Bitcoin has risen about 22% since Aug. 17, yet most publicly traded mining companies have failed to keep pace, underscoring how their shares are increasingly being valued as power-intensive data center businesses rather than straightforward proxies for BTC.
The performance gap is especially pronounced among miners pursuing high-performance computing, or HPC, capacity for artificial intelligence workloads. Those projects can create contracted revenue streams outside the Bitcoin cycle, but they also require large upfront spending, complicated construction schedules and decisions about whether scarce power should support mining rigs or AI servers.
In the market comparison cited in the supplied data, Canaan was the only company in an 11-stock group of mining and mining-adjacent firms to outperform Bitcoin during the period. The group’s median gain was just 1.8%, far below BTC’s roughly 22% advance.
Core Scientific and TeraWulf were among the weakest relative performers, trailing Bitcoin by 27 percentage points and 24 percentage points, respectively. Their results illustrate the challenge facing miners that have tied their equity stories to AI infrastructure: a rising Bitcoin price does not automatically lift a company’s shares when traders are also assessing construction costs, financing needs, customer contracts and execution risks.
Ai expansion changes the miner trade
Mining equities historically offered amplified exposure to Bitcoin. When BTC rose, miners could benefit from the higher value of the coins they produced, while their fixed infrastructure costs created operating leverage. That relationship becomes less direct once a company devotes substantial capital, power capacity and management attention to data center services.
AI-related infrastructure has given several mining companies a potential source of revenue during periods when mining margins are under pressure. Facilities built around large power connections, cooling systems and high-capacity networking can be adapted for HPC customers, whose demand for computing capacity has expanded alongside the development of generative AI.
The trade-off is that those conversions are expensive. The supplied figures estimate that public mining firms have committed more than $30 billion to rebuilding or upgrading sites for AI-oriented data center operations. Such spending can drain cash reserves even when Bitcoin is rallying, particularly when companies must buy equipment, improve electrical infrastructure and prepare sites for long-duration customer deployments before revenue begins.
That capital burden has reportedly pushed some miners to sell portions of their Bitcoin holdings during the summer. Selling mined coins can help fund expansion without immediately issuing more shares or taking on additional debt, but it also reduces a company’s direct exposure to a rising BTC price. A miner that liquidates more of its production to finance construction may capture less upside from a rally than a peer that retains a larger treasury.
Contract values face an execution test
The supplied report estimates that public companies have signed between $70 billion and $90 billion in new computing contracts this year. If those figures translate into operating facilities and dependable customer payments, they would give miners a larger base of contracted revenue than Bitcoin mining alone can offer.
Contract announcements, though, are only one part of the valuation equation. Markets also need to assess the duration of an agreement, the credit quality of the customer, the amount of capital required before a facility opens, the power price, and whether the contract contains conditions tied to delivery dates or performance standards.
Cipher’s reported 15-year data center lease reflects why secured power has become a central asset for mining companies seeking an AI pivot. A long-term lease can place more value on a company’s access to electricity and developed sites than on its current fleet of mining machines. In that model, the mine becomes part of a broader infrastructure platform serving customers that need reliable, high-density computing capacity.
That transition also helps explain why the market may not reward every AI announcement equally. A company with available power, an established site and a signed tenant could be valued differently from a company that has announced ambitions but must still fund construction, obtain equipment and complete interconnection work.
Power allocations affect Bitcoin mining economics
The shift toward AI capacity has implications beyond individual share prices. The supplied data says the Bitcoin network hash rate fell by as much as 21% by September 2026, reaching roughly 868 exahashes per second, as operators shut down older machines or redirected resources to new data center projects.
Hash rate measures the computing power securing the Bitcoin network and competing to produce blocks. A lower network hash rate can improve conditions for miners that remain active because fewer machines are competing for the same block rewards, at least until Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment responds to the change.
That could create a split within the sector. Operators that continue to prioritize efficient Bitcoin mining could see improved unit economics if hash rate declines and BTC remains elevated. Companies moving power away from mining may gain longer-term data center revenue, but their mining output could become less sensitive to a Bitcoin rally.
The result is a more fragmented public-miner market. Share performance now depends on Bitcoin’s price, network competition, power strategy, balance-sheet capacity and the credibility of each company’s AI contracts. Traders evaluating the group in the coming weeks will likely focus less on broad BTC direction and more on lease agreements, financing plans, power availability and changes in network hash rate.
To better understand mining economics and BTC cycles, explore our deep dive: how Bitcoin mining really works.
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.
