Archive / Energy & compute / E838
Rented Bitcoin hashrate is priced at about what it earns
Renting Bitcoin hashrate on days when mining revenue per hash exceeded the rental price by more than 8% gave only 6 signal days after 2022 against 30 required, while the all-days average lost 6.85% of rental cost.
Mining revenue per unit of hashrate can be computed from the difficulty and the block rewards. A common belief says the rental price lags that figure, so renting hashrate on days when it is cheap and mining with it should pay. We compared the daily price on the largest hashrate rental marketplace with the computed revenue per hash from 2020 to 2026 across 2,475 days. Revenue per hash averaged 0.994 of the rental price in both periods (before fees), and renting on an average day lost 6.85% of rental cost. Only 19 days passed the 8% signal, 6 of them after 2022 against 30 required.
Hashrate is rented at a price that lags mining revenue per hash, so renting when it is cheap and mining with it earns a profit.
Why people believe it
Mining revenue per hash follows from public numbers: the network difficulty and the block reward, which includes fees. People argue that rental prices adjust more slowly than difficulty and fees, and that pools paying on a trailing average of fees (full pay per share, FPPS) hand the renter the gap.
Why it would persist The argument, as stated before testing
Common belief, not tested here: renting needs an account, a pool and a seller with enough depth, so the gap may be left open by participants who do not rent.
Every day we computed what one unit of hashrate would earn from mining at the day's difficulty, using the previous day's average block reward because such a pool pays on the trailing fee average. We compared it with the price of renting that hashrate. Whenever the computed revenue was more than 8% above the previous day's rental price, we assumed we rented for the day at the day's actual average price and mined. The return is revenue after the pool fee and a 1% allowance for work that arrives too late to count, minus the rental price and the marketplace buyer fee, as a share of the rental cost. The rule was fixed before the results were looked at, and tested on a holdout starting in 2022.
At least 30 holdout signal days, holdout mean net at least +2% of rental cost, week-block bootstrap interval with lower bound above 0, median above 0, and both holdout halves above 0.
Holdout mean at or below 0, fewer than 30 holdout signal days, or a positive result only before 2022.
Net e = V x (1 - 2.5% pool fee - 1% stale allowance) - P x (1 + 3% marketplace buyer fee); return = e / (P x 1.03). Stress: pool fee 4%.
The unconditional mean over all days; the subset of signal days after downward difficulty adjustments.
The pre-registered minimum of 30 holdout signal days was not met: only 6 days had mining revenue per hash more than 8% above the previous rental price.
- Across 2,475 days the mean ratio of mining revenue per hash to the rental price was 0.994 in both the discovery period and the holdout, so the market priced rented hashrate at what it earns.
- Renting on every day, without a signal, returned -6.85% of rental cost per day net. That matches the fee and stale-value assumptions: at a ratio of 1.0 the model costs 3% buyer fee plus 3.5% pool and stale allowance, about -6.3% of cost.
- Only 19 days had a signal above 8%: 13 in the discovery period and 6 in the holdout, against the 30 required.
- Discovery signal days returned -1.08% of rental cost on average (n 13).
- The 6 holdout signal days fall in two years, five in 2024 and one in 2023. They are too few to say anything about their return.
- Signal days within a day of a downward difficulty adjustment (n 6) returned -1.3% on average, so no gain after a difficulty cut was visible.
- A 4% pool fee instead of 2.5% gave the same picture.
Net return on rental cost, by group of days
Mean net return per rented day. Renting on any day loses 6.85%. The 6 holdout signal days are too few to show.
Chart data (% of rental cost, mean)
| Mean net return | |
|---|---|
| All days (n 2,475) | -6.85 |
| Signal days, discovery (n 13) | -1.08 |
| Signal days within a day of a downward adjustment (n 6) | -1.3 |
Mining revenue per hash against the rental price
Mean ratio of computed mining revenue per hash to the rental price, before fees. A ratio of 1 means renting costs exactly what mining earns before fees. Both periods sit at 0.994.
Chart data (ratio of revenue to price, mean)
| Revenue / rental price | |
|---|---|
| Discovery | 0.99 |
| Holdout | 0.99 |
Days left after each gate
Of 2,475 days with at least 0.1 EH/s rented, 19 passed the 8% signal and 6 of those fall in the holdout, against 30 required.
Chart data (days)
| Stage | Count |
|---|---|
| Days with at least 0.1 EH/s rented | 2,475 |
| Days with a signal above 8%, both periods | 19 |
| Signal days in the holdout (30 required) | 6 |
Why it failed Interpretation · not established
The rental price follows mining revenue per hash almost one for one, and the same-day repricing leaves the 8% gap open on about six days in nearly five years of holdout. The all-days loss is what the fees and the stale allowance predict, so the market gave no discount to pay for them. The same-day repricing may explain why no lag after difficulty changes was visible.
Lesson
When a price can be compared with a number computed from public data, the gap tends to be about the size of the frictions. A pre-registered minimum count turns that into a clear result instead of a story about a handful of large days.
Scope of this result
Covers daily average prices of rented SHA-256 hashrate on one marketplace from 2020 to 2026, revenue modelled from difficulty and block rewards with an FPPS lag, an 8% signal and the stated fee assumptions. The daily price averages all orders, so it may sit above the marginal price; depth for renting 1 EH/s was not measured. Account, pool and payout mechanics were not tested.
A rejected experiment applies to the tested conditions and does not prove an idea can never work. bp = basis point, 0.01%.
1. Test design
Pre-registeredDataUniverseSignalExecutionCostsControlsSample splitPass criterionKill criterionPower2. Result
ObservationsInstrumentsNet mean95% intervalMedianWorstFinding 1Finding 2Finding 3Finding 4Finding 5Finding 6Finding 73. Interpretation
Why it failedLessonScope4. Reproducibility
StepsGrade