenue as Mining Footprint Expands to 11 EH/s

Email us

EIF Dallas (July 23-24) is a high-signal, curated conference convening leaders across energy, compute infrastructure, and capital to map the next decade of power and data center buildout.

Apply to speak or explore sponsorships for private meeting rooms, branding & more.

Public Bitcoin miners spent years racing to add more hashrate to the network. In the first quarter of 2026, many of them did the opposite.

Bitcoin’s average network hashrate, based on public blockchain data, declined from roughly 985 EH/s in Q4 2025 to 873 EH/s in Q1 2026. Separately, TheEnergyMag compiled quarterly production disclosures from major publicly traded miners to calculate their respective realized hashrate implied from Bitcoin production results.

At first glance, the aggregate change among large public miners appeared relatively modest. The combined realized hashrate of 10 major ones tracked by TheEnergyMag declined only slightly from approximately 297 EH/s in Q4 2025 to 291 EH/s in Q1 2026. HIVE and Cango were excluded from the comparison because their first-quarter production data was incomplete.

But beneath that seemingly stable aggregate figure was a much more notable redistribution of industrial-scale hashing power.

While companies such as Core Scientific, IREN, Cipher Digital, TeraWulf and Keel Infrastructure sharply reduced realized hashrate as they dismantled or repurposed mining fleets for AI and HPC infrastructure, others, including Bitdeer, MARA and American Bitcoin expanded aggressively to absorb part of the displaced network share.

Among the biggest decliners, IREN’s realized hashrate fell from 42.96 EH/s to 35.83 EH/s, while Cipher dropped from 16.55 EH/s to 11.14 EH/s after fully decommissioning mining operations at its Black Pearl facility in February to begin retrofitting the site for HPC infrastructure. Keel Infrastructure, formerly Bitfarms, declined from 16.52 EH/s to 11.51 EH/s as it continued winding down legacy mining operations and shifting toward North American AI infrastructure development.

CleanSpark witnessed a modest drop but similarly signaled it intends to continue monetizing Bitcoin infrastructure while selectively pursuing AI opportunities. Executives said older ASIC fleets may eventually be sold or relocated once AI deployments become fully operational, though the company acknowledged future site conversions could result in additional impairment charges.

By contrast, Riot Platforms increased realized hashrate from 34.21 EH/s to 42.29 EH/s during the quarter. Bitdeer climbed from 43.20 EH/s to 50.26 EH/s with energization of its SEALMINERs, while MARA rose from 51.92 EH/s to 55.52 EH/s despite simultaneous expansion efforts of their businesses around AI and HPC initiatives.

The divergence highlighted a growing split within the public mining sector and that shift became especially visible in corporate filings and earnings calls, where several miners disclosed large-scale fleet dismantling efforts, asset write-downs and mining infrastructure impairments tied directly to AI conversions.

Core Scientific said mining operations will continue winding down throughout 2026, with management expecting only one or two sites to remain operational for Bitcoin mining by year-end as the company prioritizes high-density colocation infrastructure for CoreWeave. The company recorded a $266.5 million impairment charge during Q1 2026, including $151.6 million related to mining equipment and $114.9 million tied to mining infrastructure.

Cipher Digital separately disclosed $30.8 million worth of mining rigs classified as held for sale after shutting down Black Pearl mining operations. TeraWulf owned approximately 54,100 Bitcoin miners as of March 31, but only around 35,500 were operational at its Lake Mariner campus. The remaining roughly 18,600 miners were categorized as undergoing maintenance, awaiting disposal, or held on standby to replace units under repair.

Instead of merely idling rigs during periods of weak economics, operators are permanently repurposing substations, cooling systems and data center layouts for AI deployments. Once infrastructure is converted for GPU workloads, it is unlikely to quickly return to Bitcoin mining.

American Bitcoin, one of the few companies still expanding its mining fleet, argued the transition could create a long-term opportunity for dedicated Bitcoin miners willing to continue scaling while competitors unplug fleets.

The company increased its owned fleet capacity from 25 EH/s to 28.1 EH/s in April following the reenergization of its Drumheller site, which had remained offline since 2024. Much of that growth, similar to its 2025 ramp-up, was financed through an unconventional structure that used pledged bitcoin rather than cash to acquire new-generation ASIC miners from Bitmain.

As of March 31, 2026, ABTC had pledged a total of 3,090 bitcoin to Bitmain for the purchase of 18 EH/s computing power, which alone represented nearly 64% of ABTC’s 28.1 EH/s proprietary mining fleet. ABTC mined 817 bitcoin during Q1 2026, up 505% from a year earlier. At the current production pace, and assuming Bitcoin network hashrate remains roughly stable, the company could theoretically mine back the equivalent of its originally pledged bitcoin collateral in about six quarters.

If network hashrate continues declining as industrial miners unplug more hashrate to pivot toward AI infrastructure, ABTC’s payback period in bitcoin terms could accelerate even further as remaining miners capture a larger share of block rewards.

All in all, the ongoing migration has altered the financial logic of industrial mining. During previous downcycles, miners typically unplugged rigs because falling Bitcoin prices or rising energy costs rendered operations uneconomic. In 2026, however, miners are increasingly shutting down fleets because AI infrastructure offers more stable long-duration cash flows, stronger financing conditions and higher expected returns on power capacity.

It will be worth watching how the dynamics play out in the quarters to come. But for now, the system remains balanced.

Hardware and Infrastructure News

• HIVE Advances Canadian Sovereign AI Push With New Brunswick Fiber Network Upgrade

• Zcash’s Price Revival Turns ZEC Miners Into Crypto’s Top Power Earners

• Canada Plans 150 MW AI Data Center Expansion in British Columbia Amid Sovereignty Push

• Bitdeer Reports $69M AI Cloud ARR and 783 Bitcoin Mined in April

• Nebius Commences Construction of Gigawatt-Scale AI Factory in Missouri

• Phoenix Group Launches European AI Data Center Push With 18MW France Buildout

Corporate News

• IREN Deepens NVIDIA Partnership With $3.4 Billion AI Cloud Agreement

• KEEL Spent $52M on HPC Expansion, Sold Bitcoin and Latin America Assets to Fund AI Pivot

• CleanSpark Reports $136.4 Million in Q2 Revenue; ERCOT Pipeline Expands to 585 MW

• MARA Signals More Bitcoin Sales as Long Ridge Deal Looms; Confirms 15% Layoffs in AI Pivot

• Riot’s AI-Fueled Bitcoin Mining Rally Triggers CEO’s Trading Plan to Cash Out $4.2M

• Braiins Acquires Commodity Fund CAMMS Capital, Bridging Mining and Traditional Markets

• Bitfury Co-Founder Secures $100 Million in Cipher Digital Share-Backed Deal

Financial News

• MARA Moves to Amend $600M Long Ridge Notes Ahead of Power Asset Acquisition

• IREN Shares Jump 16% as Bitcoin Mining Retreat Fuels AI Expansion

• TeraWulf Reports Q1 2026 Results and New Revolving Credit Facility

• IREN Shares Sink After Unveiling $2 Billion Convertible Offering for AI Buildout

• Nscale Secures $790M Financing for Microsoft-Backed Norway AI Campus

• MARA Holdings Reports $1.26 Billion Net Loss for Q1 2026

• NVIDIA Reports $215.9 Billion in FY2026 Revenue as Data Center Networking Surges 142%

• Nebius Q1 Revenue Jumps 7x Amid ‘Unprecedented Demand’ for AI Infrastructure

Email us