VanEck: Bitcoin Miner Stocks Severely Oversold After 35% Drop in October
nashnova research
VanEck says bitcoin miners that pivoted to AI data-center infrastructure fell an average 35% in October and are now deeply oversold, calling the selloff a market "dislocation" rather than a rejection of the business model — with room for re-rating if investors distinguish these firms from GPU-leasing companies.
What business are these miners actually in now?
VanEck labels Hut 8, Core Scientific and peers "power-shell providers" (PSPs) — their core asset is not mining rigs but power infrastructure.
In plain terms = these companies control large grid-connected power capacity, exactly what AI data centers need most, so they pivoted from mining crypto to "selling power seats."
This means → their valuation anchor has shifted from the bitcoin price to AI compute expansion's demand for electricity.
Why did they drop so hard in October?
VanEck's core explanation: the market lumped PSPs together with GPU-leasing firms. GPU lessors such as CoreWeave finance expensive chips with debt; rising borrowing costs triggered a credit scare.
This means → investors saw "AI infrastructure" and sold indiscriminately, yet PSPs carry a fundamentally different liability structure — power assets, not high-cost chips.
Macro headwinds amplified the decline: September U.S. CPI came in above expectations, and uncertainty ahead of November midterm elections added further pressure.
What is VanEck's case for "oversold"?
The report's central thesis: the power capacity PSPs control is the binding bottleneck for AI compute expansion, which underpins their long-term value.
VanEck's own words: "At current price levels, we believe these stocks are significantly dislocated relative to their long-term contracted cash flows."
In plain terms = these companies have signed long-term power-supply contracts with reliable cash flows, yet their stocks are priced as if those contracts don't exist — that is the "dislocation" VanEck describes.
Can the valuation gap close?
VanEck's logic: once the market re-differentiates PSPs from GPU lessors on risk profile, a re-rating becomes possible.
Whether that plays out hinges on one condition — investors must be willing to parse the fundamental differences between the two business models.
This reflects a deeper issue: the market currently prices companies under the "AI infrastructure" label in bulk, without distinguishing them by business model.
市场有风险，内容仅供研究参考，不构成投资建议。