Blockstream CEO Adam Back: 90% Hashrate + Healthy Profit Margins Outperform Inefficient Competition at 100% Hashrate
Blockstream CEO Adam Back stated in a public discussion that maintaining about 90% of Bitcoin's hashrate with healthy profit margins may be better than barely sustaining 100% hashrate while many miners face financial difficulties. His core logic is that after inefficient miners exit, the remaining network's security is still supported by high-efficiency, high-profit units.
This view resonates with market data: several analyses indicate that in the Bitcoin mining industry, with fluctuations in coin prices and hashrate, some miners are always in a state of "near break-even or loss," relying on expectations of rising coin prices for continued operation. When these miners exit, although the network's hashrate may slightly decline, the overall hash price and unit profit may actually rebound.
Industry commentary in English suggests that this "high efficiency, low redundancy" structure is more characteristic of a "mature industry" rather than the primitive stage of "full competition." In the context of long-term halving and capital expenditure pressures, the quality and stability of hashrate may better reflect the sustainability of network security than absolute scale.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
This essentially redefines the "cost structure of network security." In the past, Bitcoin was often simply viewed as "the greater the hashrate, the safer it is," but Adam Back's judgment ties security to economic efficiency: a network filled with inefficient, barely surviving miners incurs higher costs and is more sensitive to price fluctuations; whereas a network dominated by high-efficiency, high-profit miners can maintain more stable protection at lower hashrate levels.
From a game-theoretic perspective, the exit of inefficient miners is itself a market "arbitraging" hashrate rents. When mining returns fall below those of other computational scenarios like AI, the least efficient miners are pushed out first, until the remaining miners' unit returns are roughly balanced with external opportunities. This process dynamically adjusts the "security purchase price" of the Bitcoin network, rather than locking it at some historical high hashrate number.
On a deeper level, this reflects that Bitcoin is transitioning from a "pure technical security narrative" to a "capital efficiency narrative." As the marginal cost of hashrate rises, simply having the "maximum hashrate" is no longer the sole indicator; a more compact structure with healthier capital returns may actually be more resilient in the face of long-term risks and disturbances. This also means that Bitcoin's "security premium" is no longer solely determined by technology, but is jointly priced by the opportunity cost and efficiency distribution of mining capital.