TeraWulf - Earnings Call - Q1 2025

Executive Summary

• Q1 2025 revenue was $34.4M, down 19% year over year; GAAP net loss widened to $61.4M and Diluted EPS was $(0.16), driven by the April 2024 halving, higher network difficulty, and a temporary spike in power prices from extreme winter weather.
• Non-GAAP Adjusted EBITDA turned negative at $(4.7)M versus $32.0M in Q1 2024; cost of revenue rose to 71.4% of revenue from 34.0% a year ago, reflecting power price volatility and infrastructure utilization.
• Execution on HPC strategy advanced: MB-5 was energized (total capacity 245 MW, 12.2 EH/s); Core42’s 72.5 MW contracted build moved forward with revenue commencement staged across Q2–Q4 2025; project financing expected mid-2025 (SOFR + ~400–500 bps).
• Liquidity remained strong with $219.6M in cash and bitcoin; Board refreshed $200M share repurchase authorization and established a new $200M ATM, providing capital allocation flexibility—near-term stock catalyst is proof-of-execution as HPC halls (Wulf Den, CB-1, CB-2) come online.

What Went Well and What Went Wrong

• What Went Well

  • Energized Miner Building 5, bringing total capacity to 245 MW and raising self-mining to 12.2 EH/s; fleet efficiency reached ~18 J/TH, and April mining returned to positive EBITDA as power normalized.
  • HPC hosting build progressed: Wulf Den to revenue in Q2, CB-1 in Q3, and CB-2 in Q4 2025; daily collaboration with Core42/Dell aligns specifications for scalable, liquid-cooled, high-density infrastructure (“we are committed to getting it right the first time”).
  • Funding path intact: project financing process launching midyear with JPMorgan/Morgan Stanley; lenders’ feedback positive; guidance updated to ~75% EBITDA margins on initial HPC capacity.

• What Went Wrong

  • Revenue fell 19% YoY to $34.4M and Adjusted EBITDA swung to $(4.7)M due to the halving, higher difficulty, and an extreme winter power price spike (Zone A standard deviation event); cost of revenue rose to 71.4% of sales.
  • Power cost per bitcoin mined increased sharply to $66,084 from $15,501 a year ago; BTC self-mined dropped to 372 from 1,051 in Q1 2024 (halving and Nautilus divestiture).
  • GAAP net loss widened to $61.4M in Q1 2025, with SG&A including significant stock-based compensation; net loss per share was $(0.16).

Transcript

Operator (participant)

Greetings and welcome to the TeraWulf 2025 First Quarter Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press star zero on your telephone keypad. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, John Larkin, Senior Vice President, Director of Investor Relations. Thank you, sir. You may begin.

John Larkin (Director of Investor Relations)

Thank you, Operator. Good morning and welcome to TeraWulf 2025 First Quarter Earnings Call. Joining me today are Chairman and CEO Paul Prager and CFO Patrick Fleury. Before we get started, please note that our remarks today may include forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially. During this call, we may use words like anticipate, could, enable, estimate, intend, expect, believe, potential, will, should, project, and similar expressions, which indicate forward-looking statements. For a more comprehensive discussion of these and other risks, please refer to our filings with the SEC available on sec.gov and in the investor section of our website at terawulf.com. We will also reference certain non-GAAP measures today. Please refer to our 10-K and 10-Q filings and our website for a full reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures to the most comparable GAAP measures.

We will start this morning's call with prepared remarks from Paul and Patrick, followed by a Q&A session. I'll now turn the call over to our CEO, Paul Prager.

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

Thank you, John, and good morning, everyone. We appreciate you joining us to review our First Quarter 2025 results. It was another active quarter for TeraWulf as we continued to build on the strong momentum from 2024. Across both our Bitcoin mining and high-performance compute, or HPC, businesses, we remain committed to executing our strategy, maximizing the value of our megawatts through scalable, sustainable infrastructure. Before turning to the business highlights, I want to take a moment to thank you, our shareholders, especially those of you who have supported us since the very beginning. We are positioning TeraWulf to lead at the intersection of energy and compute. It's a long-term effort, but one that we believe will create substantial value over time. Starting with Wolf Mining, our sustainable Bitcoin mining platform at our Lake Mariner facility in upstate New York.

During the quarter, we successfully energized miner building five, bringing total operational capacity to 245 megawatts. We exited the quarter with a self-mining hash rate of 12.2 Exahash and fleet efficiency of 18 joules per Terahash. As we mentioned on our February call, extreme weather in January and February temporarily impacted power pricing. However, by March and well into April, pricing normalized, and our mining operations returned to positive EBITDA in the month of April. I also want to confirm that we received and installed all of our S21 Pro miners before any potential tariff implications, ensuring uninterrupted deployment. Turning to Wolf Compute, our high-power compute hosting platform, our mission here is to scale our purpose-built liquid-cooled infrastructure to meet the growing demand for AI and compute-intensive workloads. Demand remains strong, especially from enterprises seeking secure, high-density infrastructure over the next 12-18 months.

We are focused on working with prospective partners that have capital to deploy, secured GPU allocations, and credit profiles that support project-level financing. Today, we are actively executing on three dedicated buildings for our HPC anchor tenant, Core 42: the Wolf Den, CB1, and CB2. These facilities are our top construction and operational priority. Following five months of close collaboration with our partner and their integrator and many consultants, the Wolf Den is operational and will begin generating revenues in Q2, and we expect CB1 to go live in Q3 and CB2 in Q4. Executing on these initial facilities will drive further demand for our site and further interest in partnering with the TeraWulf team for highly complex HPC deployments. Our partnership with Core 42 is progressing exceptionally well. We collaborate daily to align on technical specifications and deployment timelines.

To give a sense of the scale and sophistication involved, Dell, Core 42's integrator, expects to have over 180 personnel on-site during the GPU tuning phase. We are optimizing design elements every day to ensure our infrastructure meets both current and future demands. These refinements may accelerate or delay timing and could affect overall infrastructure costs. Our goal is to design infrastructure that will support future generations of GPUs, so we are committed to getting it right the first time. A successful launch will not only position us for further potential expansion with Core 42, but also establish TeraWulf as a leader in next-generation data center development. Success here will also accelerate our broader HPC hosting strategy. Additional prospective tenants are closely watching our progress, and we are actively engaged in discussions to secure new commitments as we build out our capacity. Let me touch on a few additional updates.

First, capacity. In April, we received approval from NYISO for an additional 250 megawatts of capacity at Lake Mariner, bringing the current total to 500 megawatts. We intend to request an additional 250 megawatts that will bring our total power at Lake Mariner to 750 megawatts. We appreciate the support and collaboration of NYISO as we scale this site. Second, tariffs. We're monitoring the evolving tariff landscape. Based on current information, we estimate a 5-10% impact to build costs. We remain committed to underwriting projects to mid-teens, unlevered returns, and will adapt as needed to protect project economics. Third, project financing. We remain on track for mid-year execution of the project financing of our 72.5-megawatt Core 42 buildout. We are scheduled to officially launch the process next week with our advisors at JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley, and early feedback from potential lenders has been positive.

Finally, our growth pipeline. Beyond our 750-megawatt roadmap at Lake Mariner, we continue to pursue expansion opportunities. At the top of the list is the Cayuga site, a sister facility to Lake Mariner located on Lake Cayuga in upstate New York. It shares the same strategic advantages in land, power, and fiber access. That process is progressing with our board and will share more when we have firm updates. We're also evaluating additional sites with strong time-to-power potential and opportunities for on-site generation. This is an area where our energy infrastructure expertise truly differentiates us. Lastly, I want to address the company's services agreement with Beowulf Electricity & Data, a private company owned by me that currently provides electricity and digital infrastructure services to TeraWulf. We believe the time is right to simplify the structure.

We are currently pursuing a full integration of Beowulf and TeraWulf to eliminate related party disclosures, streamline operations, and better align incentives across the organization. The process is driven by our board and guided by rigorous governance protocols and independent oversight to ensure transparency and shareholder alignment. To summarize, our key near-term priorities are: one, optimize our self-mining platform following the energization of MB5; two, deliver all three Core 42 buildings on time and on budget; three, lease additional HPC hosting capacity at Lake Mariner; and four, close the project financing for the Core 42 buildout. With that, I will turn it over to our Chief Financial Officer, Patrick Fleury.

Patrick Fleury (CFO)

Thank you, Paul. The first quarter of 2025 presented challenging market conditions for our Bitcoin mining operations, with a temporary spike in power prices and increasing network difficulties, the impacts of which are reflected in our financial results for the quarter. While our EBITDA was slightly negative for the quarter, it's important to emphasize we are carrying significant incremental costs related to our expansion into high-performance compute hosting without any current revenue contribution. As I'll discuss later in my remarks, this temporary burden will soon be addressed as our HPC hosting buildings come online in 2Q, 3Q, and 4Q 2025, as depicted on page 15 of our May investor presentation. In the first quarter of 2025, we self-mined 372 Bitcoin at Lake Mariner, or approximately 4 Bitcoin per day, a 12% decrease over the 423 Bitcoin mined in 4Q 2024.

Our GAAP revenues were flat quarter-over-quarter at $34.4 million in 1Q 2025 from $35 million in 4Q 2024. Our value per Bitcoin self-mined in 1Q 2025, a non-GAAP metric, averaged $92,600 per Bitcoin as compared to $82,739 in 4Q 2024. Our GAAP cost of revenue, exclusive of depreciation, for 1Q 2025 was $24.5 million, a 25% increase over $19.6 million in 4Q 2024. The quarter-over-quarter increase was due to a 37% increase in realized power prices from $0.059 per kilowatt-hour in 4Q 2024 to $0.081 per kilowatt-hour in 1Q 2025, offset by demand response proceeds of $1.3 million in 4Q 2024 versus $2.8 million in 1Q 2025. Our power cost, or cost of energy per Bitcoin mined, a non-GAAP metric, was $66,084 in 1Q 2025 compared to $46,328 in 4Q 2024.

As mentioned previously, this temporary spike in power prices, which began in December and persisted through mid-February 2025, was historic as it resulted in a 1.76 standard deviation spike in New York ISO Zone A West average energy prices for January and February versus the average for this period over the last 10 years. We expect the remainder of 2025 to be in line with historical power pricing at Lake Mariner, with guidance of $0.05 per kilowatt-hour for 2Q through 4Q 2025, which is in line with New York ISO Zone A forward power curves as of May 5, 2025. Operating expenses increased 6% quarter-over-quarter from $2.7 million in 4Q 2024 to $2.9 million in 1Q 2025, following a 69% increase from 3Q 2024 to 4Q 2024.

This trend higher is primarily the result of increased staffing levels at Lake Mariner necessary to support our mining expansion as well as our entry into HPC hosting activities. SG&A expenses increased quarter-over-quarter from $32.3 million in Q4 2024 to $50.1 million in Q1 2025, primarily due to stock-based compensation in Q1 2025. Adjusting for stock-based compensation, SG&A decreased quarter-over-quarter from $15.5 million in Q4 2024 to $11.5 million in Q1 2025. Depreciation increased slightly quarter-over-quarter from $14.9 million in Q4 2024 to $15.6 million in Q1 2025. Loss on fair value of digital currency in Q1 2025 was $0.9 million compared to a gain of $0.6 million in Q4 2024.

GAAP interest expense in 1Q 2025 was $4 million compared to $3 million in 4Q 2024, and we recognized interest income of $2.2 million in 1Q 2025 compared to $2.6 million in 4Q 2024. Cash interest paid during 1Q 2025 and 4Q 2024 was negligible as a 2.75% interest on our $500 million convertible notes is accrued and payable on May 1 and November 1. Our GAAP net loss in 1Q 2025 was $61.4 million compared to a net loss of $29.2 million in 4Q 2024. Our non-GAAP adjusted EBITDA for 1Q 2025 was negative $4.7 million, down from positive $2.5 million in 4Q 2024. Turning our attention to the balance sheet, as of March 31, we held $218 million in cash, with total assets amounting to $841 million and total liabilities of $670 million.

Through March 31, 2025, we spent approximately $130 million of capital expenditures on Wolf Den CB1 and CB2. As disclosed on page 17 of our May investor presentation, we achieved a BTC segment cost of production of approximately $72,000 in 1Q 2025, and our guidance for 2Q through 4Q 2025 is anticipated to be well below this at approximately $47,500, primarily due to the aforementioned decrease in forecasted power prices. Regarding fixed operating expense guidance for 2025, page 18 details our anticipated SG&A operating expense and interest expense provisions. These costs reflect significant increases in the number of employees at both TeraWulf and Lake Mariner as we grow our business and expand into high performance compute hosting. On page 12 of the May investor presentation, you'll find our updated total cost of build and net yield on cost analysis.

Since signing the Core 42 leases in December, we've worked hand in glove with Core 42 and our respective partners, including Dell, Ramble, and T5, among others, to refine our preliminary data center designs into a final high-quality product. The result of this tightly knit partnership and design process is an increase in total capital expenditures of approximately $65 million, from $365 million to $430 million, along with a commensurate increase in initial rent from approximately $1.5 million per megawatt to approximately $1.6 million per megawatt. The net result of these changes is a slightly lower net yield on cost, but a 14% increase in year one EBITDA. The incremental spend takes our CapEx per critical megawatt from $6.1 million to $7.2 million, well within our long-standing guidance range of $6 million-$8 million, and well below industry peers, as detailed on page 13.

This page highlights the unique value of the existing infrastructure and site-specific advantages of building and operating high-power compute loads at Lake Mariner. Regarding our capital position and growth plans for the remainder of 2025, page 14 provides a capital sources and uses bridge. Our data center financing led by JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley will officially launch next week. We have a high degree of confidence in executing an approximately $300 million debt raise in the middle of 2025. In anticipation of a sizable unallocated 2025 cash balance, the board has authorized a new $200 million share repurchase program for an incremental approximately $150 million to the remaining approximately $50 million on our pre-existing program. We also intend to file an updated ATM prospective supplement of $200 million, which is a housekeeping exercise as the current ATM, with approximately $87 million remaining, have lapsed at year-end.

While some may find it unorthodox to have active buyback and ATM programs, given TeraWulf's historical realized stock volatility of approximately 130 and current macroeconomic conditions, the management team and board find it prudent to have every tool in the toolshed available and at our disposal. Finally, as a management team, we are repeatedly asked how we value a megawatt of long-term contracted high-power compute capacity. One simple analysis we regularly reference internally is depicted on page 16. In summary, the Core 42 leases for 60 megawatts of critical load are worth approximately $2 per fully diluted share outstanding, and every incremental 50 megawatts of capacity contracted at similar economics is worth an additional $1.30 or so per fully diluted share. We hope you find this slide useful as a simple reference tool to measure our success as we announce further high-power compute deals.

With that, I'll turn it back to the operator, and we look forward to answering your questions.

Operator (participant)

Thank you. We will now be conducting a question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press Star 1 on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate that your line is in the question queue. You may press Star 2 if you would like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the Star keys. One moment, please, while we pull for questions. Our first question comes from Nick Giles with B. Riley Securities. Please proceed with your question.

Nick Giles (Senior Research Analyst)

Hey, thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. My first question, it's good to see the integration of TeraWulf and Beowulf. How should we think about any potential cost savings for the parent, and what does the timeline look like there? Thank you very much.

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

From a timeline perspective, this is a—there's a very rigorous process because it's a related party transaction. The independent directors of the board have hired independent counsel, independent financial advisors, have negotiated an arrangement with the ownership of Beowulf. Until those independent directors approve the transaction and the audit committee approves the transaction as required by the operating company's articles as well as by insurance, I can't comment on that. That's a process they run independently. We think it's something that will be very enabling to TeraWulf's shareholders long-term to just have everybody in one place. Ultimately, it will drive real value in terms of development and of additional sites as well as construction of high-power compute on our existing site.

We're pretty excited about this opportunity, and we think it's near term, but again, it's really up to the independent directors of the board of the company.

Nick Giles (Senior Research Analyst)

Paul, that's very helpful. I appreciate those comments. My second question, one thing that's always stood out about your economics is really the lower capital intensity. You mentioned the tariff impact of 5-10%. My question is, what are your expectations for build costs more broadly, particularly as you look to Cayuga or other potential sites? Could some of these other sites have the same capital intensity that Mariner's afforded?

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

Patrick, do you want to field that, or would you like me to?

Patrick Fleury (CFO)

Go ahead. I'll back clean up.

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

I think we have guided the markets to $8 million a megawatt. Our range was basically $5 million-$8 million. We tightened it up to $6 million-$8 million. The answer is we're working very closely with Core 42 and the integrated Dell, and we've had several design changes that have had some cost implications, but that is, A, there's a mechanism within our agreement to capture that, and so nobody should be concerned there. B, we think it enables us to get to a better standard design for a 50 megawatt gross building, 42 net megawatt building that we could just replicate over and over again for both the existing customer Core 42 and other customers that come to our site.

By the way, I look at that learned knowledge, if you will, of the slightly higher price of the finalized design is pretty much optimal leading-edge data center design that gives us a competitive advantage going forward. We are pretty much at that range, $6 million-$8 million, and it could be at the high end of that range, but I'm good with that.

Patrick Fleury (CFO)

Yeah. Nick, if I may add a little bit to that. As you can see in our new page 13 in our deck, I think this page really highlights, A, the uniqueness of Lake Mariner and the other power sites that we have, and also our ability to take those sites, remediate them. I mean, I think this really encompasses all of our strategic advantages. I think what Paul just said of this close-knit partnership with Core 42 and all the consultants we're working with really puts us in a competitive advantage vis-à-vis our peers because now we have what I would call close to a perfected design at a cost that is very attractive.

Yeah, I think it's, again, even if you take tariffs on top of that sort of $7.2 million critical build cost that we talked about of 5%-10%, you're still within the range that we've been guiding to for a long time of $6 million-$8 million.

Nick Giles (Senior Research Analyst)

Great. Patrick, Paul, I really appreciate all the color and continued best of luck.

Operator (participant)

Our next question comes from Darren Assady with Roth Capital Partners. Please proceed with your question.

Darren Assady (Analyst)

Yeah, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Just two, if I may, on page 10, there's commentary, I think, around EBITDA margins being incrementally higher on future capacity. So two questions around that. I guess the first one is, in terms of an additional tenant or an existing tenant expanding into future capacity, what sort of bogeys need to be seen in order for that to happen? Is it getting operation buildings at scale, and then people can take the next step? I guess the question around incremental adjusted EBITDA, what kind of gives you confidence on that? Is it just lease rates, and you think that CapEx can stay the same, so yields will be higher? Just any kind of color would be helpful. Thanks.

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

Hey, Patrick, if it's okay, I'll answer the first part of the question, and you could get the second.

Patrick Fleury (CFO)

Sounds good.

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

Yeah. Darren, I do not think there is a bogey out there that we have to tap in order to sign up additional capacity. I think those conversations are ongoing. We have been having them since we signed up Core 42 or in advance of that even. We are talking to both Core 42 and additional customers. I think what we have tried to share with people is that we sense, by the way our stock is priced in the market, that some people still do not sort of believe that we are very much a show-me story. We are really comfortable with that. I think if you want to bet on anything, you want to bet on the execution capabilities of TeraWulf.

I think that it is natural for customers who are trying to, whether it's NeoClouds or hyperscalers or enterprise folks, I think it's natural for them to, while they are organizing what their needs are, to want to be able to look at something. It's the difference between it's being able to go in and touch it and see it and hear it, and you have all those machines humming, and it's just a pretty fantastic thing when you get into one of our data halls.

While I agree with you that we built Wolf Den in order to be able to achieve that, and in fact, we did, we landed the preeminent customer in the space in Core 42, I think when we energize CB1, it will be even more profound in terms of how people want to react to us and get to the place where they're finally willing to contract. My view is that no bogeys are required. We're open for business now. We're negotiating with a bunch of folks, and we're going to sign up deals if they make sense, if they're top-quality credits, if they're the right duration today. I believe once we energize CB1, we'll be even busier if that's possible in sort of discreetly determining who the right customers are and signing them up to the appropriate contract.

I think that's where we are in terms of landing our next expansion. Patrick?

Patrick Fleury (CFO)

Yeah, Darren, with regard to the margins, I think we've had this page in our deck, I think, since about a year ago, last May. There was some confusion because we initially had said margin 65-75%. I think I had spoken publicly, Paul, Nazar, others, about how really that was EBITDA margin. The midpoint of that, the 70%, was actually, we thought about it as effectively cash available for debt service, so meaning EBITDA less maintenance CapEx. What I've done here is just to reduce that confusion and put in this is an EBITDA margin. We expect it, after lots of work with our partner, our operating partners, other consultants, our hiring plans, actually executing on the ground, that that EBITDA margin will be at about 75% on the first 72.5 megawatts.

We do expect we'll have going forward maintenance of about 3%. The callout on the right of page 10, to your point of higher incremental EBITDA margins, this is the benefit of a big site, okay, versus having multiple sites all over the country. I only have to hire, for example, one or two security guards. I do not have to hire 10 because I do not have five different sites. There is really significant and most of the costs that go into that EBITDA margin for the high-performance compute business are labor. It is just that simple. We got to have a bunch of people on the site. Once you have that base cost, which we already have, as I mentioned in my remarks, everything beyond that is incremental and comes in at a much higher margin.

I'm not going to tell you what that margin is today. I'll tell you when we announce additional capacity, but I expect it will be much greater than 75%.

Darren Assady (Analyst)

That's helpful. Appreciate all the detail. Thanks.

Operator (participant)

Our next question comes from Mike Grundahl with Northland Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.

Hey, guys. Thanks. I wanted to ask, you've spent a lot of time, many months with Core 42. What have been two or three of the biggest learnings for Wulf through all those discussions?

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

Nazar Khan, are you on, and do you want to address that? I don't know if the operator's allowing him to enter. Why don't I field it? And if Nazar can get on, I'm happy to. Listen, it's been tremendous. The team that Core 42 has brought to bear would indicate that we're in the very, very early stages of these data centers. And each, if you will, generation of chips has their own particular inherent requirements in terms of the design of the rack. So what I like about Core 42 is that they've just shared everything with us and our design team and construction team so that we've been able to appreciate why some parties focus on cooling in the building, some focus more on cooling on the rack, the weight of some of these water-cooled racks.

It's just so constantly fluid because this is new technology, and it's sensitive, and people are trying to figure it out real-time at the same time that there's this massive demand for the high-power compute. I think the biggest lesson learned we have had is that we were right to pick the right partner because in our power experience when we were developing power plants, if we had this level of fluidity as we worked towards the final design, which is where we're at now, because as I've indicated, we're going to be energizing CB1 and 2 very shortly, it would have been a far more confrontational kind of a thing. Here, it's been just a real collaboration, very cooperative. These design changes, we had they weren't changes as much as we had it wrong. It was just an evolution of design, if you will.

We had a mechanism within our agreement, and Core 42 has been totally stand-up about it. I think the lesson learned is pick the right partner, and you'll get to the dance in the right place, and you'll have a great time. That has been the lesson for me. Patrick, anything you want to add?

Patrick Fleury (CFO)

I think Nazar's unmuted. Nazar, he's certainly better suited to answer this question than I am. Go ahead, Nazar.

Nazar Khan (CTO)

Sure. Good morning, Mike. It's Nazar here. As Paul said, I think when we signed the agreement with Core 42 in December, they'd gone through 40% or so of all of the design specs. Since that time, we've had the chance to go through every single component of the design, the size of every single valve, the location of every single pipe, the location of every single kind of busway. Now we've had a chance to go through 100% of the design with them. Through that, we've come up with a whole host of things that we're working with them on kind of incorporating into future buildings as well. As Paul had mentioned earlier, we are in the early stages of the evolution of this business.

What we build in kind of CB1 and CB2 likely will not be what we build for CB5 and CB6. That process of really working with our customer and partner Core 42 and being able to go through every single component of the design and thinking through what the trade-offs are. For a lot of these decisions, there is no perfect answer. It is always a trade-off, right? You are giving something to get something. Having that discussion with them and being able to then take those learnings and reflect that on what we want to do next, I think, has been a very important part of the process.

As we think about going forward, those learnings are going to be invaluable because both just the way the business is evolving, but also the way the underlying hardware equipment is evolving, all of those trade-offs and those decisions that we made, we're going to have to revisit as Ruben rolls out and as kind of future generations of those GPUs roll out as well. That for me has kind of been the biggest is the importance of having a partner to work with and not just simply a customer who kind of signs a piece of paper.

Great. Hey, thanks for the insight.

Operator (participant)

Our next question comes from Brett Nussbaugh with Cantor Fitzgerald. Please proceed with your question.

Brett Knoblauch (Analyst)

Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my question. Congrats on getting the additional 250 approved for Lake Mariner. It seems like this year is definitely going to be focused on energizing the three buildings for Core 42. You now have 250 capacity, and the charts show next year you can kind of really allocate additional capacity. Would you look to start breaking ground on, say, CB3 or CB4 before signing an additional tenant? Is that something that you would look to start doing this year, or would that be a 2026 thing?

Patrick Fleury (CFO)

Paul, you want me to take that one?

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

Yes.

Patrick Fleury (CFO)

Yeah, Brett. I think that the short answer to that is we do do some spend, mostly preparing, so pads, but it's relatively minor, and it's getting us, whether it's site prep or site electrical, it's getting us into a position so that when the customer's ready to execute, we can go right away. I would say there's some site-level expense that we kind of constantly are spending. If you look at our presentations, you can see that. On page 14, we have a site electrical and infrastructure column. We've had that in every single one of our decks. There are some site-specific things that we constantly are doing. For example, you've got to get electricity, right, high-voltage electricity around the site to the various buildings from the substation. There's prep for that.

Like I said, there's preparing buildings and pouring pads and things in the appropriate weather. There are those types of things, but I think anything that's significant and major, we would not expend without a signed agreement.

Brett Knoblauch (Analyst)

Perfect. That is helpful. Patrick, maybe just a follow-up on maybe capital allocation priorities, re-ups or increase the buyback. Obviously, there is a need for a lot of CapEx to be spent over the next few years. How do you weigh buying back shares versus spending that on infrastructure to sign additional tenants? Is there a point where one is more attractive to you? What is that point, or is that just kind of like an ad hoc ongoing discussion that you guys look at?

Patrick Fleury (CFO)

Yeah, look, I'll answer that, and then Paul can chime in. It is a management board-level decision that we constantly evaluate. As you know, the purpose of having the buyback, and again, I think as you'll see, as you heard in my remarks, we also had about $87 million left on our ATM. As part of that process, we increased it from $87 million to $200 million. We do not intend to use that, but I want every tool in the tool shed just like I want a buyback. As you know, and we've come to realize, Brett, Bitcoin mining in particular is an incredibly dynamic business, right? Profitability can change dramatically on every day. We can go from making very small amounts of free cash flow to very significant amounts of free cash flow very quickly. Other things can change also.

For example, project financing. We've been targeting 70% loan to cost. Many of our peers are out there doing 80-90%, right? That's a lot of money that would come back to us if that changes. Again, it's really just my job in particular in advising the management team and the board is to make sure we have every single tool available. Given the volatility in our stock, I want them all at my disposal, Paul's disposal, and the board's disposal.

Brett Knoblauch (Analyst)

Awesome. Really appreciate it, Patrick. Thank you, guys.

Operator (participant)

Our next question comes from Brian Dodson with Clear Street. Please proceed with your question.

Brian Dodson (Analyst)

Hey, good morning. As you're out in the market speaking with other potential clients, what are you hearing from enterprises and hyperscalers? What do you feel about the near-term demand environment, but also the medium-term?

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

This is Paul. Thank you for your question. I mean, from a near-term demand perspective, I think people are very keen to sort of get power now. We have seen a lot of energized land deals in the market. I think that demand is real. I think from a data center perspective, the hyperscalers are still out there. They are refining what they are looking for. I think there was initially this sort of global, "Let's tie up everything we can." Now I think they are focused on, "Okay, they have a better sense of their needs and a better sense of what makes a site a great site." Lake Mariner is certainly that. We have a lot of incomings all the time, and we have incomings on development sites that we are close to as well. I think near-term demand is real if you have proximate energy.

If you could demonstrate that you have a few hundred megawatts near-term with the ability to scale after that, the demand is real. You have to understand these customers. A lot of them do not understand energy. When most of the world is out there advertising 1 gig and 2 gig sites, which sounds really, really great, they need to wade through a lot of that, if you will, crap to appreciate that bringing the five nines of quality in terms of electricity to a data hall is tough on the grid operators. You have to really study the site, where she is in the grid, how robust is the grid. You have to do a lot of work. I think the hyperscalers are getting smarter every day and starting to lean towards higher quality sites with higher quality owners that understand energy and infrastructure.

Enterprise customers, the demand has been a constant. NeoClouds, I think they're running around trying to allocate their book and then figure out what their needs are and how that scales, not only in terms of capacity, but in terms of calendar scheduling. From a midterm perspective, I am, and we have said this all along, we're less sanguine on the likelihood of increased generation hitting the market at the scale that it needs to within the next few years. It just takes a long time to develop a power plant. We think that enables higher values for us because we have what we have, and we're energy infrastructure folks that can develop things in a really efficient from a cost and time perspective, more so than I think any of our peers.

We see a lot of demand, so much so that I think we are starting to sort of try and categorize the customers that are coming in on the basis of we want to sell data hall by data hall, and we're seeing a lot of interest now as well for people that want to come in and take half of the data hall. We're thinking those enterprise customers are starting to show up in the marketplace. We're pretty constructive, and we just need to continue to execute.

Brian Dodson (Analyst)

Yeah, thanks. That's really helpful. Just shifting over to the mining business, we've seen elevated global hash rates throughout the last quarter and continuing now. What's your outlook there, and how do you plan to combat that as we head into the next half and over the next couple of years?

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

We can't do a whole lot to combat the hash rate. We have to live with it. I think we are happy that the higher price of Bitcoin and hopefully want it to go higher benefits those who have Bitcoin and guys like us who have really low cost in generating Bitcoin. We've brought on most recent generation of miners, and we're back to really low costs from an energy perspective, and we operate about as efficiently as anybody ever could. It's a tough business being in mining, and we've guided the market to the belief that at this point in time, especially given what we see as the demand for our product and HPC and AI, we want to really continue to focus on that. We're certainly enjoying the benefit of having a mining operation now.

That in time, prior to the next halving, we'll probably look to take those megawatts and deploy them in the highest value. We think it's likely to be HPC AI, and there's an additional benefit to that, as Patrick has spoken about, which is you have predictable revenues over a long period of time, and you could get good project financing terms on that. We're excited about Bitcoin going higher. We have a real Bitcoin zealot and Nazar Khan on our management team, and we'll continue to mine so long as we can make lots of money doing it.

Patrick Fleury (CFO)

Hey, Paul. If I may, Brian, just to address your question a little bit more specifically from the finance side, I mean, we just came through a really tough quarter where we had, for us, a one in kind of 10-year type event on power prices. Even with that, we've gone through our fleet upgrade. We did not bring miner building five on until the very end of March, early April. Really kind of fighting with a hand tied behind our back. We still had, and when you consider that the entire business right now is burdened with the cost structure of high-performance compute, and we do not have any revenue yet. The results actually were not what we wanted, but pretty darn good when you consider, again, we are running with that whole cost structure. We had really high power prices.

As Paul mentioned in his remarks, we've really seen in April, that's all subsided, and price has kind of ticked up, and we're making money. I think, as we know, a quarter, a year in Bitcoin mining can be a lifetime. I think our assets, the efficiency of our fleet is among the lowest of our peers. I think we're about 18 joules per terahash now. I think we are positioned well to reap the cash flow rewards of that business should Bitcoin move higher.

Brian Dodson (Analyst)

Yep, agreed. Thanks.

Operator (participant)

Our next question comes from Stephen William Glagola with JonesTrading Institutional Services. Please proceed with your question.

Stephen Glagola (Analyst)

Hi, thanks for the question. Paul and Nazar, thanks for your color on sort of the Core 42 design discussions. I was hoping you could elaborate on if the current delay for additional capacity is primarily related to Core 42's customer visibility, or are they waiting to see how the first 72.5 megawatts build-out goes? I had a follow-up.

Patrick Fleury (CFO)

Yeah. I don't like the word delay because I don't think that's a real word. The discussions with Core 42 are going exactly as they're supposed to go because they're really focused, as we are, on delivering what we have contracted, right? It's pretty intense. It's a collaborative effort. It's a constructive effort. The end result is going to be we're hitting the ball out of the park. The reason for that is that when CB1, CB2 are energized and they're up and running, that enables Core 42's ability to aggregate customers as well as it enables our ability to talk to other parties interested in the site because there's something they could see and touch and hear and get excited about.

There is a lot of, listen, people have said they were building data halls, and they turned out to be big buildings that cost a lot of money that did not achieve their intended purpose. That is not what we are doing. We are building something that we can not only replicate and continue to improve upon and evolve over time, but something that will truly fulfill the contractual requirements of our customer and their contractual requirements to their customers. We are doing it right. As a result of that, we are focused on that. I think having CB1 and CB2 energized enables us to get better terms, better pricing. I just do not feel that I had a deadline by which I had to sort of land another customer. We had an option within an agreement for them to have more because they wanted that option.

Quite rightly, they never talked about it. We never talked about it. We have just talked about how do we grow together. I remain very, very constructive on our ability to sign up an additional 100-150 megawatts and put it in the ground each year. That is what we are about right now.

Stephen Glagola (Analyst)

Thanks, Paul. Appreciate that. Patrick, on slide 15 of the presentation, the hosting timeline, do you anticipate the 170 gross megawatt capacity planned for 2026 to be brought online gradually throughout the year, or will the full 178 come online towards the end of the year, 2026? Thanks.

Patrick Fleury (CFO)

Yeah. There is no customer for that right now that we are announcing today. That is what we have, sort of the arrow in the quiver, so to speak. As we have mentioned, I mean, I think we are trying to perfect a 50 megawatt design. That capacity is effectively three different buildings. I think as we move forward in time, Steven, you will see us from signing a lease to bringing a building online, I think a reasonable timeframe is 12 months. I think over the next six to seven months here before year-end, obviously, to bring that capacity online by fiscal year-end 2026, which is what the bar chart says on page 15, we would have to announce contracts for that capacity and start on it by year-end.

Stephen Glagola (Analyst)

Thanks, Patrick.

Operator (participant)

Our next question comes from John Todaro with Needham & Co. Please proceed with your question.

John Todaro (Senior Analyst)

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. First one, as you start to deliver for Core 42, do you think that gives quite a bit more comfort to either enterprises or major hyperscalers for some of that additional capacity? Is that kind of the right way to be thinking about it? I have a follow-up question.

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

Yeah. I've been saying that this entire call. I mean, listen, it's one thing to think about what you want to have for breakfast if you're me, right? I'm a short, fat guy, and I like breakfast. It's another thing when I walk into a bakery and I look at the cinnamon rolls, and I get really, really worked out, and I'm a buyer. The answer is when we build and energize this data hall, it's moved from the stage of talking about something and talking about design to actually delivering to a customer who is also delivering onwards to their customer base. It's a huge deal, and it makes a tremendous difference in terms of our ability to sell our capacity at the terms and price that we require. I think, again, Patrick likes to say that we're bummed about our stock price.

The management team here are serious holders of stock, and we're bummed about it, but we got to manage the company in the best interest of the shareholders. In order to do that, we must recognize that we're a little bit of a show-me story because we're building a data center for the top customer in the business. This is new technology, new business for everybody, for Core 42, for NVIDIA. This is all new, these kinds of the rack densities. We recognize that until we energize CB1, there'll be some doubters out there, but that's okay. We don't care about that. We care about execution. Once we deliver on an energized data hall, I think we're ready to roll.

I think it's an important element that we must energize CB1 and have a happy customer because that changes the entire profile of the market.

John Todaro (Senior Analyst)

Yep. Fair enough. That makes sense.

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

Think about it. There are only two customers right now in the space, not customers, companies that have made this transition out of mining into HPC AI. And that's CoreWeave and us, right? The market is tough in the current economic environment. People are, instead of saying the glass is half full, they're saying it's half empty. That's okay to be skeptical. Once you deliver and energize CB1, that all goes away. I think that our shareholders will benefit by seeing greater value just outright. Separately, we'll all benefit because the customers will say, "Wow, that's great. Core 42 is so lucky. I want that too." Or customers will go to Core 42 and say, "Wow, that's great. I want to be one of your customers.

Can you get some additional capacity from TeraWulf in? And we'll be ready to go. That's what's happening.

John Todaro (Senior Analyst)

Got it. Thank you. Maybe one for Patrick. Kind of would there be a point where you'd look to buy back, to convert? I think they got pretty discounted at one point. Just wondering how you think about that capital management strategy long-term.

Patrick Fleury (CFO)

Yeah. Look, I think we'll look at anything and everything on the table, right? So I've gotten a bunch of calls from convert investors about that. I think certainly a consideration. That being said, right, that's a 2030 maturity. It's a long way out, and it's a low 2.75% cash interest, very low cost of capital. So certainly not the top of my priority list. I think, like Paul said, right now, again, I view the buyback and the ATM as tools to put away in the toolshed. We have got to execute. Number one, we're executing on CB1, CB2. Number two, we are executing on a project financing, which we talked about today. Once that is done, we will reevaluate because I think, to Paul's point, there may be demand for that cash in growth or otherwise.

If there are not, then as long as we have ample liquidity, then yeah, we'll look at the stock. We'll look at the converts, whatever makes the most sense. So anything is on the table, but I think just stating the obvious, that is a very long-term low cost of capital, so not my number one priority.

John Todaro (Senior Analyst)

Got it. Understood. Thank you both.

Operator (participant)

Our next question comes from Chris Brendler with Rosenblatt Securities. Please proceed with your question.

Chris Brendler (Senior Research Analyst)

Hi, thanks. Good morning. My first question is, I think, Patrick, you actually already alluded to this in one of your answers, was just how rare the sort of power conditions were in the first quarter. I think you said once in a decade. Was that mostly weather, or were there other factors at play that caused such an unusual spike in power prices? Are there ways in the future to potentially hedge that risk from sort of these black swan events?

Patrick Fleury (CFO)

Yeah. That was weather. As you know, we are located in the northeast, just about 35 mi east of Buffalo. We had a very cold December in the northeast. Like everyone else, really sort of from the Plains, Texas, east had a very cold January that kind of went into February. It was strictly power-related, Chris. I mentioned in my remarks, it was a 1.76, I think, standard deviation event for both January and February over the last 10 years. That is really significant. With regard to your last question, I think this kind of shows how long this team has been together, which Paul always likes to talk about. In my prior life at Blackstone, I owned this power plant, and Paul and Nazar and Stephanie were the management team that ran it. We all owned it together.

Once every 10 years, it would rain money. The rest of the time, it was a difficult plant to own. For that precise reason of having all that experience in this specific power market, 90+% of the time, the power prices are really, really benign here because we're in a region where there's about 5,000 megawatts of generation and, on average, only around 2,000 megawatts of demand. All of that power tries to make its way down to New York City. During times of significant demand in the winter when people need heat and a couple of weeks in the summer when people want air conditioning, otherwise, it is a really, really benign power environment. The cost of hedging, right, which is tying up cash or otherwise, just isn't worth it because it only happens once every 10 years.

Unfortunately, that literally just happened to us. I can tell you from personal experience, we are really comfortable with Lake Mariner long-term. No, I do not think we will look to hedge that.

Chris Brendler (Senior Research Analyst)

That's fantastic, Connor. Thanks so much, Patrick. My second question would be on project financing for the first leg of this HPC strategy. Do you think success on the project financing side will help with additional client prospecting? Because I do think there is a bit of concern sometimes when larger cap hyperscalers, in particular, are dealing with smaller companies who potentially do not have the balance sheet or the size they are used to dealing with. There has been a little bit of friction there I have been picking up. How important will project financing be to your future HPC prospecting?

Patrick Fleury (CFO)

Yeah.

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

Maybe I could start, Patrick. I do not like the premise of the question because I am not sure I agree that project financing is really as sensitive to the size of our company. I mean, I think ultimately the project lenders are underwriting Core 42, right, the ultimate credit. I think that is consistent with the advice we have gotten from JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley. I do not have quite the concern about our ability to not only get the financing done, but more importantly, get the absolute best terms that would be available in the market. I think Patrick has taken a real conservative approach to our financing in terms of leverage. Our credit is really unique out there in terms of Core 42, and it is gearing toward Core 42.

More importantly, it's already—I think there was a deal done in the market on the back of the credit Core 42 at 90% leverage, really good terms. We are very, very bullish about our ability to execute on the project financing. Is it important to us? Absolutely. I mean, we made a conscious decision to move forward using our own equity to build on behalf of our customer. It was the right thing to do because it put us in a time zone that the customer needed for his and her customers. It is important, and it will enable us to continue to grow at the pace that we want to grow, given the real customer demand that we have. We are also highly confident of our ability to execute on it at really good terms. I mean, Patrick.

Chris Brendler (Senior Research Analyst)

I apologize, Paul. I was actually—I was not suggesting that it'd be difficult to get project financing. I was more suggesting that lining up project financing would help sign your next deal.

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

Yeah. I think it's in the market, right? I mean, when you look at the announcements made by some of the folks, whether it's Galaxy or CoreWeave, they all guide towards their intent to do project financing. I think in this case, we've got a guy and Patrick and his team that have only done it about a billion times. B, we're taking a very conservative approach to it. We are slightly different in the sense that we've spent all our own equity to build out this facility. It's less of a challenge for the project lenders to see what they're financing as opposed to somebody that's drawing money to build out the project from a greenfield site. I think that market demand for project finance product is real, very significant, super quality lenders.

It is important for us to get that done because we want to continue to be able to take that cash out, recycle it, and build the next data hall and the next data hall and the next data hall. That is our business model. Again, I appreciate that you think we will be able to do it. I think we will be able to do it at really great terms, at really good timing. It is near term, as Patrick said. We are launching maybe Tuesday next week. I hear people yell at me now for giving you a day as opposed to saying early next week. We are excited about it, and we think it is critical to achieve so that we could recycle that cash and continue to go out and build.

Patrick Fleury (CFO)

Yeah. Chris, I would just add to that. We are looking for a financial partner that can grow with us. Yes, I do think executing on that, which has been part of our business plan from day one, as Paul said, is a show-me story. I am excited. I mean, look, I was a credit investor for 20 years. This is where I shine. This is my wheelhouse. Yeah, I am excited to get that going. I have a very high degree of confidence that we will find the right partner and a partner that not only does this first, call it $300 million, but then grows with us as we do additional buildings.

Chris Brendler (Senior Research Analyst)

That's fantastic. Connor, guys, thanks.

Operator (participant)

Our next question comes from Martin Toner with ATB Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.

Martin Toner (Analyst)

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. I didn't catch what's going to launch Tuesday of next week?

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

Our project financing.

CB1, CB2, and Wolf Den.

Martin Toner (Analyst)

Perfect. Thank you. Only one for me is, as you have gone back to prospective customers with higher build costs, what have you learned about their price sensitivity?

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

I mean.

Nazar, do you want to take that?

Nazar Khan (CTO)

Yeah. Yeah.

Hey, Martin. It's Nazar here. We've been very open with our customers on kind of what the build cost is, right? We've been guiding the market where our build cost is, and our customers are aware. As I mentioned to you earlier, when we went through with Core 42, every single design decision we made, there's both kind of a—there's a cost component that often comes with it as well. We've been very open with all of the various customer discussions that we're having where we are kind of coming out. When you look at what the customer is doing with it, how they use that compute capacity oftentimes drives kind of their ultimate sensitivity. If you're a NeoCloud player, the cost of moving $5 or $10 one way or another on your monthly kilowatt per month lease rate has some impact.

When you look at their total cost of compute that they're delivering at $2 or $3 a GPU hour, it's a fairly small component. When you have an enterprise customer that you're having this discussion with and you kind of look at it, they've got a big kind of finance team, and they're looking at every single dollar and where it's going. Sometimes they're more often sensitive to kind of those changes. For others, it's just kind of how they're looking at it. For us, I think people are aware that to the extent that there are increases from tariffs that someone's going to have to pay for it, they understand kind of there's a business that we run. We've guided both the market and our customers on where we want to end up in terms of the margins that we have.

It's been a pretty, I'd say, constructive discussion with those folks. Again, depending upon what the end use is, sometimes we see different sensitivities arise.

Martin Toner (Analyst)

That's great. Thank you for that. That's all for me.

Operator (participant)

Our next question comes from Bill Papanastasiou with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. Please proceed with your question.

Bill Papanastasiou (Analyst)

Good morning, gentlemen. Thanks for taking my questions. For my first one, just given the increased attention towards landing additional capacity and diversifying your customer base, what would you say are the top two to three milestones that should be monitored when evaluating your progress of securing new contracts as your build-out continues through 2025? Thanks.

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

Again, I don't know if there are ways to sort of guide the market to how our discussions are going because we've got customers where we've negotiated a contract to the point of their satisfaction, but they're still trying to figure out their capacity requirements. We've got customers who are certain about their capacity requirements but want to wait for the next generation chip. We've got customers who we've negotiated their requirements from a capacity perspective and the schedule, but they want to talk about terms. I can't give you a magic bullet here on how we can inform you on our progress other than to say, one, we're having lots of conversations. Two, they're really intense. Three, we're on top of our general counsel to manage your legal costs because we're negotiating on so many different fronts.

Four, I think the most important element would be when we energize CB1. I think that will be a big day that Core 42 and TeraWulf will celebrate. We hope our shareholders celebrate it because it will reflect that we were able to deliver, that we executed. It will be a great day for Core 42 because their phone will be ringing off the hook with new customer demand. We would expect our phones will be ringing off the hook because people will want to take the conversations we're having and convert to a contract. I think that's the only real hard milestone I could give you.

Bill Papanastasiou (Analyst)

Appreciate that, Paul, for giving the best color you can provide. Then just secondly, with respect to the Bitcoin mining segment, should we expect further expansion to that previous 13.1 exahash target? Not sure if you guys provided commentary that I missed, but is that still in play in the coming quarters, or was there some sort of larger replacement to the fleet upgrade? Just curious if there's any power capacity that's sitting idle that you guys could capitalize on in Q2 or going forward. Thanks.

Nazar Khan (CTO)

Not for now, Bill. I mean, I think from an infrastructure perspective, we've got about 250 megawatts of infrastructure available to us. If you look at the composition of our fleet, we are constantly looking at ways to optimize the miner fleet. I think 60% or so of our capacity is below 20 joules per terahash in terms of efficiency. I think in the near term, we continue to always evaluate ways to optimize our miner fleet. We've kind of continuously done that over the past year. In the near term, I think any changes to the hash rate will likely come through that kind of an activity.

Bill Papanastasiou (Analyst)

Thank you.

Operator (participant)

Our next question comes from Joe Flynn with Compass Point Research and Trading. Please proceed with your question.

Joe Flynn (Analyst)

Hi. Thanks for the question. You guys kind of ultimately answered it, but maybe just a lot of project financing side. It seems like the corporate guarantees there would be a lot of interest in that and pretty tight spreads. Maybe just talk about what the appetite is and where you ultimately who do you hope to partner with? Yeah, study color would be great.

Patrick Fleury (CFO)

Yeah. Look, I think there's a lot of chatter out there in the marketplace. You can see where deals are pricing. Generally, hyperscaler risk is SOFR plus 200. CoreWeave risk is kind of SOFR plus 400-500, but tightening. I would expect our customer, in my opinion, I think is a better credit quality than CoreWeave, but is not as well-known. I would expect, Joe, we're kind of targeting somewhere probably around that same pricing of SOFR kind of 400-500. I hope to do better than that. I think for our first financing, that's kind of, I think, a good target range.

Operator (participant)

There are no further questions at this time. I would now like to turn the floor back over to Paul Prager for closing comments.

Paul Prager (Chairman and CEO)

I want to thank all of you again for joining us. TeraWulf is very well positioned at the convergence of energy and compute. Our scalable, sustainable infrastructure, attractive cost profile, and strong project pipeline provide for a foundation for long-term value creation. As we move through 2025, our focus remains on execution. The deployment of our initial HPC buildings will mark a major inflection point, shifting us from promise to proof and unlocking new revenue streams for the company. As a significant shareholder myself, I want to reaffirm that our actions are aligned with long-term shareholder interests. We appreciate your continued support and confidence in TeraWulf. Thank you.

Operator (participant)

This concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.