Bitcoin’s economic design compels miners to minimize costs due to a halving stress-test every four years. Miners seek cheap energy, leading to two strategies: being in front of the meter (I.e., grid-tied) and being behind the meter (i.e., direct co-location with power generators).
The grid-tied model allows for economies of scale, as large-scale miners may obtain cheaper energy rates based on the load size they bring onto the grid, and participation in “Demand Response” and ancillary services, enabled by the interruptible nature of this type of compute.
The co-location model feeds on deadweight loss and mismatches between energy demand & supply, targeting intermittent renewables (e.g., solar & wind) and baseloads (e.g., hydro, nuclear, geothermal). Being behind the meter entails business models such vertical integration, partnerships, and joint ventures, enabling miners to engage in energy arbitrage and generating Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs).
You’re reading Crypto Long & Short, our weekly newsletter featuring insights, news and analysis for the professional investor. Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Wednesday.
Hashrate as a commodity
Bitcoin hashrate, the computational power securing the Bitcoin network, is emerging as a unique commodity with intriguing investment potential. Its fungibility, divisibility, durability, and scarcity make it an attractive asset class.
Hashrate offers investment opportunities for individuals to participate in Bitcoin mining without owning hardware. In addition, derivatives allow for hedging against price fluctuations, providing risk management tools for miners and investors. The value of hashrate is tied to the demand for Bitcoin mining, influenced by Bitcoin price and mining profitability, but is susceptible to regulatory challenges. Despite these challenges, Bitcoin hashrate presents a compelling case as a novel commodity with unique investment and trading opportunities. As the Bitcoin ecosystem evolves, the role and significance of hashrate as a tradable asset are likely to grow, attracting further attention and innovation within capital markets.
Hash price vs. Hash cost
Hash price and hash cost are key metrics influencing the Bitcoin mining landscape. While often confused, they represent distinct aspects of mining profitability.
Hash price, the price per unit of hashpower, reflects the current market value of mining power. It’s calculated by dividing the total daily mining revenue by the network hashrate. A higher hash price indicates greater profitability for miners.
Hash cost represents the cost of producing one unit of hashpower, encompassing expenses like electricity, hardware, and maintenance. A lower hashcost signifies a more efficient and profitable mining operation.
The difference between hash price and hash cost determines mining profitability. When hash price exceeds hash cost, miners reap profits. Conversely, when hash cost surpasses hash price, they operate at a loss. High hash price attracts more miners, increasing competition and potentially driving down hash price. Conversely, low hash price may discourage miners, leading to a decrease in network hashrate and potentially pushing hash price back up.
The availability of ASICs also has an impact on the relationship between hash price and hash cost. These mining machines and the current kW/h wholesale price of electricity drives network hashpower, which drives mining difficulty. Where ASICs aren’t readily available, hashpower becomes more valuable, and therefore the delta between hashprice and hashcost should expand, creating profitable opportunities for miners.
Understanding the relationship between hash price and hash cost is crucial for miners to make informed decisions. The delta between hash price and hash cost will also influence a miner’s ability to raise capital. Miners aim to lower hash cost for increased profitability, impacting their capital-raising ability. A smaller hash price-hash cost gap makes miners susceptible to Bitcoin price factors like energy costs and mining difficulty. Conversely, a larger gap suggests resilience. Lenders assessing loan risk will scrutinize this gap, pressuring inefficient miners seeking capital due to their preference for low-risk returns.
For example, Runes, a recently released way for Bitcoin to create non-fungible tokens, temporarily increased Bitcoin blockspace demand, leading to higher transaction fees and longer confirmation times. During this time, hash price futures were trading in Contango vs the spot price suggesting that the market had a high likelihood of increased future blockspace demand.
This situation prompted Bitcoin miners to sell hash price futures, locking in future revenue; that was a decision that proved prudent as blockspace demand cooled post-halving. The availability of hashrate linked products now also provides more financial data points to predict network events impact on blockspace demand and transaction fees.
Note: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CoinDesk, Inc. or its owners and affiliates.
