Good morning, and welcome to Hut 8's first quarter 2026 financial results conference call. Joining us today are CEO Asher Genoot and our CFO Sean Glennan.

Following the presentation, we will open the line for questions. This event is being recorded, and a transcript will be made available on our website.

In addition to the press release issued earlier today, our full quarterly report on Form 10-Q is available at hut8.com, on our EDGAR profile at sec.gov, and on our SEDAR+ profile at sedarplus.ca. Unless otherwise indicated, all figures discussed today are in US dollars.

Certain statements made during this call may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities laws. These statements reflect current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to occur materially.

Certain key risks are detailed in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, and our other continuous disclosure documents. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements.

During the call, management may reference non-GAAP measures such as adjusted EBITDA. We believe these metrics, alongside GAAP results, provide valuable insight into our performance.

Reconciliations of GAAP and non-GAAP results are included in the tables accompanying today's press release available on our website. We will begin with a moderated Q&A session with our CEO Asher Genoot, followed by a detailed financial review from our CFO Sean Glennan.

Let's get started. Asher, before we get into the quarter, I wanted to start with something more fundamental.

There are several companies building data center infrastructure right now. Hut 8 is clearly doing something different.

How do you think about what this company is and what we're building?

I'll start with thanking everyone for joining the call today. Really appreciate you all for spending this morning with us and continuing to follow our journey.

As we think about Hut 8, we think about Hut 8 as building the foundational infrastructure layer for one of the most important technology shifts in our lifetime. It starts with power.

Power is the scarce resource. Those who control access to power will ultimately shape the industry.

Most start with building and working backwards, but we always started with power and build forward. Second, we position ourselves as partners, not a vendor.

In traditional data centers, long-term triple-net leases with investment-grade counterparties are pretty standard. As a new entrant, we've been able to execute this structure across our first two transactions, and that speaks to how our counterparties view our assets and our approach, and our partnership long-term.

Zooming out, as energy demand continues to grow alongside compute and AI, the data supports that. The companies best positioned are at the intersection of power, infrastructure, and compute, and they will capture outsized value.

We believe Hut 8 is one of those companies.

Let's talk about what has been built over the last two years to support that vision. You've fundamentally restructured the business.

What were the deliberate decisions behind that, and why do they matter now?

Over the last two years, we focused on restructuring the business with a clear goal: build a disciplined, endurable platform. The outcomes right now are visible.

We went from under 10% institutional ownership to over 70% as of year-end 2025. When I took over as CEO on February 7th, 2024, we were at $6.77 on our stock price, we've had over 1,000% appreciation in the last two years as of May 4th.

More important than the outcome is the discipline behind it. First, we simplified and focused the business.

We carved out the Bitcoin business into American Bitcoin, and that is trading on its own under the ticker ABTC. We divested our power generation assets because we wanted to bring that team to focus on vertically integrated power and digital infrastructure assets.

This shows that we're willing to exit what is good to stay focused on what can be great. Second, we rebuilt the balance sheet from the ground up.

We're now operating from a position of real financial strength. Our only parent recourse debt is the Coatue convertible note.

The note is deeply in the money and is mandatory redeemable as soon as next month, subject to certain conditions. Excluding the Coatue convertible note, our remaining debt is structured at the asset level, not the parent.

All of our existing debt is non-recourse to the parent. The TZRC note with NextEra at King Mountain is serviced by those cash flows of the JV and recourse by the equity interest in that.

The FalconX facility that we recently just refinanced from Coinbase is only secured against 3,690 Bitcoin. Then the recent data center bond financing we did at River Bend is non-recourse, but backed by contractual investment-grade cash flows.

This shows the strength of each of our assets that we own and develop to be able to stand on their own merits without the parent having to back them. That structure gives us true optionality.

With the balance sheet flexibility and the capacity, we can be a buyer when others are sellers, and we can finance growth in ways that are minimally dilutive to shareholders. At the core, everything we've done over the last two years has been about building flexibility and positioning the company to capture value as the market scales.

We recently announced the commercialization of the first phase of our 1 gigawatt Beacon Point AI data center campus. Walk us through the key terms of the transaction and what this deal says about Hut 8.

Pretty recent, a couple hours ago. We'll dive into it.

Beacon Point is another example of the program we're building, and we shared that when we announced River Bend, that we're building a program, we weren't just announcing a deal. It follows the same structure we established with River Bend: power-first underwriting, long-duration investment-grade contracts, and a partnership-driven execution model.

I'm sure as you look through the documents, both the press release and also the deck—it's a little harder to go and find on our website, I've just told our comms team—but I'm sure you'll see the consistency in how we structure these transactions. Starting with the key terms: 15 years, triple-net lease, 352 megawatts of IT capacity, which is 500 megawatts of utility capacity.

It's a high investment-grade counterparty, $9.8 billion of expected base term contract value, inclusive of a 3% annual escalator, and with three 5-year renewal options, which brings the potential contract value to over $25 billion. This is Phase 1 of a gigawatt campus, with roughly half the campus still available for future commercialization.

The transaction is anchored in contracted investment-grade cash flows. That creates durability in the base case scenario.

Beacon Point exists because of how we underwrite power. We start with power first, we design flexibility into the site from the beginning, and we do not underwrite around only one customer, one architecture, or one end market.

The site was originally underwritten on a speed-to-power thesis, and that's why our relationship with ABTC is so valuable. It gave us a real demand path and economics use case even before we had an AI customer finalized, because the question was: would an AI customer go into this location?

We were comfortable moving forward with the development of the project because we knew we had another demand and use case. We didn't have to take speculative risk and were able to develop, and I think that creates an edge that we talked about when we first spun out ABTC, but this is a perfect case study of it actually becoming a reality.

The flexibility really mattered. This site where it was developed is in a market where many believed large-scale data centers couldn't be developed, and not a single developer I think could have done kind of what we did in the risk-free manner that we did it.

Our development model then created value in two phases. First, as an AI demand accelerator, we repositioned the site for AI infrastructure.

Originally when we designed the site, the actual piece of land was 224 megawatts of IT capacity. Later we identified opportunities, and as you will all see in our deck, Nvidia is our design and technology partner on this project.

We were able to redesign the facility for next-generation chip architecture, and we took it. That redesign created meaningful value.

The IT capacity went from 224 to 352 megawatts, achieved within the same land and utility footprint, and it increased base term contract value by $3.6 billion, from $6.2 billion to $9.8 billion. That was all done within kind of the last couple months of this quarter.

The broader takeaway is repeatability. This is the second AI data center campus we've commercialized under our power-first greenfield development model.

Greenfield development is harder, takes longer, and requires deeper capability than just converting our existing facilities. We have yet to convert a single facility.

All that is is capacity that's available and opportunistic as well. Doing it twice I hope shows repeatability.

Doing it greenfield twice shows differentiation. Diversity matters as much as scale.

Our model is not dependent on any single tenant or relationship. It's not dependent on any single chip architecture or manufacturer, and it's not dependent on any single market or energy ISO.

The conclusion is simple: we've built a program, a program compounds, and Beacon Point is a clear example of how our power-first model creates value across multiple phases of development.

Subsequent to quarter-end, we also closed $3.25 billion of investment-grade senior secured notes for River Bend. Walk us through what this financing means and why the structure matters.

At a high level, the financing is viewed as a first-of-its-kind in our sector. It provided institutional validation of our development program, it removed refinancing risk, it fully funded the project, and it allowed us to pull equity out at closing, improving our capital efficiency and supporting non-dilutive growth.

This is institutional validation of our entire development program. The investment-grade rating on a construction-stage data center bond are rarely achieved, and the agencies validated the project, and the rating we achieved validates the program that produces these assets.

This is also the first investment-grade construction bond issued for a single-sponsor data center project, and we think that that speaks volumes to how the institutional market views what we're building. The structure eliminates refinancing risk.

We spent a lot of time thinking about that, because a lot of the deals we've seen are 3 to 5 years, that then you would have to go out to the market and refinance. We secured a 16.5-year, fully amortizing tenure aligned with the construction period and the 15-year lease term.

The notes fully amortize, and we do not expect to return to the capital markets to refinance. We believe refinancing risk is one of the most consequential risks in a long-duration infrastructure project, and we had an opportunity and we took that opportunity to fully remove it.

The structure is highly capital efficient. Equity came back at closing.

The project is fully funded with no incremental equity contributions expected. We recovered $184 million of deployed equity at closing last week when it got funded on Thursday.

That capital can now be redeployed into additional growth initiatives. Importantly, this reflects how we manage risk development.

We are disciplined and do not take significant speculative risk. The majority of our equity was invested after lease execution in December.

Only 2.5% of the total investment was deployed prior to lease signing. That goes to how light we are in terms of our risk capital as we're developing these projects.

There's also potential for additional upside. If construction comes in below current estimates, then the surplus proceeds can flow back to Hut 8, which is additional non-dilutive capital.

This establishes a repeatable, non-recourse, and non-dilutive growth model. The structure is non-recourse to Hut 8 and non-dilutive to our shareholders.

It creates a template we believe we can apply to future projects. We saw strong institutional demand.

The offering was multiple times oversubscribed, and it's trading well in the aftermarket. We believe that that establishes as a credible repeat issuer in the investment-grade credit markets.

The takeaway is this: that this was more than a one-time financing event, and it represents a structural milestone for the business, validating our model, strengthening our balance sheet, and positioning us to scale in a disciplined manner.

Now we have a significant contracted revenue base, a first-of-its-kind financing model, and an investment-grade tenant base. What does this combination produce in terms of the financial profile for the business?

When you put those pieces together—contracted revenue, investment-grade counterparties, two not one, and long-duration financing—what you get is a fundamentally different financial profile. First, the earnings quality is very high.

Approximately $16.8 billion of contracted revenue is expected to flow through as NOI over the initial 15-year terms of the two leases. Under the triple-net structure, the tenant is responsible for operating expenses, taxes, insurance; we collect the rent.

These cash flows are backed by high investment-grade counterparties on a take-or-pay structure. Second, the cash flows are durable and predictable: long-term contracts with built-in escalators, no exposure to short-term commodity or power price volatility, and no reliance on continuous releasing or repricing.

Third, the equity return profile is compelling. The contracted portfolio is expected to generate approximately $1.1 billion of annual NOI.

This is high-quality, reoccurring NOI tied to long-duration infrastructure assets. The key takeaway is that we have transitioned the business from a more volatile, operating-heavy model to a contracted infrastructure-like model with high visibility and strong margins.

Investors will want to know if Hut 8 can execute once a deal is signed. How do you think about derisking delivery, and what gives you confidence in the execution model?

The answer is that we've designed the model to derisk execution from day one, and that was a bit of my paranoid nature. First, our investment-grade rating during construction for the financing speaks for itself.

The initial rating reflects confidence and not only the underlying lease, but also in our ability to deliver during the construction phase. We built the program to reduce execution risk, and the ratings we achieved validates that approach.

What we've seen is a sub-investment-grade rating during construction that potentially has the ability to upgrade. What we saw was we were investment grade day one, and S&P even pointed out that they expect to be upgraded as well post-construction.

Second, we've brought in best-in-class partners to execute. Jacobs and Rozendin are among the two strongest operators in the sector.

100% of long-lead-time equipment is ordered, and all major contracts are signed for both campuses. Every partner has contractual delivery obligations, and the structures aligned between everybody.

Third, we've built accountability deep into the organization. Unlike traditional models that rely on generalist project managers, we've created principals with direct ownership over discrete parts of the project.

That creates clarity, speed, and accountability at every layer. Fourth, we set conservative timelines.

We're targeting Q2 '27 for the initial data hall delivery at River Bend. Our approach is to underpromise and to overdeliver.

Finally, we've built a track record. We have built approximately a gigawatt of energy infrastructure historically before these two deals.

We did that on our own, without GCs. We self-GC'd, we self-managed with subcontractors.

That proves I think our capabilities, which are only strengthened by the addition of partners, capital, financing sophistication that we have today that we didn't have back then. The takeaway is that execution is something we actively design out of the system, and that execution risk we remove out of the system as we design the program.

We do that through structure, we do that through partners and discipline.

After we announced our River Bend transaction, investors asked if our model was repeatable. After Beacon Point, investors must wonder if deal quality will hold as we scale.

How do you answer that?

Look, I get it. The question has evolved, right?

After River Bend, everyone asks: is this repeatable? Is this a one-time thing?

We heard a lot of news of this can't happen again. Beacon Point, we just did it again at a bigger scale.

Now I think the question is going to be: can we maintain deal quality as we continue to scale? I think the first part of that is already answered.

Within 5 months, we've delivered a new data center lease supported by 352 megawatts of incremental contracted IT capacity. I think that demonstrates that our model can scale.

Now the real question is quality, not volume. Our response is a bit more structural.

We're not competing for generic hyperscale demand. We're competing for customers who need a partner with power origination, execution capabilities, and financial sophistication.

As power becomes more scarce, those customers have fewer credible options, and we believe that that increases the value of a developer who they trust and who can actually deliver. That dynamic supports deal quality.

A longtime hyperscale operator put it to me pretty simply. He said, "Look, the data center cost is relatively small compared to the overall economics of the compute."

His team was like, "Oh no, don't say that! How could you be saying that?"

He said, "Look, the real risk is in execution. The real risk is in delay, it's not in price."

He said, "If a deployment is delayed, I have tens of billions of dollars of chips sitting idle." If we can become a reliable partner to them, we can expect to continue to earn fair economics for delivering the value that we drive and the confidence that we give to them.

The supply of developers who can meet that bar is limited, and it's getting smaller as complexity increases. We expect that to continue to work in our favor.

Our advantage is that we operate across the full infrastructure stack: the power layer, the digital infrastructure layer, and the compute layer. We're not just delivering a building; we're delivering the ability to produce tokens efficiently.

Ultimately, what matters most long term is cost per token on a fully depreciated and amortized basis, which is driven by power, data center infrastructure, and compute efficiency. We have capabilities across all three layers.

Power—and so that includes owning and operating power infrastructure. We owned four natural gas power plants totaling 310 megawatts.

We just sold that in Q1 of this year. We've built competitive data center capacity, as you've all seen throughout our last two deals that we've announced.

Through Highrise, our wholly owned subsidiary—Highrise is our neocloud, it's like a CoreWeave-like competitor developing technologies that can improve compute efficiency. The takeaway is that scale does not dilute quality in our model; if anything, it reinforces it, because the number of groups that can do what we're doing is limited and shrinking.

Where are you investing internally to make sure the organization can keep pace with the opportunity?

Easy: it all starts with people. The organization is the system that determines whether we can scale.

I had a conversation with another senior leader at an AI frontier lab, and he said building a great company is less like hiring for someone who's trying to join a job, it's more about people who want to join something that feels like a religion. I really resonated with that.

We're not just looking for pedigree; we're looking for builders, people who are passionate, people who want to come in every day and put in their all to go build something bigger than themselves. We want people who want ownership, who want to solve hard problems, and who are all in on what we're doing.

We're investing in two very specific types of talent that drive commercial outcomes. First, developers with deep power expertise who start with: what is the power situation?

How do we solve it? Not just: can we build a data center here?

Second, full value chain thinkers, people who understand that a customer's objective is not megawatts, but cost per token, and can optimize across power, infrastructure, and compute. The Beacon Point redesign is a direct example of what that talent enabled.

We increased contract value within the same footprint while reducing cost per token, and that is what I think drives repeat business, that innovation and those discussions with the tenant of being able to be thought partners with them in driving the best outcomes, and us driving some of those design decisions. We've also been very deliberate in how we structure teams.

We do not think in terms of traditional functions. I'll give you an example.

I got super deep into the operations of the business in Q3 of last year. We had two of our main guys get poached by xAI, and they left, and we're like, "All right, I'm rolling up my sleeves."

I remember Sean came in, he's like, "I've heard about you in founder mode, I've never actually seen it. This is pretty cool to see."

We had a procurement team at the time, and I said, "How do we go and think about procurement?" They're like, "Well, we have this equipment that we get from the design and engineers, we go, we price it out, and we get the price that comes back."

I was like, "That's fundamentally flawed. That doesn't work.

We need to understand how much every single piece of equipment costs to manufacture, what raw material costs, what labor costs are, what the sourcing of that timing is. Then by taking that first-principles approach, we can go to vendors and say, 'Look, this is what we believe the cost basis is.

This is what we believe if we vertically integrated everything from transformers to PDUs to switchboards, this is what it would cost. We think this is a fair margin, and this is how we should operate together as we go forward and as we move forward.'"

And that type of first-principles approach fundamentally changes how we operate. Today, I have a former Bain consultant who's a chemical engineer that has never done procurement and supply chain negotiating some of the largest deals in the industry and I think getting some of the best pricing, best lead times.

I think that's because we bring in raw intellect and talent and hunger for a mission, and we give them the ability to go solve problems, and they take a very different approach to solving those problems. I think that's what differentiates us and delivers.

Finally, we think about all this as growth investment. That's very, very important.

I have our team split out SG&A from growth SG&A to maintenance SG&A, because we're investing capabilities that we believe will allow us to originate and execute next-generation projects. We track that discipline closely to ensure that that spend is tied to growth and value creation rather than servicing our current obligations.

The way that I think about it is we need way less people at our organization today if we want to just maintenance these first two contracts. All of this investment we're putting in is how do we continue to scale and continue to grow and compound on this platform.

The takeaway is simple: scaling the business is not just about capital or assets; it's about building a team that is deeply committed to a mission and capable of executing at a very, very high level.

For the investor who's genuinely trying to stress-test the thesis, what would you ask yourself about Hut 8, and how do you answer those questions?

The first thing we think about is execution. It's a privilege that customers trust us to build the infrastructure that underpins their compute.

When we sign a lease, we're taking on a real obligation to deliver. When we deliver, we build trust, and that trust compounds over time.

That's why we're very focused on sustainable growth, not just growth for its own sake, but growth that we can actually execute on for our partners. In many cases, we're more focused on setting the right expectations than just maximizing near-term volume.

We would rather be clear about what we cannot do than deliver above expectations than just overpromise to try to get a lease signed. We've also structured the business to support that: conservative timelines, contractual delivery obligations with partners like Jacobs and Rozendin that mirror our customer commitments, and a track record of delivering hundreds of megawatts on time.

When I speak to some of our partners, they're like, "Oh, go more aggressively, go sign more deals." We've walked away from deals that we don't think that we will be able to compound over time, because when we fast-forward 10 years, building a great business is going to be about building trust with some of the key counterparties that we believe have the credit that can stand behind these agreements at this time and being able to grow with them.

The second thing we think about is macro, and specifically around AI demand. Personally, I believe that we're still fairly early in the AI adoption curve, and our company is an example of that.

We're diving deep into how AI is going to transform our business, but we're still very early. When running the business, I spend a lot more time asking: what happens if I'm wrong?

That's why our contracts are long-duration, 15-year, triple-net structures with high investment-grade counterparties that have diversified revenue streams and no termination for convenience. Just so we kind of clear the air, high investment-grade counterparties means AA- or higher, because we had a whole debate about that internally when we were trying to figure out what's the best way to talk about customers and give investors confidence without actually giving tenant names so we can keep confidentiality and continue to execute.

The goal is that we're disciplined in how we deploy capital. We don't take significant risk ahead of securing a customer.

The goal is to ensure that even if demand or capital availability were to slow materially, we're still in a position of strength. What I say is if the music stops singing overnight, I want to be completely confident in where we are, what our risk capital is out the door, and be okay with that, and hopefully be in a position of strength to be able to acquire assets at that time were to ever come.

Again, personally, I believe demand and compute will scale faster and faster as more adoption happens, but as a leader of this business, we constantly think about all the decisions we make and what if the music stops singing, and how much strength do we have at that moment in time to be able to compound in growth. In 2022, when a lot of our peers were going through bankruptcies and restructuring, we went from 60 megawatts to over 600 megawatts in less than 3 months because we had the balance sheet, we seized the opportunity, the operational capabilities, and we scaled.

The takeaway is that we're building the business to work in both scenarios. If demand continues to accelerate, we are positioned to scale.

If it does not, we are protected by credit, by structure, contracts, and discipline.

With River Bend under construction, the Beacon Point lease signed and upsized, and an 8.4 gigawatt development pipeline, how do you think about priorities for the rest of the year?

Two words: our priorities are execution and scale. On execution, River Bend is continuing to advance construction toward our Q2 '27 delivery target for the initial data hall.

Beacon Point, we've moved from lease signing to full execution mode. These are large, complex projects, and delivering them well is the foundation for everything else.

On scale, we're continuing to advance our 8.4 gigawatts of development pipeline. The focus is converting that pipeline into contracted, high-quality opportunities over time.

For investors, there are three things to watch to track our progress. First, delivery execution: delivering projects on time.

Second, deal quality: credit quality of counterparties and the economic structure of new contracts. Third, balance sheet discipline: how we finance projects, how we think about parent-level balance sheet and debt, and whether we continue to scale in a minimally dilutive, capital-efficient way.

The takeaway is that the strategy is straightforward: execute on what we have signed and scale the platform in a disciplined way.

Last question: as you look back on the quarter and your tenure as CEO, what do you want investors to take away from today?

When I took over the role two years ago, we made a set of very clear bets: power-first development—people didn't understand it at the time, now everyone's talking about it; partnership over volume; and balance sheet discipline over growth at all costs. We believe those bets have paid off.

What I want investors to understand is that this is just the beginning. What we have accomplished to date is the foundation, not the end state.

We have proven the model, we have validated the strategy, and we have built the platform, but we're still in the early innings. The opportunity in front of us is to build a generational business at the intersection of power and technology, and everything we are doing is focused on enabling us to scale that platform in a disciplined way.

Thank you, Asher. Sean, let's turn to the financials, starting at the top.

Revenue and margins both increased significantly, yet we posted a net loss. Walk us through how those three dynamics reconcile.

Thanks, Bryan. It's really a function of two things.

First, I want to point out the underlying operating performance of the business strengthened materially, and it was really unrealized mark-to-market losses on digital assets that drove the headline numbers. Diving into the numbers a little bit, the net loss of $253.1 million and adjusted EBITDA loss of $250.5 million for the quarter were driven primarily by those unrealized mark-to-market adjustments on digital assets, both at Hut 8 and through the consolidation of American Bitcoin.

However, from a more operational perspective, revenue grew approximately 226% year-over-year to $71 million, driven primarily by our compute segment, and gross margins expanded to approximately 64% from 14% in the prior year. All of this reflects enhanced operating leverage as we continue to scale the business.

Let's turn to segment-level results. Power segment revenue was down year-over-year after the sale of our power generation portfolio, but margins improved.

What drove that divergence?

I'll dive into the numbers. Power revenue was $3.7 million versus $4.4 million in the prior-year period, and segment margins improved to approximately 44%.

The decline in revenue really reflects the sale of our Far North portfolio in February 2026 versus a full quarter in the prior year. Similarly, on the cost of revenue side, with a decline of $1.5 million, primarily driven by $1.8 million of lower electricity sales due to that Far North divestiture.

This is all partially offset by a $300,000 increase in managed services. I think that misses the important story here, though.

What the story here is less around quarter-over-quarter financials in the power segment and more around our ability to purchase an asset out of bankruptcy, improve its operational and commercial structure, and ultimately sell it to one of the premier Canadian IPPs. This is demonstrative of our focus on continuous improvement, shareholder value creation, and deep power expertise.

A lot of data center companies now call themselves power-first. For us, this is not a marketing quip; it is fundamental, real, and backed by results like this.

Digital infrastructure segment revenue was flat year-over-year. With River Bend and Beacon Point Phase 1 now commercialized, when should investors expect this to change?

Sure. Digital infrastructure segment revenue was $1.3 million, which is consistent with the prior-year period.

Cost of revenue was also stable year-over-year. However, again, going to the real story here, beginning in Q2 2027, as the data halls at River Bend and Beacon Point Phase 1 are expected to come online, we expect this segment to become our primary growth driver, with contribution scaling materially contracted, investment-grade-backed cash flows over time.

Can you walk us through the results in the compute segment, where there was substantial growth?

Segment revenue more than tripled to approximately $66 million from $16.1 million, with segment margins expanding to approximately 67% from 16% in the prior-year period. Those are pretty substantial numbers.

This growth was driven by improved uptime following a fleet upgrade completed in 2025 at our Salt Creek and Medicine Hat facilities, as well as the commencement of operations at Vega in the middle of 2025. All of these drove total quarterly Bitcoin mining from 135 to 817 year-over-year.

This was partially offset by a decrease in average revenue per Bitcoin mined from approximately $91,512 to $76,077. Overall cost growth was moderate relative to revenue.

Let's shift now from operating results to how we're capitalizing our next phase of growth. We closed the financing of our River Bend project after quarter-end.

What are the key terms, and how did we achieve this outcome?

Key terms of the deal are very clear, and they're the following: $3.25 billion financing of 16.5-year, fully amortizing senior notes at approximately 95% loan-to-cost at a 6.192% coupon. The bonds are non-callable for life, with BBB- investment-grade ratings from S&P and Fitch.

This allowed us to recycle, as Asher mentioned before, $184 million of previously invested equity back into the company to support future growth. There are a few features we really liked about the bonds.

The fully amortizing 16.5-year structure eliminates refinancing exposure post-construction. The structure also preserves our ability to add incremental leverage at stabilization if it's something that we want to do.

It has a covenant-lite structure that provides flexibility to us, and at 95% loan-to-cost, we're able to recycle capital out of the project and into the business. Lastly, we're able to offset a lot of the negative carry from interest during construction with interest income.

I think those are all facets of the deal that we really liked. We spent a lot of time on it, and I'm incredibly proud of the team that delivered on it.

I want to make sure that they get a shout-out, because they worked incredibly hard to deliver this. How did we achieve this?

It all starts with first principles and adaptability. When we started out looking at the financing of River Bend, initial discussions contemplated a construction loan at approximately 85% loan-to-cost and SOFR plus 225.

We later improved this to approximately 90% loan-to-cost at SOFR plus 240. However, as new credit markets opened and investor demand for data center exposure grew, alternative paths, notably in the high-yield and investment-grade markets, allowed us to execute a deal that checked a lot of boxes for us at River Bend.

This really gets to that adaptability, first principles. We didn't just look, "This is what other people are doing, we need to do that."

It was start with the asset and give it the financing that it deserves, and that's fundamentally how we think about everything in the business. This reflects a disciplined approach as well to capital markets execution.

We don't stop at the first attractive option. We just kept running the process until we're confidently secured what we believe were the best results for our company, our customers, our shareholders, and now probably our bondholders.

Bondholders were very happy to introduce into the Hut 8 complex and family. As we continue to commercialize additional sites, we'll maintain this rigor, examining all options and deciding on the best path for that asset given its specific attributes and the state of the capital markets at any point in time.

Beacon Point is now commercialized. How should investors think about our financing approach for this project?

At River Bend, the objective was the most accretive and efficient financing structure for that asset. We will bring that same exact standard to Beacon Point.

Emerging market conditions could shape the optimal structure, but the first-principles thinking will hold. One tenant that will remain intact at Beacon Point, however, is prioritizing a structure that is non-recourse to the parent at Hut 8.

After quarter-end, we also strengthened our balance sheet through the refinancing of our Bitcoin-backed credit facility with FalconX. What are some of the key terms, and how does this transaction advance our broader capital strategy?

The key terms are the following: we refinanced our $200 million Coinbase facility into a new 364-day note with FalconX. The coupon of 7% is down from 9% under the prior Coinbase loan, which is a 200-basis-point improvement, and a 450-basis-point improvement from where we were in June 2024.

This is demonstrative of our continuous drive to lower our cost of capital, which we think will create value to all of our stakeholders. How does this advance our capital strategy?

Approximately 3,300 Bitcoin became unencumbered, with a market value of $216 million as of May 1st. This brings total unencumbered Bitcoin at Hut 8 to approximately 5,600.

Taken all together, this creates more on-balance-sheet liquidity and advances our broader objective of optimizing the role of Bitcoin on our balance sheet over time.

To close, one of the most frequent questions we get from investors is how Hut 8 thinks about its capital structure going forward. Exiting Q1, how does the financial architecture we've built position us to scale from here?

I'll start with

what is that financial architecture, and what does it define? The financial architecture we've built is designed to fund the next phase of growth at an attractive cost of capital with minimal dilution and increasing ability to scale.

It has three pillars: strong parent-level liquidity—approximately $1.3 billion of cash and Bitcoin as of quarter-end with no meaningful parent-level recourse debt, with the exception of our Coatue note. The Coatue note is now deeply in the money, and we have the ability to force conversion as soon as late June, subject to certain conditions, by electing to redeem the notes.

Second: non-recourse, project-level debt—project financing structured against contracted cash flows with no recourse to the parent. Finally: trajectory towards investment grade.

When I joined Hut 8, one of my North Stars was for us to become an investment-grade company. We will continue to work diligently toward an investment-grade rating at the corporate level, which we expect will further compress our cost of capital, unlocking additional value for the company.

Taken together, this architecture gives us the capacity to scale the pipeline in terms that compound value rather than consume it. Thanks, Bryan.

Thank you, Asher. Thank you, Sean.

This concludes our discussion. Operator, please open the line for questions.

Hi, thanks, and congratulations, really really impressive. I had a couple clarifying questions on Beacon.

I didn't see a disclosure on CapEx, if you could give us some indication of the range there. Then also, it looks like, from my reading this, the contracted revenues are equal to the net adjusted operating income, suggesting 100% margins.

I know you said it was triple lease, but we haven't really seen 100%. Just to make sure I'm doing the math right.

Thanks.

Thanks. Appreciate the question.

I'll have Bryan send you the deck. We have a deck that kind of breaks all this out as well in addition to the press release on the website.

The CapEx we've guided to the same range that we guided River Bend to, $9 million to $11 million per megawatt is what we guided River Bend to, and we have the same guidance here. In regards to the revenues dropping down to NOIs, the only obligation we have from a cost perspective is maintaining the structural framework of the building and landscaping.

That really is de minimis, and that's why the majority of that revenue basically drops down to the bottom line that above 99.9%. It's the same exact structure as River Bend, no difference, and we have the same guidance on that deal as well.

Okay. If I could follow up, I had a

[unclear]

the American Bitcoin print last week. Sort of very excited about that story as well.

How do you think about power prioritization just given all the success you're having in the HPC space, when you think about allocating more power to ABTC's Bitcoin mining efforts?

It's different types of campuses and sizes, right? As we continue to grow, we actually have a multi-pronged strategy in development.

We have large-scale growth in development of megacampuses like we've announced at River Bend and Beacon Point. We have smaller projects in our pipeline.

We're continuing to grow that origination effort. From an American Bitcoin perspective, it's a really interesting asset for Hut 8, because the demand is there, but it's not long-term demand.

The leases we signed with them are 5-year triple-net leases. We're looking at a yield on cost of about 20% to 25%.

For them, that's a really accretive cost of capital, because they're looking for a 2-year payback on their investments that they make into the chips. It's a really symbiotic relationship.

For us right now, for American Bitcoin, they're also not looking to scale super aggressively. That market is actually super interesting, because everyone has left and gone into the AI sector.

Difficulty has come down. You don't need to continue to scale to be able to kind of keep market share.

Competition is actually leaving. It's actually interesting for us, and we think there's a lot more innovation that we're working on, where you have one building that you build that can actually convert between different use cases at different cost structures, kind of this approach where we put on modulars and skids to upgrade the redundancy of the building, they're able to start with low redundancy.

There's some innovation we're doing on the infrastructure stack, and then also I think there's some opportunities as well in regards to the power side of things, and if we think about the ability to curtail on that infrastructure stack versus the AI infrastructure. In general, we see it as super symbiotic.

They have plenty of capacity. We just re-energized Drumheller for them, that we shut down two years ago, that they've brought online.

We are excited by that story as well. I think we spun out $100 million of machines that probably would have gotten liquidated for sub-$50 million bucks, and we have a company that's worth well over $1 billion today that's been trading and that's been holding as well.

We're super proud of that team, and see them as a great consumer in demand as we continue to scale our overall development platform.

That agrees. Asher, Sean, congratulations on all the success, really impressive.

Thanks.

Thanks so much. Thanks.

Hey, thanks for the question. Asher, can you expand on Nvidia's role in the Beacon Point transaction and how this relates maybe to the end tenant that you have contracted with?

Then separately, can you explain how you approach sizing and phasing here with the Beacon Point site, and maybe why the customer did not initially lease the full campus or secure any options on Phase 2 capacity and so forth? Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thanks for the question. Great to hear from you again.

Congrats on the new role. Nvidia is our technology partner.

As we think about River Bend and as we think about Beacon Point, we're showing that we have the ability now to develop for multiple types of chipsets. I think what's really unique at Beacon Point is the density of that building.

We have 500 megawatts, half a gigawatt, of utility capacity in a single building. The density is incredible.

A lot of that in terms of how we got more dense, we said we went from the 224 IT, which is roughly around kind of call it 300 megawatts of utility, to 352 of IT and 500 utility in the same footprint. We had these ideas of innovation.

We worked with Nvidia as a technology partner, we said, "Hey, we think we can actually get much more dense for where the chipsets are heading. What do you think?

Can we compress this?" The ability to have two buildings at Beacon Point that captures the full gigawatt of capacity, and then be able to have all that other land access, we thought was really unique.

The tenant does have a ROFO right on the remaining capacity at the campus, and some exclusivity for a short period of time to decide what they want to do on kind of the next phase. Those options do exist, and it has to do a bit more about kind of sequencing and planning and so forth, but we're excited to continue to grow both this campus and River Bend.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hey, thanks for taking my question, and congrats. This is tremendous to see.

I guess as it relates to the tenant, I noticed it wasn't really necessarily called out as a hyperscaler lease. Just wondering if that's due to kind of a high degree of confidentiality, or if there's actually kind of a new customer cohort coming into this space?

No, you guys know who it is. There are only so many people with the balance sheets that are investment grade that will sign 352-megawatt-type contracts.

I think we learned a lot on the first deal that we announced, and I think it was important. What we learned was a lot of our peers that are competing in the sector, they're private.

Deals can be done, you don't need this big public splash on deals and deal terms, and I think that just removes any room for kind of third parties to come and talk about your deals and so forth, and you can just focus on execution. I think going forward, whether tenants want us to disclose their name or not, I think our thought process is we're not going to go out there and kind of blast who our tenants are.

Eventually, on our web page, we'll say, "Hey, here's a portfolio of customers we have. We won't tell you what sites they're at," etc., but I think that confidentiality is something that we really reflected on in Q1 and said moving forward, let's approach it this way, and let's double down where customers can focus on us as their reliable partner, and we don't need noise in the ecosystem.

That was kind of part one, this is kind of a Hut 8 philosophy that we're going to pick up and take moving forward. Then I think just in general, we went as deep into the deal terms this time around because we wanted to show folks.

A big question after December was everyone said this is not going to be possible again, is this possible? We're like, "Guys, we think this is fair deal terms.

We see these deal terms in the private markets where the majority of these contracts are being executed." Showing that as well.

I think as we continue to move forward and hopefully we've built the confidence amongst our analysts and shareholder group that we'll focus on building the business, continue to operate with the same amount of rigor and structure, and focus less on let's just put everything out there, and focus more on building and kind of compounding and building that trust. Again, one thing that I want to reiterate: we didn't just announce a deal today, just like in December.

We announced a program. All long-lead-time items are fully secured, fully ordered, contracted, locked in.

Our labor is locked in, commitments to the timelines are locked in. This yet again is not us announcing a deal; it's announcing a full execution program.

I think that's extremely important, because doing it once, people might say maybe it was a fluke; doing it two is structural and is a part of our program.

Understood. That's very helpful.

You did just mention there, some of the lease rates that you're kind of seeing similar ones in the private market. There does seem to be a little bit of a difference for some of the public peer leases out there, where you guys's rates are coming in at a very attractive economics.

Do you think execution is starting to come in, and if so, maybe frame up confidence in execution, considering we're still a bit early in terms of actually delivering some of these sites out?

Execution is really what's going to matter most. Look, I think on some of these deals, we can probably push for an extra $5, $10 a kilowatt per month as well.

We don't. We try to go for what is a fair deal that everyone feels good about, and that we can continue to scale and compound over time.

I'll start with that. Second is, and I talked about this a little bit in kind of our Q&A section, one of our hyperscale large-scale customers was like, "Look, the cost of data centers are not that much in regards to the cost of the compute, and the opportunity cost of that compute and selling that or using that compute.

We need you guys to deliver so we can start running our business. It's critically important in our capacity planning."

Execution is really, really what matters. If you look at our timelines on both projects, we're pretty conservative on those.

We have buffer in there even on the delivery just to make sure that we deliver on time. The delay damages are not the issue, the issue is credibility, and we're very, very focused on that.

For us, execution is key. It's key to building trust, it's key to building relationships.

Similar to all the shareholders who are on the call today and all the analysts: when we started two years ago, no one knew who we were, right? After the merger, we came in, we took over the executive team, the stock was at six bucks, institutional ownership was low, and we said, "Look, don't just take our word, let us just execute and just focus on execution."

I think coming into this industry, just focusing and doing the same thing is how we're going to build trust. I think we've built trust with our shareholders, and we're going to build trust in the long term with our tenants as well by just keeping our heads down and executing and building.

Thank you for that, and congrats again. This is really great to see.

Thank you.

We have one more, thanks for taking the question. Hey, how's it going?

Congrats on the deal. Maybe just a double-click, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but on the Beacon Point tenant, can we rule out that it's not Anthropic, Google, and Fluidstack, or an extension of that relationship, just because, given that you do have that 1 gigawatt diligence agreement with them, it's a pretty meaningful swing factor for us in terms of whether this deal represents incremental demand or whether it's drawing from that existing relationship?

Any color around that and where you sit with that diligence agreement with Anthropic would be great. Thanks.

Yeah. It is not.

It is net new growth, and I think when we announced River Bend, we shared that we had multiple interested counterparties that we built relationships with, and we believe that we have a diversified platform to support large-scale compute and loads as we continue to scale. There are obviously many other high investment-grade tenant counterparties that are AA- or higher, but it's a credit profile that we're very, very confident and comfortable with, and we're excited to add another partner within the ecosystem.

Great. That's it for me, guys.

Congrats again. Thanks.

Thank you.

Hi, Sean. Asher, thank you for taking my question.

Maybe just on River Bend, could you just remind us the timing of maybe energy and then bringing additional power to that region, which would be important for Fluidstack's expansion at that site?

Power for the initial phase of 330 megawatts of utility, we actually have the switchyard that Entergy's building that's becoming ready in the next couple of months, so far before energization of the data center, and so the power will be there before the data center is there, and that was done purposefully again, giving ourselves buffer and the ability to execute. The data center is coming online between Q2 and the end of next year in 2027.

In regards to additional capacity, we've been working closely with Entergy Louisiana and also kind of IPP partners in regards to the overall generation story and how do we scale that quicker and faster and at scale. We haven't shared the exact dates and scale of that yet, but hope to do so in the coming time period.

Awesome. Thank you, guys.

Really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Hey, good morning. Thanks for the question, and congratulations on the great news.

The company's done so much in the past couple of years. Just taking a step back, what does success look like for you by 2030, and how would you qualify that?

It's a

good question. Today, I spend probably less than 3% to 5% of my time on the 700-plus megawatts that we manage for American Bitcoin and all of that infrastructure.

That's because of how strong the team has been and built. I think that could build a gigawatt a year if we wanted to, and I would still spend 3% to 5% of my time on it.

That goes to the strength of the team that we built and we scaled, which is why we kind of kept that business, but spun out the volatility. I think at that point in time, I hope the data center platform is equally as mature of a program that we're able to scale programmatically, where I can spend 3% to 5% of my time on that, and we can focus on how do we continue to scale innovation within the company.

I think the beauty with AI is today it takes us 6 months to build a data center with dozens and dozens of engineers, hundreds of thousands of man hours. Data centers should be able to be designed and built in days, not months, with AI.

We should be able to be guiding the first principles of how to design, and then when it comes to physical infrastructure, how do we think about improving the infrastructure stack and driving efficiency of how to build these much better, much more efficiently. I really do believe that we're in an unbelievably unique moment in history where physical intelligence with AI and robotics is going to unlock a whole new wave of transformation of companies to be able to grow and scale.

I always tell folks internally, I don't want you guys to think of us as another data center company; think of us like a SpaceX, Anduril company. We are a technology infrastructure company, and we're focused on how do we think and build differently, and the technology is here and is continuing to improve to meet us there.

When I look at 2030, we will have a much, much bigger data center infrastructure platform that gives us durable contracted cash flows, and becomes kind of our core cash flow engine similar to Google and their search, and we'll have the ability to build a physical infrastructure and intelligence company that is able to build infrastructure faster, cheaper, and better than everyone else we compete against. That's kind of in my mind the ultimate vision of what success looks like and being on that trajectory in 2030.

Great. That's excellent color.

I guess just as a quick follow-up, what do you view as the biggest constraint over the next 2 or 3 years, and how do you balance, call it, the pace of pipeline conversion against, perhaps execution risk?

Energy, obviously, right now, everyone's kind of competing for energy. You have a lot of regulatory changes.

I think that also creates differentiation. The harder it is to do something, the people who can do it best are the ones that shine.

I think that I'm not as concerned by. When we think about power energy origination, you're going to have front-of-the-meter opportunities, you're going to have behind-the-meter opportunities, and you're going to have power generation opportunities.

The beauty is we've done all three, and we've done all three at scale in the hundreds of megawatts. We have over half a gigawatt behind-the-meter projects, we have over half a gigawatt of front-of-the-meter projects, and we had about 310 megawatts of power generation.

We have that expertise. I think when we think about just the US, the bigger thing that I'm focused on is how is the overall sentiment and morale within the population on AI and on data center infrastructure.

There are some areas that are getting really scared about AI, and there's pushback on having data centers, I'm sure everyone has seen that, and how do we be a bigger part of having people understand that the US being at the forefront of building this infrastructure is going to be what continues to keep us at the forefront of leading the world in the global economy. I think that's one big area that I spend time thinking about and talking to a lot of our partners on.

Then from a growth of the company perspective, how do we continue to maintain this culture that we've built of just this relentless work ethic, first-principles approach, and this energy and this buzz. Everyone who comes to the office, one of the first things they say is, "Wow, there's a real buzz going on here.

How come people don't go home? How come people stay so late?"

As we continue to scale and grow, really holding that quality, because I think that is what allowed us to do the types of things that we've done to date, and will allow us to continue to scale in that way. I'm a deep believer that A players hire A players, and B players hire C players, and making sure we empower all of our A players to continue to hire to continue to scale.

Kind of synthesizing all that, I think on a macro perspective, it's overall sentiment in the US in the general population, and fixing the narrative around data centers in AI; and then I think from a company perspective, continuing to maintain quality of talent, not just scale of talent.

Great, thank you. Again, congratulations on the substantial contract win.

Thank you.

Hey guys, thank you and congrats on Beacon Point. Two questions: did you say when the next incremental 500 gross megawatts at Beacon Point is available?

Any thoughts there? Then secondly, is there an update on Anthropic-Fluidstack relationships?

Yeah.

The data center campus itself, 700 megawatts is actually available in Q1, and then the additional 300 megawatts in the 24 months thereafter. We have a pretty good ramp schedule of what it would look like for the full gigawatt campus.

Then in regards to the Anthropic relationship, we have a very strong relation, we're talking about opportunities, and we're talking about they're obviously massive demand profile, and they obviously were a part of, and Google were a part of kind of the deal last week that we did on the bond structure. I think it's find the right opportunities.

For us, tenant diversification was important as well. Just because you have some of the best credit kind of behind some of these agreements, I think having diversification of that credit is important as we continue to scale.

Luckily enough, we've built relations with multiple counterparties. We do live in a world right now where there's a lot of demand, and if you have a good program, and if you have good opportunities, that demand is there.

We're excited to continue to kind of build those relationships, and we're excited to be a partner for the industry, not just a partner for a single user, but a partner for the industry. We believe in the possibilities of AI, what AI means for the US and for our businesses and our technologies and for the people here.

Being able to support the industry is kind of core to our thesis rather than just kind of picking one horse, but building a program that can support the best technological companies in the US and pushing them forward.

Thank you. That diversification makes a lot of sense the way you sum it up like that.

Thanks a lot, guys.

Thank you.

Hey guys, my congratulations as well on all the progress, really great to see. Just Asher, on your power-first approach to the business here, some of your peer companies are talking a bit more about developing behind-the-meter opportunities.

Just wondering if that's something in your playbook, if you're spending time on it, and how that may play out in your strategy given all the demand you're seeing. Thanks.

It's been a part of our playbook now for 4 years. At this point, we've done three large-scale behind-the-meter projects: one at King Mountain, which is 280 megawatts; one at Vega, which is 205 megawatts; and one at Granbury that we managed for Genera Capital, that's 300 megawatts.

We have a lot of experience dating back over 4 years on infrastructure and behind-the-meter structures, and how to operate them, obviously power generation as well. Where we think kind of the trend is going is utilities are learning how to develop and build and scale at a faster rate that they have historically.

If you can bring power solutions to bring in power sooner, I think that is kind of the value creation that can be done. I think, ultimately, you want to sleeve kind of the generation and the load through the grid, both generation and load have the redundancy from the grid.

The utility and transmission operator gets to make their transmission fees, and it's a win-win across the board, and you're able to drop down the overall kind of rate base for the ultimate ratepayers, and drop down their cost of electricity as well. We're very involved in kind of all those opportunities, and I think we'll just kind of share more as we execute on them.

Great, thank you very much.

Thanks.

Hey, George.

Thank you. Asher, and great job.

You mentioned a very interesting thought process that it is getting scarcer as the complexity increases for those who can actually do these kinds of transactions. I wondered if you could just walk through the increased complexity.

Are you referring to the next-generation GPUs and some of the challenges working with them? Is it the regulatory environment?

Just curious on that scarcity argument that you made.

I think it's a multitude of factors that lead to the environment of developing more difficult, which I think leads to opportunities for really strong developers. I'll go through those.

Starting at the front end, obviously power is becoming harder to source. You have to be a lot more sophisticated, you have to help utilities solve their problems and their bottlenecks to be able to get power faster.

Second is from a kind of government affairs regulatory environment, there are a lot of places that are scared of data centers, and that education is extremely important: understanding what they're scared of, being able to talk through if some of those are false fallacies, or if there are real concerns, being able to address those. That community development and partnership really matters.

Then you go into the design: the designs are changing. How do you think about this asset that you're building, the long-term duration of this asset, the ability to be able to evolve and be able to be an infrastructure stack for multiple chipsets?

When our team was able to put in 330 megawatts of utility on the campus, most people would say, "All right, that's good enough. That's great."

I was like, "No, we need more. Figure out how to design better."

Then our team kind of walked through the design with Nvidia, and worked with them, and it's going to be one of the most advanced data centers with half a gigawatt capacity in a single building on Earth. We're very excited and proud to be one of the first to do that.

Then as you think about kind of the overall infrastructure stack, I think the problem to solve is not how do you build a data center, it's how do you build a data center on time? How do you build a data center with really unique design and technology to drive costs down, increase quality?

How do you build one that the community is proud to have in their backyard, and they're excited to have be a part of the community in their environment? As we see kind of all of these complexities increase, we're actually seeing more and more M&A opportunities on everything from early-stage sites where people locked in an interconnect and can't commercialize or build it, to later-stage opportunities as well.

We're having more people join our corporate development team as well to look at those opportunities, because people say, "You know what? Your track as a developer, I trust you.

I don't even need anything up front, we can look at other deal structures, but I trust you that you can take this to the finish line." I think we'll see more of those opportunities come to light, because execution is really what's going to matter, and being able to deliver on time and on schedule.

Just one other question. Deal 2 came pretty quickly after Deal 1.

As we think through Deals 3 and 4, you mentioned you focus on what you cannot do, and I'm just curious, how much additional expansion do you think you could handle structurally?

We're growing. As I'm sure you guys have seen, G&A is going up, most of that is driven by talent and people.

We're growing the organization. I think what's unique is we're not growing folks to say, "Hey, let's just scale and trust folks."

We have a programmatic program and structure now, right? People join a structure that we've developed.

Right now, we have designs for two of the three largest chip offerings in the market today, and I would argue those two are the largest in the market today. We have kind of standards of design, standards of execution of supply chain, incremental growth on those specific structures are much easier because we already have a base there.

I'm excited. I think we have a lot of capacity to grow.

Last year when we announced the deal, we shared this is not about the deal announcement in December; this is about a program that we can grow and we can scale. I think this is just a proof point to what we shared in December.

Appreciate the thoughts.

Thank you.

Hey, good morning, and thanks for taking my questions, and congrats on all the progress. I wanted to ask a bit more on the pipeline, and as we think about the optionality that we have with American Bitcoin and potentially hosting their rigs versus HPC colocation.

I know you mentioned the confidence that gives you guys an underwriting future sites, but I guess how does that impact conversations you have with utilities? I guess does that make you guys any more of a favorable counterparty there that you can kind of underwrite it with two different potential types of workloads?

It's interesting, and

Sean can keep me honest here, but I think because of our ability to continue to execute, the conversations with utilities has changed a lot. We're no longer a developer people don't know about and they'd have to ask, "Hey, who's the customer?

Tell me about the credit," etc. Hut 8 is a name that stands on its own.

When we come and we speak to them and we develop, Hut 8 is the developer. They're not asking secondary questions like can we stand on our own right?

Can we build these projects? Can we develop?

I think for a lot of the utilities, those relations have built much deeper as well, all at the senior levels and the C-suite levels. I'm really proud that in that world, we were kind of small and scrappy and built a lot when we didn't have the type of credit, the type of dollars, the type of balance sheet that we have today.

I think with the execution, with what we've been doing and the relations that we've been building, I think our credibility within that sector is as high as it's ever been, and Hut 8 is a brand that stands on its own two feet. I see Sean shaking his head on Sean, he agrees.

I agree with everything you said. I think people are familiar with us now.

Great, thank you, guys, for taking my question.

Thank you.

As always, this journey has been one that has not been short, it's been long. We've had twists and turns, and as Sean likes to say, we like to do everything the hard way.

We're extremely grateful for the shareholder base that we've built, for the people that give us trust in the capital that they manage and they deploy, for all of our institutional shareholders, for all of our retail shareholders, for all of the folks that have trusted us in building this business and being a fiduciary of your capital. Thank you all for joining us today, and we look forward to seeing you next time.