Key Takeaway:
- Paradigm argues Bitcoin mining and AI data centers are distinct energy markets.
- Miners pursue cheap or stranded power and curtail quickly to balance grids.
- AI workloads earn far higher revenue per megawatt, shaping divergent strategies.
Paradigm has challenged policymaker narratives that conflate the AI data center boom with Bitcoin mining’s energy profile. According to Paradigm in February 2026, these are distinct markets with different load shapes, incentives, and grid interactions.
The firm’s analysis argues miners gravitate toward cheap, abundant, or otherwise stranded electricity and can curtail quickly to balance the system. It contends that broad claims about mining usage without context obscure how flexible-load participation may ease volatility rather than amplify it. The report stresses that concerns about data center growth should not be projected onto mining by default.
As reported by CoinDesk on Feb. 13, 2026, the intervention arrives amid U.S. policy pushback targeting miners. In parallel coverage, executives from companies such as CleanSpark and TeraWulf emphasized that electricity pricing has become the decisive margin driver as network difficulty rises and halving effects compress revenue.
Data Center Knowledge has noted that AI workloads can produce materially higher revenue per megawatt, reported up to roughly 25× more than Bitcoin mining, helping explain why some miners are evaluating hybrid or conversion strategies. That differential, if durable, underscores the economic distinctions between mine sites and AI facilities.
Demand response, in plain terms, is when large power users are compensated to reduce consumption during grid stress. Curtailment is a temporary, often automated, shutdown to free up capacity when prices spike or supply tightens.
Bitcoin miners are suited for these programs because hashing can pause without physical spoilage, allowing loads to ramp down within minutes. By contrast, AI inference and training clusters are engineered for high availability and predictable throughput, making them less flexible and more always-on. Local grid rules, interconnection terms, and emissions profiles still determine whether curtailment is beneficial in a given location.
Institutional commentary also tracks how miners respond to these pressures by marketing data center capacity to AI clients. Zach Pandl, Head of Research at Grayscale Investments, described recent AI co-location agreements as “the best contract we have seen so far,” while flagging risks from declining hash prices and capital intensity.
At the time of this writing, sector pressures are visible in listed miners. As reported by Zacks Equity Research on Feb. 9, 2026, Marathon Digital Holdings closed at $8.06, down 2.18% on the day and 19.37% over the month, lagging major indices; consensus pointed to negative EPS alongside higher year-on-year revenue. These figures reflect how power costs, difficulty, and capital cycles intersect with grid participation and diversification choices.
Taken together, claims that mining stabilizes grids may hold in structured demand response markets, but outcomes remain program- and site-specific. Policymakers evaluating data center growth could distinguish flexible mining loads from inelastic AI compute when assessing grid risk.
Disclaimer:
Coinwy provides news and informational content related to cryptocurrency and digital assets. The information published on this site is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry significant risk. Always conduct your own research and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any financial decisions.
