Everyone Is Leaving Bitcoin Mining Right Now. Here’s Why I’m Not.

--

When institutions exit and the headlines turn negative, the question worth asking isn’t whether they’re right. It’s what they’re optimizing for.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

The headlines are not wrong. Bitcoin miners are leaving.

Major publicly traded mining companies are selling Bitcoin, pivoting infrastructure to AI data centers, and redeploying capital toward higher-margin computing workloads. The logic is rational: block rewards keep shrinking after each halving, AI demand for power is surging, and the infrastructure miners built (warehouse-scale power, cooling systems, large footprint facilities) happen to be exactly what AI companies need right now.

So why am I still here?

That’s a question worth answering honestly, because it’s not a simple one. And I think the honest answer says something useful, not just about Bitcoin mining, but about how you decide what to stay committed to when the crowd is moving in the other direction.

What I’ve Learned From Watching Projects Die

My name is Martin Karus. I’m an Estonian entrepreneur living and travelling worldwide, co-founder of CoinSwapOfficial, and I’ve been involved in more than 15 blockchain and crypto projects over the past decade.

I’ve watched a lot of things get called the future. DeFi protocols that raised tens of millions and disappeared. Token projects with genuine community behind them that collapsed when the incentive structure broke. Networks that looked unassailable until they weren’t.

What I noticed, across all of those projects, is that the ones that failed had one thing in common: their value depended on the story staying true. The moment the narrative shifted, the moment the market moved to the next thing, the underlying structure had nothing left to stand on.

Bitcoin is different. Not because of the story around it. Because of what it is when you strip the story away entirely.

The Case for Staying

Bitcoin has operated continuously since January 2009. It has never had a successful 51% attack. It has never had its supply cap altered. Every halving has happened on schedule. The protocol has done exactly what it said it would do, for over fifteen years, without requiring any human being to behave well.

That last part is the point. I’ve been in enough businesses, across enough industries, to know how rare it is for a system to function independently of the people running it. Most systems depend on trust, on relationships, on someone staying honest when it’s inconvenient. Bitcoin doesn’t. The rules are in the code. They don’t negotiate.

Robert Kiyosaki: rich people acquire assets, everyone else acquires liabilities and thinks they’re assets.

I’ve made that mistake myself, more than once. What changed my thinking wasn’t reading about it, it was going bankrupt in 2016 and having to ask, with no comfortable answer available, what had I actually built? What survived the collapse?

Mining is how I participate in the infrastructure of a genuinely scarce asset. Not just hold it but help secure it. That distinction matters to me personally, after years of being inside structures where the infrastructure was the weak point.

On the AI Pivot

I want to be clear: the companies moving to AI are not making irrational decisions. They’re optimizing for margins, and their margins in mining are genuinely under pressure.

But there’s a question underneath that optimization that I don’t think gets asked enough: what happens to Bitcoin’s security model if the people most invested in its infrastructure keep leaving?

Bitcoin’s security depends on miners. Not on any single miner, the network is designed to survive defection, but on enough economic participants finding it worthwhile to keep running. The more infrastructure exits for greener pastures, the more concentrated the remaining hashrate becomes. Concentration is the one thing the network was explicitly designed to resist.

I’m not saying the sky is falling. Bitcoin has survived far worse. But the people staying in mining right now are providing something that doesn’t show up in the margin calculation: network health. And I believe that has value the market will eventually price correctly.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

The Problem With Half-Commitment

Here’s something I’ve observed across 15+ projects, and in my own career before crypto: the most dangerous position is not being wrong. It’s being half-committed to something you haven’t fully decided on.

Half-committed means you’re exposed to the downside of a position without ever accessing its upside. You put in enough to feel the pain when it goes against you, but not enough structure and conviction to hold when it matters. I’ve watched this pattern destroy more value than bad decisions ever did.

Grand Cardone puts it bluntly: “You can’t reach your potential by remaining uncertain.”

He’s talking about business, but the principle applies here exactly. The people exiting mining aren’t doing it because they’ve studied Bitcoin and concluded it’s worthless. Most of them are doing it because uncertainty about short-term margins is more uncomfortable than the clarity of a pivot. That’s a psychological decision dressed as a strategic one.

I’m not immune to that impulse. But I’ve learned the hard way, through a bankruptcy I wouldn’t wish on anyone, that clarity built on fundamentals outlasts confidence built on momentum. Every time.

What the Farm Taught Me About Cycles

I grew up on a farm in Estonia. One of the things you learn early, working close to the ground, is that cycles are not crises. Winter is not the failure of summer. The harvest slows, the fields go dormant, and people who don’t understand agriculture panic. People who do understand it use the quiet period to prepare.

I’ve seen this pattern repeat in crypto more times than I can count. The noise gets loudest at the inflection points. The exits happen right before the reversals. Not always. Not on any predictable schedule. But consistently enough that I’ve stopped treating the noise as signal.

The question I ask when everyone is leaving is not: are they right? It’s: what are they optimizing for, and is that the same thing I’m optimizing for?

For a mining company answering to quarterly shareholders, the AI pivot might be exactly right. For me, building with a longer horizon in mind, the calculation is different.

The Honest Answer

Here’s what I actually believe, stated plainly:

The economics are under real pressure. Anyone entering this space right now needs to understand what they’re getting into and have a cost structure that allows them to survive a prolonged difficult period.

And: Bitcoin is still the only financial system I’ve encountered that has a fixed rule no human authority can change. That rule “21 million”, never more, is the most consequential design decision in modern financial history. The companies pivoting to AI don’t disagree with that. They’re just focused on a different timeframe.

If you’re watching the mining sector right now and trying to decide what it means, here’s the frame I’d offer: the people leaving are making a margin decision. The people staying are making a conviction decision. Both can be rational. They’re just not the same decision.

I know which one I’m making.

The exits are noted. The reasoning is understood. The position stands.