In the desert of Pecos, Texas, there used to be only rows of mining machines born for Bitcoin and substations. Around April 28, 2026, Core Scientific disclosed that this leading mining company's iconic site in North America would be rewritten: from a Bitcoin mining base, it would transition to a high-density AI/HPC data center park. For a company that has long focused on Bitcoin mining as its core business, this is not just a technical upgrade, but a turn on its main highway.
The underlying logic of the new park is written on the power meter. Pecos' planned total power supply capacity is about 1.5GW gross power, of which about 1.0GW will be rented out as "commodity," targeting large AI companies or cloud service providers with high load and power demands, instead of the previous batch of miners scattered around the world pursuing computing power costs. A more specific adjustment is that the current approximately 300MW previously used for Bitcoin mining will be reallocated to AI/HPC clusters, supplying cabinets, power, and computing resources to these long-term contract clients, in exchange for a more predictable revenue curve.
Interestingly, while Core Scientific was "withdrawing" power from Bitcoin mining, stories on-chain were swinging in another direction. On-chain analyst Axel Adler Jr. monitored that Bitcoin cross-exchange flow had rebounded by about 136% since the cyclical low in March 2026, with its 7-day moving average crossing above the 30-day moving average for the first time in months, signaling to some technical investors a warming risk appetite. Axel's interpretation is that cross-exchange funds are shifting back to a risk-on mode—yet at this juncture, a leading mining company proactively transfers 300MW of mining power to AI/HPC, creating a sense of dislocation that constitutes the first layer of tension in the transformation of Pecos.
300MW of Mining Power Withdrawn: Pecos Mines Reconfigured
The reconstruction of Pecos was not designed from the beginning to reserve a new paradise for "small and medium miners." The planned total power supply capacity for the park was raised to about 1.5GW, of which about 1.0GW was directly labeled as "rentable power"—targeted at AI/HPC loads requiring high power and high-density racks. In other words, this is not the traditional model of hosting sold to countless small miners, but aimed at a few large AI companies or cloud service providers who can swallow hundreds of megawatts at once.
For Core Scientific, this plan is equivalent to translating Pecos from a "mine" into an "infrastructure platform": the 1.0GW of rental capacity is reserved for running models and high-performance computing for others, rather than cramming a few batches of ASICs. Traditional mining machine hosting clients find it difficult to match such scale and power density demand; Pecos' new target clients are essentially large institutional players consuming computing power at scale.
Within this larger framework, the migration of the 300MW of power stands out glaringly. The current approximately 300MW of electricity originally used for Bitcoin mining is planned to be reallocated to AI/HPC operations—this is tantamount to "shutting down a medium-sized mining site" and reconnecting the entire set of power and infrastructure to another business line. As one of Core Scientific's important mining bases, this adjustment means that the computing power and block-producing capacity originally contributed to the Bitcoin network by this base are deliberately diluted, with some capacity ceded to AI/HPC loads.
Power accounts for a high proportion of the cost structure in Bitcoin mining, and this is undisputed in the industry. Pecos' power supply limit is a hard constraint; moving away 300MW is not a simple "adding a new business line," but replacing some of the electricity that could have continuously "mined Bitcoin" with a model of "renting out power and racks." For Core Scientific, each megawatt of power requires recalculating: whether to keep it on mining machines, continuing to produce depending on Bitcoin price fluctuations, or locking it into long-term contracts for more predictable hosting and computing service revenue.
From the perspective of the Bitcoin network, this transfer of 300MW is a migration of on-chain computing power: the hash contributions originally generated in Pecos will partially disappear from overall network statistics, instead becoming "dark computing power" supporting AI/HPC workloads. At a time when on-chain indicators are warming up and cross-exchange flows are turning back to risk-on, leading mining companies choose to compress their block-producing potential; this approach of "reducing mining power in a bull market expectation" effectively uses real electricity bills to overshadow the weight of future price expectations.
Within the constraint of limited power resources, this kind of trade-off will reshape the asset allocation and risk structure of mining companies:
● On one hand, "mining Bitcoin" means betting power on a highly volatile asset, with income tightly coupled to Bitcoin prices, overall network computing power, and halving cycles;
● On the other hand, "selling computing power to AI/HPC clients" locks in cabinets, power, and computing power through long-term contracts, in exchange for a relatively predictable cash flow curve.
What Core Scientific is doing in Pecos is not merely migrating the 300MW of lines but testing a new balance point with this 300MW: after multiple halvings, does continuing to focus purely on mining remain the best way to utilize capital? Or should part of the power shift to AI/HPC, allowing the company to gradually transition from a "pure Bitcoin miner" to a "diversified computing and infrastructure service provider," which is a more robust storyline for the next few cycles.
The 1.5GW/1.0GW architecture of the Pecos park is like a piece of land being redefined: the rentable gigawatts target external AI/HPC clients, while the reserved power retains space for self-operated and flexible scheduling. The 300MW transferred from mining machines to GPUs (or other high-performance computing) represents the starting point of this land's "core exchange" and marks the first explicit and public comparison by Core Scientific of "mining" and "selling computing power" at the same table amid limited resources.
From Mining Plant to Computing Vendor: The Survival of Mining Companies After Halving
In the larger context of halving cycles, the "reconfiguration" of Pecos is not a whim, but a structural choice made by necessity after block rewards were gradually thinned. Each halving directly cuts the block rewards miners hold in half, and the mining difficulty does not automatically give way to anyone, resulting in the same kWh of electricity extracting increasingly "light" Bitcoins on paper, while the electricity costs remain heavy on the cost sheet.
For a long time, Core Scientific's business model has been extremely singular—using low-cost electricity to pile up computing power, in exchange for on-chain block producing probabilities, then selling or retaining the obtained Bitcoins at a steady pace. Electricity costs dominate total costs, while revenue is almost entirely tied to a highly volatile asset. This model appears as a "money printer" in bull markets, but in years of halving combined with price fluctuations, it becomes an operational risk that cannot be hedged: every time the currency price dips, it directly strikes mining companies’ cash flow on the profit and loss statement.
The reconstruction of the Pecos park flips this logic around. In the planned approximately 1.5GW gross power, about 1.0GW is clearly marked for external rental; the current approximately 300MW originally supplied to Bitcoin mining is now reserved for AI/HPC cabinets. This means that Core Scientific is no longer merely a "factory producing Bitcoin," but is packaging part of its core asset—stable access to large-scale power and data center resources—into a service package to be sold to AI companies and cloud service providers requiring long-term, high-density computing power.
From a financial structure perspective, this is a migration from "holding and selling Bitcoin" to "selling computing power and data center resources to AI/HPC clients." The cash flow of the former is led by Bitcoin prices, and self-mining income often presents drastic cyclical fluctuations on paper; the latter, however, is closer to the logic of infrastructure operators—AI/HPC clients typically lock in power and cabinets through long-term contracts, and once these contracts are signed, they will provide operators with relatively more predictable income curves over the coming years. Core Scientific has not completely abandoned self-mining but has instead chosen to allocate some of its power to "tenants" within the same park, using contract cash flows to hedge increasingly acute cyclical risks post-halving.
Importantly, this transformation is not happening at some insignificant small mining site, but at a flagship base of one of North America's leading Bitcoin mining companies. Industry insiders understand that route choices by leading players are seldom viewed as isolated events. The transformation of Pecos from a mining site to a high-density AI/HPC park sends a clear signal to the market—power and land are no longer just "raw materials for Bitcoin mining," but can be redefined as general computing infrastructure serving broader high-performance computing needs.
When Core Scientific writes the 1.0GW external rental capacity into its plans, transferring 300MW of mining power to AI/HPC, it is essentially probing a new path for the entire industry: in an environment where halvings compress block rewards and on-chain risk appetite remains wavering, can mining companies rely on diversified computing services to weaken their dependence on a single anticipated market? If this path proves viable, a consensus may emerge in the industry suggesting that large Bitcoin mines are no longer just gamblers in price cycles but are naturally candidates to transition into AI/HPC infrastructure; every mine with sufficient power and cooling capabilities is a potential "data center" in the future computing power market.
Some mining companies have started to explore similar paths, and the transformation of Pecos has become one of the most tangible and symbolic cases of this trend. It has inscribed a concept that originally only appeared on investor PPTs—"transitioning from pure mining to diversified computing and infrastructure services"—into power distribution tables and contract proportions. The next step to observe is whether this model can stably deliver cash flow and how many latecomers will view their own mining sites as prototypes of future AI/HPC parks.
Cross-Exchange Flow Soars 136%: Bitcoin Sentiment Heats Up
As Core Scientific rewrites its business structure on the power meter, funds on-chain are writing another storyline. The curve that Axel Adler Jr. is monitoring is called "Bitcoin Cross-Exchange Flow Pulse," which simply measures how frequently and significantly Bitcoin is transferred between different centralized exchanges—when coins move more frequently between exchanges, this pulse strengthens, indicating potential trading enthusiasm and willingness to engage.
This type of cross-exchange flow is different from simple "deposits" or "withdrawals"; it records the movement of coins between exchanges: moving from one exchange to another may be to exploit price discrepancies, change trading pairs, or simply to position chips for easier order placement. A stronger pulse indicates more chips are being pushed from a "static holding" state back into a "readily available to act" orbit, as the market creates space for the next move.
In March 2026, this cross-exchange flow pulse reached a cyclical low, and cross-exchange transfer activities evidently cooled down. From that low point, the subsequent rebound in March saw the indicator overall rise about 136%, and cross-exchange transfers suddenly became lively. A more sensitive change occurred from a technical perspective: for the first time in months, the 7-day moving average of this pulse crossed above the 30-day moving average—this pattern of short-term averages crossing above long-term averages was regarded by many technical investors as a bullish signal akin to a "golden cross," suggesting that the activity level of short-term fund behavior began to overshadow the preceding mid-long term trend.
Axel Adler Jr.'s interpretation is more direct: the mechanism of Bitcoin's cross-exchange flow is shifting back from a risk-averse mode to a risk-on mode. In his view, at the March low, funds chose a path of "less action, more observation"; now, as the pulse rises and the short-term average moves above, it shows that some participants are beginning to be willing to assume volatility again and are willing to move chips closer to the matching engine. This behavioral shift on-chain mirrors the market sentiment warming up—mining companies are seeking more stable AI/HPC revenue on the power distribution tables, while at the same time, cross-exchange funds provide another "return to risk" answer with a 136% increase.
Mining Companies' Shift to AI Mirrors On-Chain Risk Appetite
During the time when the cross-exchange pulse lifted on-chain, the distribution meter of the Pecos park was also being rewritten. Core Scientific planned this Bitcoin mining base in Texas into a high-density AI/HPC data center park: the total power supply capacity was designed at about 1.5GW gross power, of which approximately 1.0GW was planned for external rental; more specifically, the approximately 300MW originally used for Bitcoin mining was reallocated to the AI/HPC business. For a leading North American mining company that has long focused on Bitcoin mining as its core business, this is not just a project adjustment, but a proactive stance of "divorcing" from a single mining model.
On one side, mining companies are transferring scarce power from pure mining output to high-load computing power leasing targeted at large AI companies and cloud service providers; on the other side, there's Axel Adler Jr.'s "return of the risk-on mode": since the March 2026 low, the Bitcoin cross-exchange flow pulse rebounded by about 136%, and the 7-day moving average crossed above the 30-day moving average for the first time in months. It's hard to say who is driving whom, but these two curves—one occurring in the Texas desert’s power grid, the other inscribed in the flow of on-chain funds—are both heading in the same direction during the same timeframe: embracing risk again and telling a story of higher beta.
From the Bitcoin network's perspective, the migration of 300MW in Pecos represents a typical supply-side detail. Electricity costs dominate overall mining costs; under fixed power supply limits, whoever gets the electricity also gets the potential computing power. The fact that some mining companies are directing electricity to AI/HPC implies that under the same constraints of power resources, the expansion pace of Bitcoin's total network computing power has been gently "braked"—at least providing a concrete, narratable case for the narrative of "slowing computing power growth and rising costs." With the additional downward pressure from multiple halvings on block rewards, leading mining companies' strategy to hedge single mining revenue volatility through diversified computing and infrastructure services logically becomes more acceptable to capital markets.
Meanwhile, the market is starting to piece together a new label: Bitcoin mining sites as candidates for AI infrastructure. Parks like Pecos, with large-scale power and cooling conditions, are being reimagined as ready-to-operate data centers for AI/HPC, switching target clients from dispersed miners to a few large tech companies with high power demands. This narrative naturally attracts attention from two types of funds—one type coming from traditional tech and infrastructure capital looking for long-term contracts and predictable cash flows in AI/HPC targets; the other from on-chain and in-market crypto funds amplifying their imagination with the "mining company transformation" overlaying "Bitcoin supply-side constraints." When cross-exchange capital flows become active again, these two sentiments can easily resonate: the risk appetite for tech stocks and the risk appetite for on-chain assets, all tied together by the same electricity and cabinets into one narrative.
However, it is essential to distinguish between two layers: narrative strengthening and actual changes in supply and demand. AI/HPC data center businesses typically rely on long-term contracts to rent out cabinets, power, and computing power, providing relatively predictable income curves for operators; at the same time, supply-side imaginations such as "power migration slowing down computing power growth" and "rising marginal costs of mining" will also be seamlessly integrated into the long-term value logic of Bitcoin. However, the 136% rebound in the cross-exchange flow pulse does not guarantee future price movements or cycles. Short-term technical rebounds and structural adjustments between exchanges will leave traces in the data. Whether betting that mining companies can hedge halving pressures with AI/HPC income or betting that Bitcoin will continue to rise under risk-on modes, decisions must be based on disclosed, cross-verified numbers rather than building upon amplified emotions about "future possibilities."
After the halving, the Bitcoin network continues to reduce block rewards, mining companies are searching for new stories in electricity and data centers, while on-chain funds are writing emotional curves with cross-exchange flows. The power redistribution of Pecos and the warming cross-exchange flow tie together "mining company transformation + capital inflow," but at any given point in time, what can truly be anchored remains the verified facts that have already occurred—everything else can only be considered the stories the market tells itself in this new cycle.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram group: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
Disclaimer: This article represents only the personal views of the author and does not represent the position and views of this platform. This article is for information sharing only and does not constitute any investment advice to anyone. Any disputes between users and authors are unrelated to this platform. If the articles or images on the webpage involve infringement, please provide relevant proof of rights and identity documents and send an email to support@aicoin.com. The relevant staff of this platform will conduct an investigation.