Hut 8 published its second-quarter report on 4 August 2026. We are writing about it today, 6 August.
And this is the third company this week to move from bitcoin mining to data center leasing - each at a different stage.
What was reported
| Quarter | Year ago | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 74.9 | 41.3 |
| of which Compute | 72.5 | |
| of which Digital Infrastructure | 1.3 | |
| of which Power | 1.2 |
In millions of dollars
Revenue rose roughly 81%, but it is still small - and that is deliberate. The numbers that matter here are not in the income statement.
The numbers that matter
949 megawatts, $26.6 billion
| Contracted IT capacity | 949 MW |
| Aggregate contracted value | approx. $26.6 billion |
| Expected average annual NOI | more than $1.75 billion |
| In active construction | 1,330 MW |
| Total development pipeline | approx. 8,660 MW |
For proportion: $1.75 billion of expected annual NOI, against current revenue of roughly $75 million a quarter.
And the new contract: a 15-year lease on 352 megawatts at the Beacon Point campus - with the same high-investment-grade tenant that already signed Phase 1, commercialising the campus's full gigawatt of utility capacity.
Meaning the tenant came back to sign a second time. That is a stronger signal of confidence than any first contract.
Three companies, three stages
And here is the comparison that makes this week instructive:
| Cipher | TeraWulf | Hut 8 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lease revenue in the quarter | zero | $31.9m (71%) | part of $1.3m |
| Anchor tenant | unnamed | Anthropic | unnamed |
| Stated contracted value | not published | approx. $19bn | approx. $26.6bn |
| Contracted capacity | not published | approx. 401 MW | 949 MW |
TeraWulf is the only one already showing lease revenue in the report, and the only one to name its tenant.
Cipher is still at zero lease revenue with an unnamed tenant.
And Hut 8 sits in between: its contracted capacity is the largest of the three, but the revenue from it has not yet flowed, and the tenant is not named.
And what deserves saying about an unnamed tenant
When a company reports $26.6 billion of contracted value from a "high-investment-grade tenant" without saying who it is, the investor is asked to take the credit quality on faith.
That does not mean the contract is not real. It does mean it cannot be independently verified - unlike TeraWulf, which named Anthropic and also disclosed Google credit support on part of the obligations.
And concentration: when one tenant signs both Phase 1 and Phase 2 at the same campus, almost all of that site's future revenue depends on a single counterparty.
My Angle
A personal opinion of Ilan Abramov - not advice, not a recommendation
Three companies, the same route, three stages - and that is exactly what makes the comparison useful.
Hut 8 shows the largest contracted number of the three: 949 megawatts and $26.6 billion. But it is also the one with the least of that already appearing in revenue.
And what caught my attention is not the size but the tenant's return. The same party that signed Phase 1 came back for another 352 megawatts on a 15-year term. A tenant expanding with the same provider signals satisfaction with execution - and that is qualitative information hard to obtain any other way.
And what I am not willing to wave through: the tenant is unnamed. $26.6 billion depends on a party that is not identified. At TeraWulf we got a name - Anthropic - and even Google credit support. That difference is not semantic. It is the difference between a contract you can verify and one you have to believe.
And the bottom line: reading all three reports in sequence shows an entire industry changing skin within a single year. The question that decides which succeeds is not who announced the most megawatts - it is who delivers them on time and on budget.
