The metric for defining miners' shutdown price based on costs is becoming irrelevant this cycle! Just yesterday, another mining company completely surrendered. The CEO of the long-established U.S. Bitcoin mining public company, Bitfarms, announced during an earnings call that they are fully abandoning their Bitcoin business, shutting down all mining farms, selling all their Bitcoin, and transitioning to AI computing and data centers. In the past, during bear markets, everyone would focus on miners' shutdown prices, which were primarily calculated based on electricity costs. If the revenue from mining one BTC was less than the electricity cost, miners would start operating at a loss. Some would then shut down their machines and wait it out, reducing mining competition and allowing the remaining miners to split the rewards, eventually reaching a dynamic balance between mining costs and profits, forming a bottom. But now, the shutdown price calculated based on electricity costs doesn’t hold as much significance. Miners no longer need to passively wait for the inevitable; they can proactively pivot to AI. As a result, many miners are choosing to "shut down" and exit long before reaching the shutdown price. Although the remaining miners can earn more BTC, the calculation of the shutdown price now includes not just the actual electricity costs but also the opportunity cost of lost AI revenue for those who choose to stay. This significantly raises the effective shutdown price. So, the good news is that the actual shutdown price for Bitcoin this cycle is higher than the theoretical shutdown price! (The tweet I posted earlier contained some errors and unclear descriptions, so I’ve re-edited and reposted it.)