Hut 8 Corp. Q1 FY2026 Earnings Call

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 U.S. dollars. Certain statements made during this call may constitute forward-looking statements within the means 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 by thanking everyone for joining the call today. I really appreciate you all 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 a 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 built 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 that structure across our first two transactions, and that speaks to how our counterparties view our assets, our approach and our partnership long term. Zooming out, as energy demand continues to grow alongside compute and AI, the data supports that. The company is best positioned 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 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 and durable platform. The outcomes are visible today. We went from under 10% institutional ownership to over 70% as of year-end 2025. When I took over as CEO on February 7, 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 4. 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, which trades on its own under the ticker ABTC. We divested our power generation assets because we wanted that team to focus on vertically integrated power and digital infrastructure assets. This shows 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 mandatorily 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 nonrecourse to the parent. The TRZ note with NextEra at King Mountain is serviced by the cash flows of the JV and is recourse only by the equity interest in that JV. The FalconX facility that we recently refinanced from Coinbase is only secured against 3,690 Bitcoin. And the recent data center bond financing we did at River Bend is nonrecourse but backed by contractual investment-grade cash flows. This shows the strength of each asset we own and develop, able to stand on its own merits without the parent having to back them. That structure gives us true optionality. With balance sheet flexibility and capacity, we can be a buyer when others are sellers. 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.

This announcement is very recent, a couple of hours ago. Beacon Point is another example of the program we're building, and we shared that when we announced River Bend—we're building a program, not 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. As you'll see in the press release and the deck, the consistency in how we structure these transactions is clear. Key terms: 15 years, triple net lease; 352 megawatts of IT capacity, which equates to 500 megawatts of utility capacity; 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 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, creating durability in the base case scenario. Beacon Point exists because of how we underwrite power. We start power-first. We designed flexibility into the site from the beginning and 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 our relationship with ABTC was valuable: it gave us a real demand path and economics use case even before an AI customer was finalized. That meant we didn't have to take speculative risk and were able to develop the project. The flexibility mattered. The site was developed in a market where many believed large-scale data centers couldn't be developed, and we were able to execute in a risk-averse manner. Our development model created value in two phases. First, as an AI demand accelerator, we repositioned the site for AI infrastructure. Initially, the land was underwritten for 224 megawatts of IT capacity. Later, we identified opportunities and, as you will see, NVIDIA is our design and technology partner on this project. We were able to redesign the facility for next-generation chip architecture, increasing IP capacity from 224 to 352 megawatts within the same land and utility footprint. That redesign increased base term contract value by $3.6 billion from $6.2 billion to $9.8 billion. That occurred within the last couple of months of the 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 converting existing facilities. We have yet to convert a single facility—our capacity that is available is opportunistic as well. Doing it twice shows repeatability and differentiation. Diversity matters as much as scale. Our model is not dependent on any single tenant or relationship, on a single chip architecture or manufacturer, or on a single market or energy ISO. The conclusion is simple: we built a program, programs compound, 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, removed refinancing risk, fully funded the project and allowed us to pull equity out at closing, improving capital efficiency and supporting non-dilutive growth. This is institutional validation of our entire development program. The investment-grade rating on construction-stage data center bonds is rarely achieved, and the agencies validated the project. This is the first investment-grade construction bond issued for a single sponsored data center project, which speaks to how the institutional market views what we're building. The structure eliminates refinancing risk. Many deals are 3 to 5 years and require refinancing in the future; 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 removed 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. That capital can be redeployed into additional growth initiatives. Importantly, this reflects how we manage risk in development: disciplined and not taking 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 speaks to how light we are with risk capital for developing these projects. There's potential upside: if construction comes in below estimates, surplus proceeds can flow back to Hut 8 as additional nondilutive capital. This establishes a repeatable, nonrecourse, nondilutive growth model. The structure is nonrecourse to Hut 8 and nondilutive to shareholders, creating a template we can apply to future projects. The offering was multiple times oversubscribed and it's trading well in the aftermarket. We believe this establishes us as a credible repeat issuer in the investment-grade credit markets. The takeaway is this was more than a onetime financing event; it represents a structural milestone for the business, validating our model, strengthening our balance sheet and positioning us to scale in a disciplined manner.

So 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—you get a fundamentally different financial profile. First, 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 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 re-leasing 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 recurring NOI tied to long-duration infrastructure assets. The key takeaway is we have transitioned 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?

We designed the model to derisk execution from day one. First, our investment-grade rating during construction for the financing speaks for itself: the initial rating reflects confidence in not only the underlying lease but also our ability to deliver during construction. We built the program to reduce execution risk and the ratings validate that approach. Second, we brought in best-in-class partners to execute—Jacobs and Burns are among the strongest operators in the sector. One hundred percent 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 are aligned. Third, we 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, creating clarity, speed and accountability at every layer. Fourth, we set conservative timelines. We're targeting Q2 2027 for initial data hall delivery at River Bend. Our approach is to underpromise and overdeliver. Finally, we have a track record: historically, we've built approximately 1 gigawatt of energy infrastructure before these two deals. We did that on our own—self-managing with subcontractors—and that proves capability, now strengthened by partners, capital and financing sophistication. Execution is something we actively design out of the system through structure, 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?

The question has evolved. After River Bend, many asked if this was repeatable or a onetime thing. Beacon Point demonstrates we can do it again at a bigger scale. Within five months, we delivered a new data center lease supported by 352 megawatts of contracted IT capacity, demonstrating that our model can scale. The real question now is quality, not volume. We're not competing for generic hyperscale demand; we're competing for customers who need a partner with power origination, execution capability and financial sophistication. As power becomes more scarce, these customers have fewer credible options, increasing the value of a developer they trust and who can actually deliver. One long-time hyperscale operator said the real risk is execution and delay—not price—because they can have tens of billions of dollars of chips sitting idle. If we become a reliable partner, we can continue to earn fair economics for delivering value and confidence. The supply of developers who can meet that bar is limited and shrinking as complexity increases, which works in our favor. Our advantage is operating across the full infrastructure stack—power, digital infrastructure and compute. We're not just delivering a building; we're delivering the ability to produce tokens efficiently. Long-term, what matters is cost per token on a fully depreciated and amortized basis, driven by power, data center infrastructure and compute efficiency. We have capabilities across all three layers. We've owned and operated power infrastructure, and we've built competitive data center capacity through our recent deals. Through High-Rise, our wholly owned subsidiary, we develop technologies to improve compute efficiency. Scale does not dilute quality in our model; if anything, it reinforces it because few groups can do what we're doing.

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

It all starts with people. The organization determines whether we can scale. Building a great company is less like hiring for a job and more about people who want to join something that feels like a mission. We're not just looking for pedigree; we're looking for builders who are passionate, want ownership, want to solve hard problems and are all in on what we're doing. We're investing in two types of talent that drive commercial outcomes. First, developers with deep power expertise who start with the power situation and how to solve it, not just whether we can build a data center here. Second, full value chain thinkers who understand 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 enables: we increased contract value within the same footprint while reducing cost per token. We're deliberate in structuring teams and don't think in traditional functions. For example, we rethought procurement: instead of treating it as a transactional function, we needed first-principles understanding of equipment manufacturing costs, raw material costs, labor costs and timing. That approach changed how we negotiate with vendors. Today, we have a former Bain consultant who is a chemical engineer negotiating some of the largest deals in the industry and getting favorable pricing and lead times. We bring in raw intellect and hunger for mission and give people the ability to solve problems differently. Finally, we think of all of this as growth investments. We split SG&A between maintenance and growth SG&A to ensure spend is tied to growth and value creation rather than servicing current obligations. We need far fewer people to just maintain the first two contracts; these investments are how we continue to scale and compound the platform. Scaling the business is not just about capital or assets; it's about building a team deeply committed to the mission and capable of executing at a very high level.

And 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. We're focused on sustainable growth that we can actually execute, not just growth for growth's sake. We're often more focused on setting the right expectations than maximizing near-term volume; we'd rather be clear about what we cannot do than overpromise to get a lease signed. We structured the business to support conservative timelines, contractual delivery obligations with partners like Jacobs and Burns, and we have a track record of delivering hundreds of megawatts on time. We've walked away from deals we don't think we can compound over time because building a great business in ten years will be about trust with key counterparties who have the credit to stand behind agreements. Second is macro, specifically AI demand. I personally believe we're still very early in the AI adoption curve. We're diving deep into how AI will transform our business, but we're still early. In running the business, I spend much 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. To be clear, high investment-grade counterparties means AA- or higher. The goal is discipline in capital deployment: we don't take significant risk ahead of securing a customer. The objective is to ensure that even if demand or capital availability slows materially, we're in a position of strength. If the music stops overnight, I want to be confident in where we are and what risk capital is deployed, and be in a position to acquire assets at that time. In 2022, when peers were undergoing bankruptcies and restructuring, we went from 60 megawatts to over 600 megawatts in less than three months because we had the balance sheet, operational capability and ability to scale. The takeaway is we're building the business to work in both scenarios: if demand accelerates, we're positioned to scale; if it does not, we are protected by credit, 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: execution and scale. On execution, River Bend is advancing construction toward our Q2 2027 delivery target for the initial data hall. Beacon Point has 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, focusing on converting that pipeline into contracted, high-quality opportunities over time. For investors, three things to watch to track our progress: delivery execution (projects delivered on time), deal quality (credit quality of counterparties and economic structure of new contracts), and balance sheet discipline (how we finance projects and think about parent-level debt and financing in a minimally dilutive, capital-efficient way). 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 clear bets: power-first development, partnership over volume and balance sheet discipline over growth at all costs. Those bets have paid off. What I want investors to understand is this is just the beginning. What we've accomplished so far is the foundation, not the end state. We have proven the model, validated the strategy and built the platform, but we're still in the early innings. The opportunity is to build a generational business at the intersection of power and technology. Everything we do 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, the underlying operating performance of the business strengthened materially. Second, unrealized mark-to-market losses on digital assets drove the headline numbers. Net loss of $253.1 million and adjusted EBITDA loss of $250.5 million for the quarter were driven primarily by unrealized mark-to-market adjustments on digital assets, both at Hut 8 and through the consolidation of American Bitcoin. From an 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?

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 reflects the sale of our Par North portfolio in February 2026 versus a full quarter in the prior year. On the cost of revenue side, there was a decline of $1.5 million, primarily driven by $1.8 million of lower electricity sales due to that Par North divestiture, partially offset by a $300,000 increase in managed services. The important story here is less about quarter-over-quarter financials in the power segment and more about 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 demonstrates our focus on continuous improvement, shareholder value creation and deep power expertise. Many data center companies now call themselves power-first; for us, this 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?

Digital infrastructure segment revenue was $1.3 million, consistent with the prior year period. Cost of revenue was also stable year-over-year. However, beginning in Q2 2027 as the data halls of 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 as those contracted investment-grade-backed cash flows come online over time.

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

Compute 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. 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 mid-2025. These factors 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 on 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: a $3.25 billion financing of 16.5-year fully amortizing senior notes at approximately 95% loan-to-cost with a 6.192% coupon. The bonds are noncallable for life with BBB- investment-grade ratings from S&P and Fitch. This allowed us to recycle $184 million of previously invested equity back into the company to support future growth. Features we liked: the fully amortizing 16.5-year structure eliminates refinancing exposure post-construction; the structure preserves our ability to add incremental leverage at stabilization if desired; it's covenant-light, providing flexibility; and at 95% loan-to-cost we can recycle capital out of the project. We were also able to offset a lot of negative carry from interest during construction with interest income. How did we achieve this? It starts with first principles and adaptability. Initial discussions contemplated a construction loan at approximately 85% loan-to-cost and SOFR plus 225. We improved this to approximately 90% loan-to-cost at SOFR plus 240. As credit markets opened, investor demand for data center exposure grew and alternative paths in high-yield and investment-grade markets allowed us to execute a deal that checked a lot of boxes for River Bend. We didn't stop at the first attractive option; we ran the process and secured what we believe was the best result for the company, our customers and our shareholders. We're proud to introduce bondholders into the Hut 8 family. As we commercialize additional sites, we will maintain this rigor and examine all options to decide the best path for each asset given its attributes and market conditions.

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 the same standard to Beacon Point. Emerging market conditions could shape the optimal structure, but first-principles thinking will hold. One tenant priority that will remain intact at Beacon Point, however, is prioritizing a structure that is nonrecourse 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?

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, a 200 basis point improvement and a 450 basis point improvement from where we were in June 2024. This demonstrates our continuous drive to lower our cost of capital, which we think creates value for stakeholders. Approximately 3,300 Bitcoin became unencumbered with a market value of $260 million as of May 1, bringing total unencumbered Bitcoin at Hut 8 to approximately 5,600. Taken together, this creates more on-balance sheet liquidity and advances our 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?

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 except our Coatue note, which is deeply in the money and can be forced to convert as soon as late June subject to conditions; nonrecourse project-level debt—project financing structured against contracted cash flows with no recourse to the parent; and trajectory towards investment grade—one of my north stars was for Hut 8 to become an investment-grade company. We will continue working toward a corporate-level investment-grade rating, which should compress our cost of capital further and unlock additional value. Taken together, this architecture gives us the capacity to scale the pipeline in a way that compounds value rather than consumes it. Thanks, Bryan.

Thank you, Asher. Thank you, Sean. This concludes our discussion. Operator, please open the line for questions.

Our first question will come from the line of Chris Brendler with Rosenblatt Securities.

Congratulations, really impressive. I have a couple of clarifying questions on Beacon. I didn't see a disclosure on CapEx. If you could give us some indication of the range there. Also, it looks like, reading this, the contracted revenues are equal to the operating—or the net adjusted operating income—suggesting 100% margins and a triple net lease. We have only seen 100% just to make sure I'm doing the math right.

Thanks. I'll have Bryan send you the deck. We have a deck that breaks all of this out in addition to the press release on the website. For CapEx, we've guided to the same range we guided River Bend to: $9 million to $11 million per megawatt. Regarding revenue dropping down to NOIs, the only obligation we have from a cost perspective is maintaining the structural framework of the building and landscaping, which is de minimis. That's why the majority of that revenue effectively drops down to the bottom line—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.

If I could follow up, Asher, I had the American Bitcoin last week and am very excited about that story. How do you think about power prioritization, given all the success you're having in the HPC space, when you think about allocating more power to ABTC's Bitcoin mining efforts?

They're different types of campuses and sizes. We have a multi-pronged development strategy: large-scale mega campuses like River Bend and Beacon Point, and smaller projects in our pipeline. For American Bitcoin, it's an interesting asset because the demand is there but not long-term; leases with them are five-year triple net leases. We're looking at a yield on cost of about 20% to 25% for those leases. For them, that's accretive capital because they're looking for a two-year payback on machines. It's symbiotic: American Bitcoin isn't looking to scale aggressively right now. Competition has shifted to AI, so difficulty in Bitcoin decreased and competition left. There is opportunity in modular buildings that can convert between use cases at different cost structures, using modular skids to change redundancy. We're also exploring opportunities on the power side—curtailment strategies versus AI infrastructure. We see the relationship as symbiotic. They have plenty of capacity: we reenergized Drumheller for them, which we had shut down two years ago. We spun out $100 million of machines that might otherwise have been liquidated for sub-$50 million, and that company is now valued at over $1 billion. We're proud of that team and see them as a strong consumer of demand as we scale our development platform.

I would agree. Asher, Sean, congratulations on all the success. Really impressive.

Our next question will come from the line of Steve Glagola with KBW.

Could 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? Separately, could you explain how you approach sizing and phasing at the Beacon Point site and why the customer did not initially lease the full campus or secure options on Phase 2 capacity and so forth? Appreciate it.

NVIDIA is our technology partner. For River Bend and Beacon Point, we can develop for multiple chipsets. Beacon Point is unique due to building density: 500 megawatts of utility capacity in a single building. We increased density from roughly 224 IT megawatts to 352 IT megawatts within the same footprint through design changes made with NVIDIA as a technology partner. That enabled the campus to capture a full gigawatt across two buildings while preserving land access. The tenant does have a right of first offer on remaining capacity at the campus and some short-term exclusivity to decide on the next phase. Those options exist and relate to sequencing and planning. We're excited to continue growing both this campus and River Bend.

Our next question will come from the line of John Todaro with Needham & Company.

Congrats. This is tremendous to see. I noticed it wasn't really called out as a hyperscaler lease. Is that due to confidentiality or is there actually a new customer cohort coming into the space?

You guys know who it is; there are only so many investment-grade balance sheets that will sign 352-megawatt contracts. We learned from our first deal that confidentiality can be helpful; many peer deals are done privately without a big public splash. Going forward, whether tenants want disclosure or not, we will approach confidentiality to let customers focus on us as a reliable partner without noise in the ecosystem. We went deep into deal terms this time to show it is possible and to build confidence among analysts and shareholders. And again, this announcement is about a program: all long lead-time items are fully secured, ordered and contracted; labor is locked in and commitments to timelines are locked in. This is announcing a full execution program, not just a lease.

Understood. That's helpful. You mentioned lease rates similar to private market rates and attractive economics versus some public peer leases. Do you think execution is starting to come in? How confident are you in execution given you're still early on delivering some of these sites?

Execution is what matters most. We could probably push for an extra $5–$10 per kilowatt per month on some deals, but we pursue fair deals that allow scaling and compounding over time. One hyperscale customer told us the data center cost is small compared to overall compute economics; the real risk is delay because chips can sit idle. Execution builds credibility. We were conservative on timelines for both projects and built buffer to ensure delivery on time. Delays are not just about damages; they're about credibility. We remain focused on building trust with consistent execution. Two years ago, no one knew who we were; institutional ownership was low. We focused on execution and that approach will continue to build trust with tenants and shareholders.

Congrats again. This is great to see.

Our next question will come from the line of Patrick Moley with Piper Sandler.

Congrats on the deal. Maybe to 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? Are Google and Fluidstack an extension of that relationship, given the 1 gigawatt diligence agreement with them? It's a meaningful swing factor in terms of incremental demand versus drawing from existing relationships. Any color on the diligence agreement with Anthropic would be great.

It is net new growth. When we announced River Bend, we said we had multiple interested counterparties. We have a diversified platform to support large-scale compute and loads. There are many other high investment-grade tenant counterparties (AA- or higher) and we're confident in the credit profile. We're excited to add another partner within the ecosystem.

Congrats again.

Our next question will come from the line of Brett Knoblauch with Cantor Fitzgerald.

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

For the initial phase of 330 megawatts of utility, we have the switchgear building becoming ready in the next couple of months—well before energization of the data center. That was done purposely to give buffer for execution. The data center is coming online between Q2 and the end of next year in 2027. Regarding additional capacity, we've been working closely with Entergy Louisiana and other partners on the overall generation story and how to scale faster. We haven't shared exact dates and scale yet, but hope to do so in the coming period.

Our next question will come from the line of Brian Dobson with Clear Street.

Congratulations on the great news. Taking a step back, what does success look like for you by 2030 and how would you qualify that?

Today I spend less than 3%–5% of my time on the 700-plus megawatts we manage for American Bitcoin because the team is strong and scaled. That business could build a gigawatt a year if we wanted, and it would still require limited CEO time. I hope the data center platform is equally mature and programmatic by 2030 so I can focus on continued innovation. AI should allow much faster design and construction; data centers should be designed and built in days, not months, using AI and robotics, enabling faster, cheaper, better builds. I see Hut 8 as a technology infrastructure company—like SpaceX in mindset—focused on building differently. By 2030, I expect a much bigger data center infrastructure platform that delivers durable contracted cash flows and becomes our core cash flow engine, while building physical infrastructure intelligence that lets us build infrastructure faster, cheaper and better than competitors. That's the ultimate vision for success.

What's the biggest constraint over the next two to three years and how do you balance pipeline conversion pace against execution risk?

Energy is the obvious constraint; everyone is competing for power and there are regulatory changes. That creates differentiation—harder things favor those who can do them. We've done front-of-the-meter, behind-the-meter and generation at scale. In the U.S., I'm focused on public sentiment and morale around AI and data centers—there's pushback in some areas, and education is important. We need communities to understand the value of building this infrastructure to keep the U.S. at the forefront of the global economy. From a company perspective, maintaining the culture we built—the relentless work ethic, first-principles approach and mission-driven energy—is critical as we scale. A-players hire A-players, and preserving that quality is essential to sustaining our ability to deliver.

Great. Congrats on the substantial contract win.

Our next question will come from the line of Mike Grondahl with Northland Securities.

Congrats on Beacon Point. Two questions: when is the next incremental 500 gross megawatts at Beacon Point available? And is there an update on Anthropic and Fluidstack relationships?

The data center campus schedule: 700 megawatts of the campus is available in Q1, and the additional 300 megawatts will be available in the 24 months thereafter. That's a clear ramp schedule for the full gigawatt campus. Regarding Anthropic, we have a very strong relationship and are discussing opportunities given their massive demand profile. They and Google were part of the bond deal last week. We're finding the right opportunities for the relationship; tenant diversification is important because it brings strong credit. We've built relationships with multiple counterparties and because there's strong demand, if you have a good program you will see interest. We want to be a partner for the industry, supporting the best technology companies in the U.S., rather than picking a single user.

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

Our next question comes from the line of Joseph Vafi with Canaccord.

Congratulations on the progress. On the power-first approach, some peers are talking more about behind-the-meter opportunities. Is behind-the-meter something in your playbook, and how does that play into strategy given the demand you're seeing?

Behind-the-meter has been part of our playbook for four years. We've done three large-scale behind-the-meter projects: King Mountain (280 megawatts), Vega (205 megawatts) and Granbury for Generate Capital (300 megawatts). We have extensive experience with behind-the-meter structures and operations, as well as power generation. Utilities are learning to develop and scale faster. If we can bring power solutions and bring power sooner, that creates value. Ultimately, you want generation and load to be sleeved through the grid so the utility transmission fees are preserved; it's a win-win and can lower cost for end ratepayers. We're involved in those opportunities and will share more as we execute.

Our next question comes from the line of George Sutton with Craig-Hallum.

Asher, you mentioned it's getting scarcer as complexity increases for those who can do these transactions. Could you walk through the increased complexity—are you referring to next-generation GPUs, regulatory environment, or other factors?

It's a combination of factors that make development more difficult, which creates opportunities for strong developers. First, power sourcing is becoming more challenging and requires sophistication; you have to help utilities solve bottlenecks. Second, government affairs and regulation are more complex—some communities are concerned about data centers and education and partnership with communities matter. Third, design is changing: you must think about asset longevity and ability to evolve for multiple chipsets. At Beacon Point, our team increased utility to 330 megawatts and then pushed for more, collaborating with NVIDIA to achieve one of the most advanced data centers with 0.5 gigawatt capacity in a single building. The real problem to solve is delivering on time with unique design and technology, building community support and driving costs down while increasing quality. As these complexities increase, we're seeing more M&A opportunities from early-stage sites to later-stage assets where developers may not be able to commercialize. We're adding corporate development resources to pursue opportunities where people trust our ability to take projects to the finish line.

One other question: you did deal two quickly after deal one. As we think through deals three and four, how much additional expansion do you think you could handle structurally?

We're growing and G&A is increasing, driven by talent. We're not just hiring to scale without structure—we now have a programmatic approach with standards of design, execution and supply chain. Incremental growth on those specific structures is easier because we have a base. We have designs for two of the three largest chip offerings in the market and established standards. We have a lot of capacity to grow and a programmatic model to scale further.

Our next question comes from the line of Ben Sommers with BTIG.

Congrats on the progress. Regarding the pipeline and optionality with American Bitcoin versus HPC colocation, how does that impact conversations with utilities? Does your ability to underwrite two different potential workloads make you a more favorable counterparty?

Because of our execution track record, utilities treat us differently now. We're no longer a developer people don't know; Hut 8 is a recognized name that stands on its own. When we speak to utilities, they don't ask the secondary questions; they're confident we can build and develop. Those relationships have deepened at senior and C-suite levels. We were small and scrappy before and built capability without the credit we have today. Our execution and relationships in the utility sector are as strong as they've ever been.

I agree with everything Asher said. People are familiar with us now.

We have no further questions at this time. I will now hand the call back to management for any closing comments.

This journey has not been short; it's been long with twists and turns. As Sean says, we like to do things the hard way. We're extremely grateful for the shareholder base we've built and for the people who trust the capital they manage and deploy on our behalf—our institutional and retail shareholders. Thank you all for joining us today, and we look forward to seeing you next time.