Bitcoin Miners' $90K Loss: Why the Death Spiral May Stall
The narrative surrounding Bitcoin miners “dumping” their holdings is a comforting simplification. Price declines, miners face financial strain, coins flood exchanges, and a single villain is easily identified. However, this story overlooks a crucial reality: miners aren't a monolithic entity, and selling pressure isn't merely a matter of sentiment. It's a complex equation of mathematics, contractual obligations, and deadlines. When stress arises, the critical question isn't whether miners *want* to sell, but whether they *have* to, and how much they can sell without jeopardizing their operations. This article delves into the intricacies of miner capitulation, analyzing the financial pressures, potential selling volumes, and the broader market implications.
Understanding All-In Sustaining Cost (AISC)
Thinking about a miner “capitulation” is best approached as a thought experiment. Imagine running a mining operation today, with the hashrate ribbon in inversion territory and the price trading below a rough, difficulty-based estimate for average all-in sustaining cost (AISC) – currently around $90,000. AISC is borrowed from the mining and commodities industries and is vital for determining operational viability. It’s not simply about keeping the machines running today, but ensuring the operation remains healthy enough to exist next quarter.
The Three Layers of AISC
Bitcoin miners' AISC can be broken down into three layers:
- Direct Operating Cash Costs: This includes electricity (the most significant expense), hosting fees, repairs, pool fees, network operations, and personnel costs.
- Sustaining Capital Expenditure (Capex): This isn't growth capex; it's the money spent to prevent the mining fleet from degrading. Fans fail, hashboards lose efficiency, containers rust, and the network’s difficulty increases. Maintaining competitiveness requires ongoing investment.
- Corporate Costs and Financing: Private operators focus on power and maintenance, while public miners with debt must consider interest payments, covenants, liquidity buffers, and refinancing options.
AISC isn’t a static number. It fluctuates with difficulty adjustments, fleet composition (older machines being replaced with newer ones), power environment changes (especially for those on spot pricing), and capital costs. This dynamic nature makes single-number debates about AISC largely unproductive.
Miner Holdings and Potential Selling Pressure
Currently, total miner holdings are estimated at around 50,000 BTC – a substantial amount, but not limitless. When the price dips below the average AISC estimate of ~$90,000, it doesn't mean the entire network is underwater. Instead, it signifies that a significant portion is facing discomfort. Some miners are fine, some are squeezed, and others are in crisis mode. The stress is real, but the response is uneven, preventing a simultaneous mass sell-off.
Miners have options beyond simply selling BTC. They can shut down less profitable machines, participate in demand response programs for grid payments, roll hedges, and renegotiate hosting terms. Furthermore, many miners are diversifying into AI data centers, providing a revenue buffer during periods of low mining profitability.
The Dump Math: Quantifying Potential Sales
Let's analyze the potential selling volume. Post-halving, new BTC issuance from the block subsidy is approximately 450 BTC per day, or 13,500 BTC per month. If miners sold 100% of new issuance, that would represent the maximum flow selling ceiling. However, miners don’t coordinate, and not all need to liquidate their entire output.
Adding inventory into the equation is where the headlines become concerning. Glassnode estimates miner holdings at around 50,000 BTC. Spreading this over time reveals the potential impact:
- 60 Days: 10% of inventory = 5,000 BTC (approximately 83 BTC/day)
- 90 Days: 30% of inventory = 15,000 BTC (approximately 167 BTC/day)
This outlines the basic shape of forced distribution: flow selling handles the majority, with inventory sales adding a smaller, but significant, amount unless stress becomes severe.
Price Scenarios and Potential Selling Volumes
Let's examine three price scenarios ($90,000, $80,000, $70,000) and corresponding miner behavior:
| Price (USD/BTC) | Horizon (days) | Issuance Sold (%) | Treasury Tap (%) | Issuance Sold (BTC) | Treasury Sold (BTC) | Total Sold (BTC) | Avg BTC/day | Avg USD/day | ETF Equiv @ $500M (BTC) | Miner vs ETF (BTC/day) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90,000 | 60 | 25% | 10% | 6,750 | 5,000 | 11,750 | 195.8 | 17,625,000 | 5,556 | 195.8 vs 5,556 |
| 90,000 | 60 | 25% | 30% | 6,750 | 15,000 | 21,750 | 362.5 | 32,625,000 | 5,556 | 362.5 vs 5,556 |
| 90,000 | 60 | 50% | 10% | 13,500 | 5,000 | 18,500 | 308.3 | 27,750,000 | 5,556 | 308.3 vs 5,556 |
| 90,000 | 60 | 50% | 30% | 13,500 | 15,000 | 28,500 | 475.0 | 42,750,000 | 5,556 | 475.0 vs 5,556 |
| 90,000 | 60 | 100% | 10% | 27,000 | 5,000 | 32,000 | 533.3 | 48,000,000 | 5,556 | 533.3 vs 5,556 |
| 90,000 | 60 | 100% | 30% | 27,000 | 15,000 | 42,000 | 700.0 | 63,000,000 | 5,556 | 700.0 vs 5,556 |
| 80,000 | 60 | 25% | 10% | 6,750 | 5,000 | 11,750 | 195.8 | 15,666,667 | 6,250 | 195.8 vs 6,250 |
| 80,000 | 60 | 25% | 30% | 6,750 | 15,000 | 21,750 | 362.5 | 29,000,000 | 6,250 | 362.5 vs 6,250 |
| 70,000 | 60 | 25% | 10% | 6,750 | 5,000 | 11,750 | 195.8 | 13,708,333 | 7,143 | 195.8 vs 7,143 |
These scenarios demonstrate that even in a severe stress case, miner selling, while impactful, is often comparable to the volume absorbed by ETFs. The market can typically digest these flows without a catastrophic price collapse.
Conclusion: A Nuanced Perspective
The narrative of miners triggering a Bitcoin death spiral is an oversimplification. While price declines below AISC create pressure, miners have levers to mitigate the impact. The actual selling volume is constrained by issuance rates and finite inventory. The key trigger for a more aggressive sell-off isn't simply a low price, but a situation where miners are forced to liquidate assets to meet financing obligations. Ultimately, the market’s reaction depends on the cadence of selling, the execution venue, and overall liquidity. Miners can contribute to downward pressure, but they don’t possess an infinite trapdoor under the price.
Disclaimer: The author of this article is invested and/or has an interest in one or more assets discussed in this post. CryptoSlate does not endorse any project or asset that may be mentioned or linked to in this article. Please take that into consideration when evaluating the content within this article.