Connect with us

Crypto World

Crypto Miners Must Put Bitcoin to Work to Survive

Published

on

Crypto Breaking News

Bitcoin miners are facing a tougher profit environment as the current market cycle yields thinner returns and higher capital pressures. Market-maker Wintermute outlines a path forward that centers on strategic treasury management and new revenue streams, such as hosting AI workloads, rather than relying solely on traditional mining economics. The firm notes that miners built out substantial, low-cost energy infrastructure over years in favorable jurisdictions, yet are now sitting on assets that the AI industry urgently needs. The narrative around consolidation and pivot is reinforced by public issuer activity, including MARA Holdings’ recent securities filing to signal a shift toward AI opportunities, while industry peers have already begun trimming BTC holdings to fund diversification. These developments build a picture of an industry recalibrating its business model in real time.

Key takeaways

  • Miners collectively hold roughly 1% of the total BTC supply, a validation of the HODL-era mindset that Wintermute describes as a “legacy” asset-management posture rather than a productive treasury engine.
  • Active treasury management—using derivatives, covered calls, and cash-secured puts—could unlock new yield streams for miners beyond simple price appreciation of BTC.
  • The AI pivot is economically compelling but requires substantial capital expenditure and operational retooling, making it a drastic shift from a traditional, energy-intensive mining model.
  • Bitcoin’s market cycle has underperformed relative to prior halvings, failing to generate the two-times price return observed in earlier cycles and pressuring margins amid rising energy costs.
  • Public miners have started reallocation moves, with some selling BTC to fund AI or infrastructure upgrades, illustrating a broader trend of capital reallocation within the sector.
  • Despite the pressures, Wintermute argues the current shakeup could drive efficiency and resilience in the mining sector over the longer term, potentially yielding a structural edge for operators that translate BTC into working capital.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC, $MARA

Sentiment: Neutral

Price impact: Negative. Margin pressure from energy costs and lower revenue per BTC mined is prompting asset reallocation and cost-cutting measures across the sector.

Trading idea (Not Financial Advice): Hold. The sector is in flux as miners test new revenue streams, but the outcome hinges on broader crypto prices and the pace of AI-adoption-related deployments.

Advertisement

Market context: The shift mirrors a broader macro backdrop where liquidity conditions and energy costs compress traditional mining economics, prompting operators to explore active treasury management and AI-hosting opportunities as potential long-horizon diversifications. The dynamic sits at the intersection of crypto-cycle mechanics, energy markets, and the growth of AI compute demand behind industrial-scale data centers.

Why it matters

The underlying message from Wintermute is that the current cycle is forcing a re-evaluation of how Bitcoin miners generate and protect value. If the market continues to deliver limited price appreciation and the difficulty of mining remains a fixed cost anchor, the incentive to extract yield from BTC holdings through active treasury strategies grows stronger. This could reframe Bitcoin as a working asset for miners rather than a passive reserve, effectively turning balance sheets into sources of ongoing cash flow rather than static exposure to price swings.

On one hand, the potential transition toward AI hosting and AI-era data-center utilization reflects a natural expansion of the sector beyond core cryptocurrency mining. The logic is straightforward: mining facilities already sit on scalable, energy-intensive infrastructure that can be repurposed to service AI workloads, HPC needs, and other compute-intensive applications. The March 3 SEC filing by MARA Holdings is emblematic of this shift, signaling intent to pivot toward technology-adjacent opportunities rather than relying solely on BTC production. Several peers have walked similar paths, as evidenced by industry reporting on miners’ asset disposition and strategic pivots.

However, the path is far from simple. Wintermute characterizes mining as a “structurally rigid” business model, which means that even if yield opportunities emerge, the transition requires not just capital but careful risk management, talent, and a new operating playbook. The idea of monetizing market risk through derivatives structures or using cash-secured puts and covered calls to generate consistent income contrasts with the historical emphasis on maximizing hash rate and energy efficiency. In a market where the fee stream is episodic and not structurally supportive, miners may need to treat BTC holdings as working capital rather than reserves available only for sale during favorable price environments.

Advertisement

The industry’s recent activity — including notable BTC sales by publicly listed miners to fund AI-related upgrades or diversification — underscores a pragmatic approach to capital allocation. Reports noting that more than 15,000 BTC have been sold since October illustrate the pressure to finance strategic shifts in a regime where revenue from mining, even with improved efficiency, has not kept pace with the halving-driven revenue reductions. In this context, the oil-and-gas-like discipline of treasury management could become a core competitive differentiator for those miners that adopt a more dynamic, yield-focused posture.

Wintermute’s assessment also highlights a broader ecosystem transformation: the AI demand for energy-hungry compute clusters could become a new anchor for miners who can redeploy their scale and marginal energy advantages. The AI-hosting pathway aligns with other industry narratives about high-performance computing (HPC) adoption among mining and big-tech operators. As industry players explore this convergence, the conversation is no longer solely about Bitcoin price dynamics but also about how crypto infrastructure owners can monetize their balance sheets in a multi-asset compute economy.

Ultimately, the cycle’s current stage represents a healthy shakeup that may yield a more efficient and resilient mining sector. The shifts could reduce the reliance on episodic price-driven upside and instead foster a more predictable set of cash flows through active treasury management and serviceable AI compute capacity. The balance between capital efficiency and the risk borne by large capex programs will determine which operators emerge with durable competitive advantages and which retreat to simpler, more traditional models.

What to watch next

  • Updates on MARA Holdings’ SEC filing and progress toward AI-related capital deployment in 2026.
  • Public miners’ ongoing BTC disposition patterns and how those sales correlate with AI or HPC investments.
  • Adoption of derivatives-based yield strategies among miners and the development of crypto-native treasury-management tools.
  • Any new AI-hosting deployments or partnerships announced by mining operators or their affiliates.
  • Market data on energy costs and hash-rate dynamics that could impact the pace of a potential structural upgrade in mining economics.

Sources & verification

  • Wintermute, Epoch 5—A structurally different BTC mining cycle (post on insights site).
  • MARA Holdings SEC filing on March 3 signaling intent to pivot to AI opportunities.
  • Cointelegraph reports on miners selling BTC activities, including CleanSpark’s February BTC proceeds article.
  • Cointelegraph coverage of miners unwinding BTC treasuries and margin pressure in the sector.

Mining sector recalibrates as AI hosting beckons and treasury yields gain attention

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) miners built extensive, low-cost energy footprints in favorable markets over the past years, but the current cycle is challenging those economics. Wintermute’s analysis emphasizes that the sector’s large-scale infrastructure and capital commitments were designed for a different price and reward regime. With the two-times price return benchmark not materializing this time around, and energy costs squeezing margins, the incentive to reallocate capital toward new, higher-growth opportunities has risen. The company argues that the “full toolkit of treasury management remains largely untapped” and that miners who treat their BTC holdings as working capital could gain a lasting edge into the next halving.

The narrative is not merely about abandoning mining; it’s about augmenting it with strategic treasury management and new lines of business. The possibility of monetizing market exposure through structured products, coupled with passive avenues like lending, offers a multi-pronged approach to yield that was less discussed in earlier cycles. Wintermute’s stance is that active balance sheet management could become a central driver of profitability as the industry navigates lower marginal returns per mined BTC and episodic fee revenue. This is particularly relevant for operators with scale and access to cheap energy—the exact mix that could unlock AI-hosting use cases and HPC workloads as long-run growth vectors.

Advertisement

In that sense, the MARA Holdings filing signals a broader industry tilt toward capital reallocation, where AI and data-center capabilities may become the defining growth engines for crypto miners. The market has already observed related movements: several miners have divested BTC holdings to fund expansion or strategic pivots, underscoring a pragmatic approach to capital management in a market where steady cash flow matters more than speculative price surges alone. As these shifts unfold, the question becomes not only how much BTC is held or sold, but how effectively balance sheets can be transformed into operating assets that generate durable yields in a new compute-driven economy.

Industry observers will be watching whether these efforts translate into meaningful margin stabilization and clearer paths to profitability for the next cycle. If the AI-hosting pathway proves scalable and the associated demand for energy-intensive compute remains robust, there could be a meaningful rebalancing of risk and reward for miners who reposition their assets. In the near term, the sector’s performance will likely hinge on macro price movements for BTC, energy price trajectories, and the pace at which miners implement treasury-management strategies and AI-centric expansions. As Wintermute notes, this could represent the beginning of a structural shift rather than a temporary reallocation, with the potential to redefine miners’ role in a broader crypto and AI-enabled economy.

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crypto World

Solving Bitcoin’s gas issue (without a fork)

Published

on

Frederic Fosco

Disclosure: The views and opinions expressed here belong solely to the author and do not represent the views and opinions of crypto.news’ editorial.

Every smart contract platform has a fee asset baked in. For example, Ethereum (ETH) has ETH, Solana (SOL) has SOL, but with Bitcoin (BTC), however, things get messy. If you want expressive apps, you usually end up adopting a second network’s economics. 

Advertisement

Summary

  • Bitcoin doesn’t price computation, only block space. Unlike Ethereum or Solana, BTC’s fee market is built around sat/vB for transaction inclusion, not metering smart contract execution.
  • Execution can move off-chain while settlement stays on Bitcoin. Systems like OpNet run contract logic in a Wasm VM while anchoring payments and final state changes through normal BTC transactions.
  • BTC can function as the gas asset without a new token. By pricing execution costs in satoshis and settling interactions through Bitcoin transactions, apps avoid creating a second fee economy.

On Stacks, for example, you pay fees in STX. On EVM-style Bitcoin layers, you might be told that BTC is the gas token, but it’s typically an L2-native representation with EVM-like conventions (including 18 decimals), and you’re still operating inside that L2 environment. Bitcoin itself, meanwhile, already has a clean fee market, where users bid for block space in sat/vB, and miners prioritize higher fee rates.

With this in mind, what if a smart contract interaction could be initiated and paid for as a normal Bitcoin transaction, with fees in BTC terms (no extra gas token or fork) while the smart part runs elsewhere and stays provably tied back to Bitcoin? OpNet is setting out to provide an answer. 

Advertisement

Bitcoin doesn’t meter compute (that’s a problem)

Bitcoin’s fee market is excellent at one thing: pricing block space. You compete in sat/vB, miners pick the highest fee rates, and the network stays simple and adversarially robust. What Bitcoin does not do is run a general-purpose execution environment where the chain can measure and charge for arbitrary computation. Bitcoin Script is deliberately stateless and not Turing-complete, specifically lacking loops or gotos, so every node can validate scripts predictably without opening the door to unbounded computation.

That’s why most Bitcoin smart contract approaches end up placing execution on a separate system that can meter compute and run a fee market of its own. Once you have that separate execution layer, it usually comes with a separate fee asset (Stacks, for instance, charges fees in STX).

This isn’t ideal, and a system where you could keep payment within Bitcoin’s native fee market while moving execution elsewhere would be preferable.

Execution isn’t what Bitcoin needs to do

Once you accept that Bitcoin Script is intentionally limited (stateless and not designed for unbounded computation), you start thinking about how to make Bitcoin settle the results and the payments.

Advertisement

Indeed, execution can happen in a dedicated virtual machine that’s built to run smart contract logic deterministically, while Bitcoin remains the base layer that timestamps, orders, and prices the interactions through its existing fee market.  In OpNet’s design, contract logic is evaluated by a Wasm-oriented VM (OP-VM), while the broader node stack is explicitly built to manage and execute smart contracts using Bitcoin’s existing transaction and UTXO mechanics.

Crucially, this isn’t paired with a new fee asset. Bitcoin doesn’t need to meter computation to be the gas currency. It needs to be the final settlement layer that everything ultimately pays into and anchors to.

What a BTC-paid contract call looks like

Our interaction model follows a simulate-then-spend flow rather than a conventional smart contract execution pattern, with the final execution step taking place as an actual Bitcoin transaction. First, your app calls a contract method in simulation mode. That request goes through a provider to an OPNet node, which executes the contract in its VM and returns a CallResult (including gas/fee estimates) without broadcasting anything to Bitcoin.

If the call is state-changing, you take that CallResult and send it as an execution. At this point, the library builds a Bitcoin transaction, signs it, and broadcasts it to the Bitcoin network. Two points are worth remembering:

Advertisement
  • Miner fees are Bitcoin-native. You choose a feeRate in sat/vB, optionally add a priorityFee in sats, and set a hard cap on fee spending via maximumAllowedSatToSpend (the parameter is literally named maximumAllowedSatToSpend).
  • The contract target is expressed as a P2OP-style contract address. The contract instance exposes its p2op address format, and transactions reference a “p2op contract address” as the contract destination.

Meanwhile, OpNet’s own compute metering still exists. But it’s priced in satoshis (estimated SATS Gas, refunds in SATS, etc.), so the unit never drifts into a separate token economy. 

Less friction, cleaner incentives

Users no longer have to adopt a second fee economy just to interact with apps. On Bitcoin, fees are already an auction for block space, priced per byte and paid to miners. When contract calls are just Bitcoin transactions, you’re back on familiar ground (with sat/vB fees, mempool churn, and miner incentives), without having to learn a separate gas token market.

Also, the tooling leans into standard Bitcoin workflows such as UTXO handling, provider connections, and even offline/cold signing. Contracts live in a Wasm runtime and are written in AssemblyScript, aiming for Solidity-like expressiveness without pretending Bitcoin Script suddenly became a VM.

Bitcoin as gas, without a second token

The claim that BTC cannot function as gas usually rests on the assumption that the base layer must meter computation to price it. Bitcoin does not meter computation; it meters block space and settles value. 

The solution is to let a virtual machine handle execution deterministically, and then route every state-changing interaction through a standard Bitcoin transaction, where fees are expressed in familiar terms such as sat/vB and capped in satoshis. In our case, this is implemented at the client level through parameters like feeRate and maximumAllowedSatToSpend.

Advertisement

So maybe BTC-as-gas is truly plausible. Fees stay BTC-native from end to end, while the contract runtime stays WebAssembly-based (AssemblyScript → Wasm), which keeps the logic expressive without changing the fee currency.

Frederic Fosco

Frederic Fosco

Advertisement

Frederic Fosco, also known as Danny Plainview, is a co-founder of OP_NET and has been involved in Bitcoin since 2013. He launched OP_NET to make Bitcoin natively programmable, unlocking smart contracts and DeFi primitives directly on layer-1. His focus is building real on-chain functionality without bridges, custodians, wrapping, or synthetic Bitcoin, keeping self-custody and decentralization non-negotiable.

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Hackers Claim They Leaked Swedish E-Government Source Code

Published

on

Hackers Claim They Leaked Swedish E-Government Source Code

A threat actor has claimed to have leaked source code and other sensitive material tied to Sweden’s e-government platform, prompting an investigation by Swedish authorities and an incident response by CGI Sverige.

Cybersecurity accounts on X and local media reported Thursday that a threat actor calling itself ByteToBreach had published material it said came from CGI Sverige, the Swedish subsidiary of global IT giant CGI Group, and Sweden’s e-government infrastructure, according to local news outlet Aftonbladet.

CGI told Aftonbladet its cybersecurity team discovered an incident involving two internal test servers in Sweden that were not used in production. The company said an older application version and its source code were accessible, but that there was no indication that customer production data or operational services were affected. CGI press secretary Agneta Hansson confirmed to the news outlet that authorities are investigating the leak.

About 95% of Sweden’s 10.7 million population used e-government services in 2024, according to Eurostat data

Advertisement

The leaked files could include the platform’s source code and configuration files, internal staff database, citizens’ personally identifiable information databases, electronic signing documents and other sensitive data.

Source: Vecert Analyzer

Cointelegraph contacted CGI Group and Sweden’s national IT incident center, CERT-SE, for comment on the reported leak.

Swedish civil defense minister confirms cybersecurity incident

However, Carl-Oskar Bohlin, Sweden’s minister of civil defense, confirmed the data leak and said the government is working with CERT-SE and the National Cyber Security Center to identify the culprits.

IT security expert Anders Nilsson confirmed that the hacked resources seemed authentic. “Source code for several programs seems to exist, and from what I can see, the hack looks genuine,” Nilsson wrote in an email to media outlet SVT.

Related: SlowMist introduces Web3 security stack for autonomous AI agents

Advertisement

Hackers target Swedish and European infrastructure

Hackers are increasingly targeting public-facing cyber infrastructure throughout Sweden and Europe, warned threat intelligence platform Threat Landscape.

“This is not an isolated incident,” the platform said in a Thursday report.

“ByteToBreach is the same actor responsible for the Viking Line breach posted just one day prior, suggesting an ongoing campaign targeting Swedish and European infrastructure via CGI’s managed services footprint.”

Related: French couple robbed of $1M in Bitcoin by criminals posing as police

The threat actor claimed to have leaked the full source code of the e-government platform, sharing multiple supporting materials.

Advertisement
Leaked folders uploaded by threat actor ByteToBreach. Source: Threat Landscape

Threat-intelligence researchers said the exposure could still carry follow-on risk if attackers use the leaked code or documentation to identify weaknesses in public-facing systems, though the full contents of the dump have not been independently verified.

Magazine: Meet the onchain crypto detectives fighting crime better than the cops