During the week of February 20, 2026, East Eight Zone Time, the mining company Bitdeer (BTDR) announced the liquidation of its own Bitcoin holdings (excluding client custody), putting the chip choice of this round of mining companies in the spotlight. According to the company's disclosure, this week’s output of 189.8 BTC was all sold, and the overall proprietary position showed a net change of -943.1 BTC, which indicates that Bitdeer not only sold newly mined Bitcoin but also significantly utilized historical inventory. As Bitcoin enters a key stage before and after the halving, while most mining companies still regard "holding coins for long-term bullishness" as a strategic asset allocation, Bitdeer chose to convert chips into cash, raising a core conflict: Is it raising ammunition for the expansion window or lacking confidence in future market trends?
Viewpoint Division: Coin-Holding Miners vs. Cash-First Bitdeer
● Coin-holding stance: Several US-listed mining companies, including MARA and RIOT, have generally maintained a high proportion of Bitcoin retention over the past few cycles, viewing it as "gold on the balance sheet." By holding coins, they amplify asset net value elasticity during bull markets, while also serving as a narrative tool for dialogue with the capital market. This strategy essentially leverages electricity, mining machines, and time to make bullish Bitcoin bets. Short-term financial report profit fluctuations are larger, but the long-cycle return ceiling is also higher.
● Cash-first stance: Bitdeer's direct liquidation of its own Bitcoin positions during the week of February 20, 2026, and the sale of all 189.8 BTC produced this week, combined with a net change of -943.1 BTC, sends a strong signal prioritizing cash. The management framed this action as “preparing liquidity in advance is wise,” portraying itself as an operator proactively managing risk in a highly volatile industry, rather than as an asset speculator betting on coin prices.
● Investor divergence: Supporters believe that, facing high electricity and depreciation pressures before and after the halving, cash flow safety should take precedence over the exposure of book-value coins. They view Bitdeer's actions as a rational choice to avoid the historical lessons of the previous cycle's "mining company explosions." Critics worry that this sweeping liquidation implies a conservative expectation of the upward space for spot prices by management, which could even be seen as a "vote with their feet" against bullish Bitcoin, undermining the company's credibility as an industry participant.
Cash Impulses of Miners and Causal Entanglements of Industrial Expansion
● Cost and cycle resonance: Before and after the halving, miners face a typical mismatch of "income potentially halving while costs are rigid." Electricity, operations, depreciation, and financing interest are mostly denominated in fiat currency, while income is denominated in BTC and exposed to high volatility. Bitdeer's choice to liquidate 189.8 BTC weekly output + inventory at this time can be viewed as a preemptive reaction to this structural risk: prioritizing cash to avoid being dragged down by costs during price pullbacks.
● The invisible race for land and electricity: The expansion of mining companies is no longer just about "buying a few more mining machines," but rather a mid-to-long-term game focused on electricity prices and site resources. When quality land, substation capacity, and long-term electricity contracts present suitable price windows, what is needed is large, quickly accessible cash, rather than BTC positions with paper profits. Industry experience indicates that the pace of seizing these resources often leads the price cycle itself, making "hoarding cash" a natural choice for many operating management teams before the expansion window.
● Expansion scenario simulating: Without fabricating specific targets or amounts, it is reasonable to speculate on several types of opportunities that Bitdeer may target—investment in infrastructure and cooling systems for new parks, upfront payments for medium to long-term electricity contracts, and startup costs for cross-regional computing power layout. The commonality of these scenarios is that they entail significant up-front cash consumption and delayed returns, but once implemented, they will amplify computational scale and market share over the next few cycles, providing a higher "capacity ceiling" for subsequent price increases.
Deep Game: Is Liquidation a Hedge Against Risk or a Bet on the Future?
Bitdeer's choice lays bare the internal contradictions within the business model of mining companies: is it really a high Beta Bitcoin asset manager, or an infrastructure machine pursuing stable cash flow? Historically, many mining companies leveraged to purchase mining machines and financed with mortgaged Bitcoin during high price cycles, only to find themselves passively liquidated during significant price corrections, leaving behind lessons of stock prices being halved or even delisted. The sequence of Bitdeer's actions—"sell coins first, then discuss expansion"—clearly reflects a consideration of these cases, emphasizing the importance of demonstrating to shareholders and creditors that it can maintain a predictable cash flow curve behind high-volatility assets.
Weekly Net Reduction of 943 BTC: Bitdeer Exchanges Inventory for Certainty
● Not just selling new mines: Official disclosures indicate that the 189.8 BTC produced weekly were all sold, while this week’s proprietary holdings experienced a net change of -943.1 BTC, which on the surface translates to nearly a thousand BTC evaporating from the asset side and translating into an increase in cash. This differential indicates that Bitdeer did not simply execute a "sell as much as it's mined" hedge but actively disposed of a substantial amount of historical inventory, choosing to lock in a certain fund pool at current price levels.
● Reordering of liquidity priorities: In the statement, “preparing liquidity in advance is wise,” Bitdeer’s management actually provided an internal asset allocation order: short-term cash security > long-term Bitcoin bullish exposure. This order reflects a comprehensive judgment of the pressure on profitability shrinkage after the halving, rising electricity costs, and potential expansion expenditures. In this environment, the more BTC on the books, the greater the unhedged price risks, while the more cash, the stronger the ability to withstand cost volatility and expansion opportunities.
● Restructuring of the profit model: Under the aggressive monetization strategy, Bitdeer's future financial report structure may exhibit two characteristics. First, the impact of Bitcoin holding values' volatility on the profit and loss statement is compressed, making the company’s profits align more closely with the traditional infrastructure logic of “electricity arbitrage + operational efficiency”; second, during the expansion phase, depreciation and capital expenditures will become more prominent, diluting short-term profit margins but paving the way for subsequent increments in computing power. This will alter the market's pricing approach to Bitdeer's stock price Beta attribute, shifting from "following severe BTC volatility" to "being more sensitive to expansion pace and cost control."
Peers Not in a Rush to Sell: Why Bitdeer Diverges from Coin-Holding Consensus
● Industry standard practices: Leading mining companies like MARA and RIOT have repeatedly strengthened their binding to the Bitcoin bullish narrative through “high proportions of Bitcoin retention + timing disposals” in past cycles. The more coins they hold, the more apparent the balance sheet expansion during bull markets, combined with secondary market refinancing and capital increases, forming a positive feedback loop of "rising coin prices—holding positions appreciate—stock prices rise—refinancing expands capacity." This model has become the standard script for mining companies seeking high elastic valuations.
● Risk preferences behind strategic divergence: Unlike peers that tend to exchange Bitcoin price risks for valuation elasticity, Bitdeer’s choice to fully liquidate this time effectively cuts off the upper half of this positive feedback chain, transforming the company from a "high-leverage amplifier of coin prices" into "an industrial company utilizing coin price windows to replenish capital." This strategy is more suited to a shareholder structure with lower risk tolerance and greater sensitivity to cash returns and short-term stability, yet sacrifices the potential for valuation explosions in extreme bull markets.
● Cyclical game of holding coins vs. selling coins: In the current Bitcoin cycle, the elasticity of returns from the holding coins route mainly manifests as: if prices continue to soar next, the mining company’s book assets and stock prices will surge simultaneously, with the retreat risk being that once the cycle reverses, the balance sheets may drastically shrink, even leading to liquidity crises. The advantage of the selling coins route is that it significantly outsources the retreat risk to secondary market investors, positioning itself as a stable cash flow producer earning "electricity and operations margins." The downside is that when the bull market truly arrives, it can only share limited upside under an already locked cost structure.
● Two interpretations by the market: In the short term, some investors may interpret Bitdeer's liquidation as a latent pessimistic view on the spot market, believing that management is unwilling to continue betting on the upward space of Bitcoin with the balance sheet; likewise, some institutions may read this action as a signal of operational stability and risk control capability, especially after experiencing frequent liquidations in the last cycle, where managements that "sell coins at high points" are often more readily recognized by conservative capital. This divergence will directly reflect changes in Bitdeer's valuation premium/discount compared to other coin-holding mining companies.
From Mining Machines to Land: Hoarding Cash Munitions for Power Expansion
● Expansion is not just plugging in more mining machines: The current mining competition has gradually evolved from purely scaling computing power into a comprehensive race for electricity costs, site resources, and regulatory friendliness. Land acquisition, park infrastructure, cooling systems, substations, and long-term electricity pricing lock-ins constitute the physical boundaries of computing power expansion. Whoever can secure low-cost electricity and compliant sites at the right time can "print" more Bitcoin at a lower unit cost in future cycles.
● Leverage amplified cash demands: Industry experience shows that, once quality electricity and site opportunities emerge, mining companies often need to swiftly provide deposits, prepayments, or full payments to secure multi-year rights of use. Compared to financing based on BTC assets, having abundant cash available allows for better negotiating terms, reducing dependence on external financing conditions. This urgent need for cash will be further amplified during expansion windows, making the coin-holding strategy appear "slow" operationally.
● Bitdeer's possible calculations: Within the bounds of taboo information, we cannot confirm their specific land acquisition projects or financing terms, but from an industry logic perspective, Bitdeer is likely hoarding cash in advance to prepare for new park construction, the locking of electricity contracts, or the timing window for cross-regional layouts. Whether entering lower-cost energy regions or expanding in jurisdictions with more stable regulatory environments, it needs to free up sufficient cash space on the asset side first to earn a seat at the negotiation table.
● Opportunity costs and future market share: If future expansion can be successfully landed, the current sale of 943.1 BTC by Bitdeer in terms of "missed appreciation" on the books must be weighed against the enhancement in computing power and increased market share due to the expansion. In short, it is using a potentially smaller profit from a BTC price trend to exchange for lower unit costs and larger capacity bases across multiple future cycles— a complex exchange for mining companies regarding time dimension and risk preferences.
Mining Companies Sell While ETFs Buy: Two Forces Reshape Chip Structures
● ETFs continue to take the reins: In stark contrast to Bitdeer's liquidation, external financial institutions continued to buy Bitcoin during the same period. Research reports show that the Australian Monochrome Bitcoin ETF holdings have increased to 1248 BTC, indicating that within traditional financial frameworks, Bitcoin is still viewed as an allocable asset and is being introduced to more institutional and retail fund portfolios in a compliant manner.
● The picture of chip re-distribution: On one side, Bitdeer wipes out 943.1 BTC from its balance sheet this week, while on the other side, ETF holdings steadily rise, forming a typical “mining companies sell, institutions buy” scenario. Mining companies, acting as producers, release new output and inventory into the market, while ETFs, as financial intermediaries, absorb these chips and allocate them to more distributed secondary market investors, spreading the chips from highly concentrated industrial entities to financial institutions and ultimate investors.
● Different risk profiles of participants: Mining companies endure risks from electricity prices, equipment depreciation, and regulatory risks, whose exposure to Bitcoin prices can be partially transferred through coin sales; ETF investors bear more of the pure price fluctuations, with their holding periods and risk tolerances governed by product specifications and the attributes of their funding. They differ completely in cost structures and decision-making mechanisms. This difference means that when mining companies choose to reduce Bitcoin exposure, ETFs can take over the pricing risks without shouldering the operational risks of mining.
● Impact on prices, volatility, and pricing power: Structurally, reduced holdings by mining companies and increased holdings by ETFs create a form of "risk socialization" hedge—production end reduces direct exposures, while financial ends increase pricing power and held positions. In the short term, this may provide some support for spot prices through continuous ETF buy orders, but it might also amplify price volatility during episodes of redemptions. More importantly, as mining companies transfer their chips to financial products, the weight of "who decides" within the Bitcoin ecosystem is subtly shifting: from miners who control computing power, partially to asset management agencies that control capital entry.
A Statement on “Preparing Liquidity in Advance”: Bitdeer’s Risk Narrative
● Risk control framework behind the rhetoric: Bitdeer emphasizes in its announcement that “preparing liquidity in advance is wise.” On the surface, this explains the liquidation action, but in essence, it is a carefully devised risk narrative. It attempts to detach the sell-off behavior from "bearish Bitcoin" and transform it into a rational decision of "strengthening cash buffers before cycle transitions," thereby seeking a relatively neutral stance between community sentiment and the capital market, neither negating Bitcoin's long-term value nor invalidating short-term defensive postures.
● Shadows of historical explosions: Reviewing previous cycles, many mining companies faced cash exhaustion due to excessive leverage in purchasing machines, financing with mortgaged coins, or long-term inaction, leading to passive liquidations or even bankruptcies during price corrections, profoundly impacting shareholders, creditors, and the industry chain. These cases constitute a collective memory for the current generation of mining company management, pushing them to be more sensitive regarding leverage and liquidity thresholds in the new cycle. Bitdeer's liquidation choice undeniably carries this "having witnessed deep bear" conservative undertone.
● Signals to shareholders and creditors: For shareholders, Bitdeer shows through practical actions that it prioritizes operational safety and sustainable expansion over short-term book profit; for creditors and potential financing parties, this signals a commitment to "the company is willing to sacrifice some upward space when necessary to ensure payment capability and project advancement." This signal may guide funds to prefer engaging in debt, project trusts, and other forms instead of merely betting on stock prices fluctuating with BTC.
● Bitcoin-based or cash flow-based: Bitdeer's decision raises an open question: in an industry centered on high-volatility assets, should mining companies manage their balance sheets based on "Bitcoin standards" or anchor on "cash flow safety"? The former seeks to maximize asset appreciation alongside Bitcoin's rise in long cycles, while the latter emphasizes maintaining continuity in operations and expansion under any price environment. Different answers will shape entirely different business models and valuation frameworks, and clearly, Bitdeer's actions this week mark a significant step toward the latter.
After the Shift in Chip Ownership: The Mining Companies' Game and Financial Institutions' Rise
Bitdeer's liquidation and the Monochrome Bitcoin ETF expanding to 1248 BTC together sketch a clear stage pattern: miners proactively yield in the face of capacity and cost pressures, transferring more price risks and value-add space to financial institutions and end investors. This does not mean mining companies are fading from the Bitcoin ecosystem; rather, it could indicate a shift in their business model from "being bullish on coin prices" to "providing computing power and infrastructure," positioning themselves as foundational computing networks that support upper financial products.
In the future, woven with the triple forces of halving, regulation, and capital markets, mining companies may further polarize: on one end are "asset management-type miners" continuing to hoard coins intensively and be highly correlated with Bitcoin prices; on the other end are “infrastructure operators” focusing on electricity, parks, and data centers, participating in cycles with more robust cash flow logic. For investors in mining companies, it’s essential to rethink the real implications of "mining companies selling coins" for long-term market trends—it may not signify a denial of Bitcoin's long-term value but rather a reconstruction of their roles and risk exposures.
The next few key observation points will determine the direction of this narrative: First, whether Bitdeer's expansion in land, electricity, and parks comes to fruition as expected, and translates to sustained growth in computing power and revenue in future financial reports; Second, whether peer mining companies follow suit in reducing Bitcoin holdings or continue to adhere to coin-holding strategies, creating clearer valuation differentiation; Third, whether the continuous buying by ETFs like Monochrome has sustainability and whether large-scale redemptions may occur in different market environments, impacting spot prices and volatility. The transfer of chip ownership is just the beginning; the real game will slowly unfold in the long-term interactions between mining companies and financial institutions.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
