Bitcoin miners are increasingly being valued by the revenue they can generate from data-center customers rather than by the number of coins they produce, as second-quarter results exposed the pressure on operators still dependent on mining alone. Core Scientific’s high-density hosting business delivered $136.7 million in quarterly revenue, while several larger mining-focused peers reported falling mining revenue despite producing more Bitcoin.
The contrast is clearest between Core Scientific and MARA. Core Scientific said high-density hosting accounted for roughly 83% of its $164.2 million in second-quarter revenue, rising from $10.6 million a year earlier. MARA mined 2,422 BTC, up from 2,358 BTC in the prior-year quarter, but reported that revenue fell 27% to $174.9 million. MARA’s net loss reached $611.3 million, including $343 million in unrealized fair-value losses on Bitcoin holdings.
The quarter divided publicly listed operators into three groups: miners whose income remains tied almost entirely to Bitcoin production, companies already recording meaningful hosting or high-performance computing, or HPC, revenue, and businesses building data-center capacity before those projects begin contributing material sales.
Hosting revenue begins to replace mining income
Core Scientific has moved furthest toward a customer-hosting model among the companies reporting results. Its $136.7 million in high-density hosting revenue eclipsed its $21.5 million in self-mining revenue for the quarter. The company said it had contracted about 1.1 gigawatts of customer power capacity, associated with more than $24 billion in potential contract revenue.
That contract figure is much larger than revenue recognized in a single quarter, reflecting the long duration and phased construction of data-center agreements. Hosting revenue is recorded as capacity is delivered and services are provided, rather than when a multiyear agreement is announced.
TeraWulf also reported a rapid shift in its revenue mix. The company generated $44.73 million in the quarter, including $31.93 million in HPC leasing revenue and $12.83 million from digital assets. HPC leasing therefore represented about 71% of quarterly revenue, a sharp change from 2025, when TeraWulf reported approximately $150 million of mining revenue and $16.9 million of HPC leasing revenue on total annual revenue of $168.5 million.
After the quarter ended, TeraWulf announced a 20-year lease with Anthropic carrying an initial contract value of about $19 billion. Its second-quarter HPC leasing revenue, at $31.90 million, shows that announced contract value and recognized revenue remain separated by construction schedules, equipment installation, and the date customers begin using capacity.
Hut 8 reported a similar broadening of its computing operations. Revenue increased to $74.9 million from $41.3 million a year earlier, with $72.5 million classified as computing revenue. That category included ASIC computing, AI cloud services, and conventional cloud operations. Hut 8 nevertheless posted a $177.1 million net loss, including $138.6 million in unrealized losses tied to digital assets.
More Bitcoin did not guarantee more revenue
Mining-focused businesses faced a different operating reality: output rose at several companies, but the value realized per Bitcoin weakened while costs remained high.
Riot Platforms produced 1,587 BTC during the quarter, roughly 11% more than a year earlier. Mining revenue fell to $113.7 million from $140.9 million, according to the company. Riot said its production value per Bitcoin declined to $71,667 from $98,800, while cash cost excluding depreciation rose to $49,912 from $48,992.
The result was a much narrower operating cushion. Riot’s cash cost represented 69.6% of production value, compared with 49.6% in the prior-year quarter. That leaves less room to absorb changes in Bitcoin prices, network difficulty, power costs, curtailment periods, or equipment downtime.
Riot reported $174.2 million in total revenue, up 14% year over year, partly because it recorded $23.2 million in data-center revenue. Of that amount, $4.9 million came from leasing and $18.3 million was connected to customer buildouts. Following the quarter, Riot announced a 191-megawatt data-center lease with an initial value of about $9.1 billion, adding a potential long-term revenue source that was not reflected in second-quarter leasing results.
American Bitcoin reported a more resilient mining margin during the quarter. It mined about 932 BTC, up about 14% from the previous quarter, and generated roughly $67 million in mining revenue, an increase of about 8%. The company put mining cost at approximately $36,500 per Bitcoin and reported a gross margin close to 50%.
Bitdeer demonstrated the limits of measuring a miner solely by production growth. The company expanded output to 2,694 BTC from 565 BTC a year earlier and increased total revenue 47% to $228.8 million. Self-mining generated $168.4 million of that total. Yet cost of revenue rose to $237.3 million, producing an $8.5 million gross loss, while the company’s net loss was $92.3 million.
Transition projects leave a revenue gap
Cipher Digital and Keel Infrastructure illustrate the financial strain facing operators that have begun moving toward HPC infrastructure but have not yet replaced mining income with recurring customer revenue.
Cipher reported approximately $24.84 million in revenue, entirely from Bitcoin mining, alongside adjusted EBITDA of negative $30 million and a $267 million net loss. The company said its first Black Pearl project capacity began delivery in early August, after the quarter closed, and leasing had begun. That revenue was therefore absent from the second-quarter figures.
Keel Infrastructure, formerly known as Bitfarms, reported second-quarter revenue of about $30.43 million, down 50% from a year earlier. The company attributed the decline to lower Bitcoin prices and the April closure of its Moses Lake mining operations in the United States. Keel reported adjusted EBITDA of negative $23.70 million while developing HPC infrastructure that had yet to contribute replacement revenue at scale.
The transition creates a timing problem for miners pursuing data-center conversions. Mining equipment can generate Bitcoin soon after installation, but large-scale HPC sites require customer contracts, power delivery, construction, networking equipment, and server deployment before recurring leasing revenue can be booked.
Accounting losses complicate earnings comparisons
Net-loss figures also varied widely because several companies recorded non-cash fair-value changes on Bitcoin holdings or warrants.
Core Scientific reported a $1.1553 billion net loss, which it said was driven mainly by changes in the fair value of warrants. Cipher’s $267.5 million net loss included $150.5 million in warrant fair-value losses. Such marks can dominate reported earnings even when they do not represent cash paid during the quarter.
The earnings season therefore gives traders a clearer way to distinguish between headline contract announcements and operating results. Core Scientific and TeraWulf have begun recording hosting income at meaningful levels, while Riot is adding data-center revenue without abandoning mining. Companies such as Cipher and Keel are still funding the bridge between a declining mining base and future data-center operations.
For pure miners, the quarter showed that rising Bitcoin production alone offered limited protection when revenue per coin declined and cash costs climbed. The companies with contracted power capacity, delivered facilities, and active customers are beginning to build a revenue base less directly tied to the price received for each newly mined Bitcoin.
As mining margins shrink, explore diversified strategies in this in-depth Bitcoin mining breakdown to reassess profitability and infrastructure planning.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
