Nonce Bitcoin Mining Company Data & Analytics

A negative value does not mean mining has no cost. It usually means the company discloses or calculates the metric on a net basis. Some mining companies receive power subsidies, demand response revenue, curtailment compensation, power resale revenue, or other power-related credits. If these credits exceed the actual electricity cost for the period, the calculated net electricity price or energy cost per bitcoin may become negative. For example: Net electricity price = electricity cost - power credits / electricity consumption. Energy cost per bitcoin = electricity cost - power credits / BTC mined during the period. If the credits exceed the electricity cost, the result will be below 0. A more accurate interpretation: under the disclosure methodology used for that quarter, power-related revenue or credits covered the cost. It does not mean machines operated with no cost, nor that the company can mine bitcoin at a negative cost over the long term.

Energy cost per bitcoin only includes costs directly related to electricity and energy. It can be understood as the electricity cost required to mine 1 BTC, typically including electricity expenses and energy procurement costs. In some cases it may also be affected by power subsidies, curtailment compensation, power resale revenue, and similar items. Cash cost per bitcoin has a broader scope, usually defined as the direct cash operating cost incurred to mine 1 BTC — in addition to electricity costs, it may include site operating expenses, hosting fees, repairs and maintenance, mining pool fees, on-site labor costs, insurance, or other direct production-related expenses. In general, cash cost per bitcoin is higher than energy cost per bitcoin because it includes more items. Disclosure methodologies vary by company: some classify certain expenses as hosting costs, some include them in production costs, others only disclose a broader mining cost figure. When comparing, check whether depreciation, impairment, stock-based compensation, corporate overhead, interest, taxes, and other non-mining costs are excluded.

Average operating hashrate is the average hashrate a mining company actually uses for mining over a specific period, typically expressed in EH/s. It reflects the hashrate that genuinely runs and continuously contributes to production during that period. It differs from deployed hashrate (machines deployed at sites and ready to come online) and installed hashrate (machines installed or connected to infrastructure) — those may not run stably throughout the entire quarter, affected by power energization progress, downtime for maintenance, power restrictions, demand response events, site migration, or miner commissioning. For quarterly comparisons, average operating hashrate is usually more meaningful because quarterly BTC production, electricity consumption, and cost per bitcoin all come from actual operations during the quarter. For example, if a company deploys many new miners in the final few days of a quarter, period-end deployed hashrate may rise significantly but those new miners contribute little to that quarter's production — looking only at deployed hashrate would overstate actual production capacity. Disclosure methodologies vary; when comparing miners, use average operating hashrate first whenever available.

Mining companies often disclose data using multiple methodologies, and different websites may choose different sources, calculation methods, or priorities.

Common differences include:

1. Different quarterly basis: calendar quarter vs the company's fiscal quarter. Where these diverge, the numbers diverge.
2. Different hashrate methodology: average operating vs period-end vs deployed vs energized vs target hashrate.
3. Different cost methodology: electricity-only cost vs electricity + hosting vs disclosed "average mining cost" or "cash cost".
4. Different treatment of power credits: subsidies, curtailment compensation, power resale revenue may or may not be deducted.
5. Different treatment of non-cash items: depreciation, impairment, stock-based compensation, BTC fair value changes can significantly affect cost per bitcoin.
6. Different source priority: financial reports vs monthly production updates vs investor presentations vs press releases vs subsequently revised data.

When two websites show different numbers it does not necessarily mean one is wrong — more often they use different methodologies. We specify the methodology in our data notes.

Mining company business structures and disclosure practices evolve, so the same company may not use one consistent metric methodology across years. Common reasons:

1. Business model changes: hosted ↔ self-mining, cloud hashrate, data-center expansion. Structure shifts → methodology shifts.
2. Mining asset changes: acquisitions, divestitures, JVs, relocations, expansions, or shutdowns affect hashrate, power and cost scope.
3. Disclosure habit changes: one year reporting "average operating hashrate", another only reporting "deployed" or "period-end".
4. Cost classification changes: different presentation of electricity, hosting, maintenance, depreciation can make year-over-year cost per bitcoin not directly comparable.
5. Industry environment changes: halvings, power restrictions, demand response, power-market shifts, accounting standards or regulatory requirements affect what companies emphasize in disclosure.
6. Subsequent restatements: annual reports or later quarterly materials may revise earlier metrics.

When integrating data we record source and methodology, not just the number.