Mining Companies in Q2: Are They Profiting from the AI Data Center Rush?

Original Title: "Mining Companies in Q2: Are They Making Money from the AI Data Center Rush?"
Original Author: KarenZ, Foresight News

In the mining field, the loudest sound remains that of mining machines; however, in the Q2 financial reports, the AI business of most crypto mining companies is becoming increasingly prominent.

MARA reported a net loss of $611.3 million for the quarter, which includes an unrealized Bitcoin fair value loss of $343 million. On the other hand, Core Scientific's high-density hosting revenue increased from $10.6 million in the same period last year to $136.7 million, becoming the company's primary source of income.

On one side, there is the contraction of mining revenue and unrealized fair value losses due to falling cryptocurrency prices; on the other side, there are long-term rents confirmed after the delivery of data centers. These financial reports present two sets of results: one for Bitcoin mining machines that are still maintaining operations, and another for the gradually expanding AI data centers.

The market is not lacking in contracts worth billions of dollars. What needs to be verified next is how much capacity the mining companies have delivered, how much rent has been confirmed, and after deducting construction investments, depreciation, and interest, how much profit can ultimately be retained.

More Mining Does Not Equal More Profit

The most direct pressure in Q2 comes from the price of Bitcoin.

MARA mined 2,422 Bitcoins this quarter, a slight increase from 2,358 in the same period last year, but revenue still fell by 27% year-on-year to $174.9 million. MARA's net loss for the quarter was $611.3 million, which also includes an unrealized Bitcoin fair value loss of $343 million. In other words, the increase in output can only offset part of the price decline and cannot fully maintain revenue.

Riot Platforms presents a more typical case. The company produced 1,587 Bitcoins in Q2, an increase of about 11% year-on-year, but mining revenue fell from $140.9 million to $113.7 million, primarily due to the decline in average Bitcoin prices and the increase in overall network hash rate. The production value of a single Bitcoin dropped from $98,800 to $71,667, while the mining cost per Bitcoin, excluding machine depreciation, rose from $48,992 to $49,912, causing the cost to production value ratio to increase from 49.6% to 69.6%.

This does not mean that the mining model is no longer viable; rather, scale, machine efficiency, and electricity prices must work together. American Bitcoin mined about 932 Bitcoins in Q2, a quarter-on-quarter increase of about 14%; mining revenue was approximately $67 million, an increase of about 8% quarter-on-quarter. Its mining cost per Bitcoin was about $36,500, with a gross margin close to 50%.

Bitdeer, on the other hand, shows a different side: computing power and output can expand rapidly, but profits may not follow suit. The company mined 2,694 Bitcoins in Q2, compared to 565 in the same period last year; total revenue increased by 47% year-on-year to $228.8 million, with self-mining revenue at $168.4 million. However, the company's revenue cost for the quarter reached $237.3 million, resulting in a gross loss of $8.5 million and a net loss of $92.3 million. Focusing only on output and revenue can easily overlook that electricity, depreciation, and expansion costs have already exceeded current revenue.

AI Revenue Has Emerged, But Companies Are Not Starting from the Same Line

What truly changes the industry landscape is that some mining companies have shifted from "selling mined Bitcoins" to "renting out power and data centers."

Core Scientific is one of the most notable in this regard. The company reported total revenue of $164.2 million in Q2, with high-density hosting revenue reaching $136.7 million, accounting for about 83% of total revenue; self-mining revenue was only $21.5 million. In the same period last year, Core Scientific's hosting revenue was only $10.6 million. This indicates that its main source of income has shifted from mining to data center hosting, rather than just announcing a long-term project.

TeraWulf has also undergone a similar structural change. The company reported revenue of $44.73 million in Q2, with HPC leasing revenue of $31.93 million, accounting for about 71%, and digital asset revenue of $12.83 million. In comparison, in 2025, TeraWulf's total revenue of $168.5 million still had mining accounting for 90% (about $150 million), but at that time, it had also achieved its first HPC leasing revenue ($16.9 million). The company has clearly stated that capital allocation and operational focus will primarily revolve around HPC data centers, and some existing mining infrastructure is also being transformed.

Riot's transformation is still in the ramp-up phase. Its total revenue in Q2 was $174.2 million, a year-on-year increase of 14%; of which, data center revenue was $23.2 million, while mining revenue remained at $113.7 million. Notably, Riot's data center revenue includes $4.9 million in leasing income and $18.3 million in customer data center construction income, both of which are real income reflected in the current quarterly report, but are still insufficient to replace mining operations.

Cipher Digital reminds the market that "starting construction" and "already generating HPC revenue" are two different things. The company reported revenue of approximately $24.84 million in Q2, all from Bitcoin mining, with an adjusted EBITDA of negative $30 million and a net loss of $267 million. Cipher only began delivering the first capacity of the Black Pearl project in early August and has started counting rent, so this income has not yet been reflected in Q2.

Hut 8's Q2 revenue increased from $41.3 million in the same period last year to $74.9 million, of which $72.5 million was classified under computing services. However, this classification also includes ASIC computing, AI cloud, and traditional cloud services, so not all of the $72.5 million can be directly labeled as AI revenue. Of course, Hut 8 still recorded a net loss of $177.1 million in Q2, of which $138.6 million was due to unrealized losses from digital assets.

AI Contracts Are Flooding In, But Revenue Realization Takes Time

One of the most common misunderstandings during the transformation of mining companies is to equate the total value of long-term contracts with realized revenue.

Core Scientific disclosed that it has leased customer power capacity of about 1.1GW, corresponding to potential contract revenue of over $24 billion, but its confirmed hosting revenue for Q2 was still $136.7 million; TeraWulf signed a 20-year lease with Anthropic after the quarter, with an initial contract value of about $19 billion, but the company's Q2 HPC leasing revenue was only $31.9 million; Riot signed a data center lease with an initial value of about $9.1 billion for 191MW after the quarter, while its Q2 data center revenue was $23.2 million.

These figures are not contradictory. The total contract value represents the revenue that could be obtained over the entire base lease term, which typically enters financial statements quarterly after the construction of the data center, phased delivery, and commencement of rent. Project delays, changes in construction costs, financing arrangements, and customer performance can all affect the actual confirmation pace. Therefore, when comparing the AI business of mining companies, at least three things need to be clarified: how many contracts have been signed, how much capacity has been delivered, and how much revenue has been confirmed for the quarter.

Net profit also cannot be read in isolation from accounting items. For example, Core Scientific reported a net loss of $1.1553 billion in Q2, mainly affected by changes in the fair value of warrants; Cipher reported a net loss of $267.5 million, which includes a fair value loss of $150.5 million on warrants; MARA's losses were influenced by the revaluation of Bitcoin prices. In contrast, Bitdeer's gross loss for the quarter reflects that revenue costs have exceeded revenue, which is a different nature.

Mining Companies Are Diverging into Three Types

The Q2 financial reports show that publicly listed mining companies can no longer be measured by the same standards.

American Bitcoin continues to focus on expanding computing power, increasing output, and reducing the cost per Bitcoin; Core Scientific and TeraWulf have already had a significant proportion of hosting or HPC revenue entering the current financial statements; Riot, Cipher, and other companies are in the middle stage of gradually delivering new projects.

Keel Infrastructure has taken a more thorough approach. This company, formerly known as Bitfarms, has completed the shutdown of its Bitcoin mining operations in the U.S., reporting revenue of about $30.43 million in Q2, a 50% year-on-year decline, due to the drop in Bitcoin prices and the closure of cryptocurrency mining operations in the Moses Lake area of the U.S. in April 2026; adjusted EBITDA was negative $23.7 million. The company has chosen to become an HPC infrastructure developer, but the new business has not yet formed a revenue scale sufficient to replace mining.

Therefore, what is truly noteworthy this quarter is not whether mining companies are all discussing AI, but rather where they stand in their progress: some still rely on mining machines to increase output, some have begun to charge monthly data center rents, and others are experiencing a transition period where old revenues are disappearing and new revenues have yet to catch up.

The mining machines are still roaring, but what will determine the financial performance in the next phase is who has stable power, who can deliver data centers on time, and who can truly convert a long-term contract into current revenue.

Original Link

This content is provided for general informational purposes only and doesn't constitute financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Any events, rewards, online promotions, or related information mentioned herein should not be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or invitation to purchase, sell, trade, or otherwise deal in any crypto assets. Crypto assets are highly volatile and may result in loss. The availability of WEEX services, products, and related events may vary by region. You are responsible for ensuring that your participation is in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations.