Core Scientific revenue rises to $233 million as Bitcoin self-mining falls 79%
The short answer
Core Scientific reported $232.9 million of third-quarter revenue, compared with $81.1 million a year earlier, while revenue from mining digital assets for its own account fell about 79%. The company's November 5 results show that high-density colocation now supplies most of its revenue. For a Bitcoin trader using mining stocks as a way to follow BTC, the useful question is how much of the business still depends on mining, rather than whether the company once belonged to that category. Core Scientific's quarterly results.
The release was published at 20:00 SGT on November 5. It covers the quarter ended September 30, not trading during the current session. PANews also reported the revenue increase and contraction in self-mining. Its rounded $233 million headline agrees with the company's total, but a revenue increase does not establish a similar increase in Bitcoin production or a particular direction for BTC. PANews on the reported business shift.
Show less
The revenue mix explains the apparently conflicting headlines
The financial statements report $215.432 million of colocation revenue, $12.263 million of digital-asset self-mining revenue and $5.171 million from hosted mining. Together they equal $232.866 million. Our calculation, $215.432 million divided by $232.866 million, puts colocation at about 92.5% of total revenue. The self-mining line accounts for about 5.3%.
Those proportions explain how the company could report strong overall growth while its own mining activity generated much less revenue. The comparison concerns different business lines. Describing the full $233 million as Bitcoin mining revenue would erase the largest part of the business and reverse the meaning of the release. The company's segment statements supply the breakdown. Read the revenue and segment tables.
Article table: scroll horizontally, or focus the table area and use the arrow keys.
| Reported measure | Third quarter 2026 | Third quarter 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Total revenue | $232.866 million | $81.103 million |
| Colocation revenue | $215.432 million | $14.951 million |
| Self-mining revenue | $12.263 million | $57.438 million |
| Hosted-mining revenue | $5.171 million | $8.714 million |
Source: Core Scientific's unaudited quarterly statements. The table preserves the company's categories; hosted mining and colocation are separate rows.
The arithmetic behind the headline is also straightforward. Total revenue increased by $151.763 million. Dividing that increase by the prior-year $81.103 million gives about 187%. Self-mining revenue declined by $45.175 million; dividing that decline by the prior-year $57.438 million gives about 78.7%, rounded to 79%. These are year-over-year revenue comparisons, not changes in hashrate or the Bitcoin price.
Colocation growth changes what a mining-stock label tells you
Core Scientific says it operates facilities for AI-related high-density colocation and is repurposing its remaining mining facilities for that business as circumstances allow. In its business description, the majority of revenue comes from colocation, with the remainder from self-mining and mining hosting. That description matches the quarterly revenue mix.
The release puts billing capacity at 485 megawatts at September 30, compared with 395 megawatts at June 30. It also reports colocation revenue of $136.669 million in the second quarter. Comparing $215.432 million with that figure gives a sequential increase of about 57.6%, which explains the company's description of growth of nearly 60%. Company operating metrics and business description.
Our reading is that investors should update the business they are comparing with BTC. A historical mining label does not identify the sources of today's revenue. The quarterly statements now make billing capacity, colocation receipts and construction spending relevant to understanding this company alongside the mining lines. They do not provide a formula linking the share price to Bitcoin.
The distinction matters when reviewing a watchlist of mining-related companies. A list organized by an old industry label can group businesses whose revenue sources have moved apart. For this company, check the segment mix before using a Bitcoin price move as the complete explanation for an earnings result. That is a comparison method, not a claim about how CORZ traded after the release.
The $1.18 billion profit needs a separate reading
Core Scientific reported net income of $1,178.130 million for the quarter. Its operating income was $72.350 million. The statements also record a $1,034.358 million gain from changes in the fair value of warrants and contingent value rights. The company explicitly says net income benefited from a non-cash warrant valuation gain.
A trader scanning only net income could therefore mistake a valuation effect for a similar amount of recurring cash earnings. The release gives enough information to avoid that error: read operating income, the warrant line and the cash-flow statement separately. The $1.18 billion profit is a reported accounting result; the source does not describe it as cash collected from customers during the quarter. Income statement and explanation of the warrant effect.
Adjusted EBITDA was $133.6 million, compared with $41.1 million in the second quarter and $6.5 million a year earlier. The company reports an adjusted EBITDA margin of 57%, up from 25% sequentially. It defines the measure and supplies a reconciliation in the release. Keep that label attached when comparing it with net income, operating income or cash.
These figures answer different questions. Revenue describes reported business receipts under the company's accounting presentation. Operating income reflects the reported costs of operations. Net income also includes the warrant effect and other items. An adjusted measure removes specified items according to the company's definition. Substituting one for another would make the earnings story look simpler than the statements support.
Mining revenue and mining profit both contracted
The segment table gives self-mining costs of $19.755 million against revenue of $12.263 million. The difference is a gross loss of $7.492 million, with a reported gross margin of negative 61%. A year earlier, self-mining revenue was $57.438 million and the segment's gross loss was $2.000 million.
These numbers show that a fall in mining revenue did not arrive with an equal fall in the segment's reported costs. They do not isolate how much of the revenue decline came from changes in operating capacity, production, Bitcoin price or other factors. The article therefore does not assign the entire 79% decline to one cause that the opened release has not quantified. Self-mining segment results.
Hosted mining has its own result: $5.171 million in revenue and $2.391 million in gross profit for the quarter. Adding that revenue to self-mining gives $17.434 million for the two mining categories. That total remains much smaller than $215.432 million from colocation. Calling all three lines “hosting” would obscure which business is expanding.
For a reader interested in Bitcoin supply, revenue alone is an incomplete measure. A dollar-denominated mining line does not tell you the exact number of BTC produced, retained or sold during a particular day. The quarterly balance sheet and nine-month cash-flow statement offer other observations, but their periods and units must stay attached.
Digital assets and construction spending use different measurement windows
The balance sheet reports digital assets of $2.690 million at September 30, compared with $49.675 million at June 30 and $222.000 million at the previous year-end. Those are carrying values at specified dates. They are not BTC counts, and the difference between two values cannot by itself establish the number of coins sold.
The cash-flow statement separately reports $286.765 million of proceeds from sales of digital assets generated by self-mining for the first nine months. That amount covers nine months. It cannot be described as a single day's sale or the third quarter's sale. The statement's footnote describes liquidation at management's discretion. Balance sheet and nine-month cash flows.
The financial summary puts third-quarter capital expenditure at $985.1 million. The company defines that measure to include purchases of property, plant and equipment as well as land and development rights. This helps explain why construction and funding deserve attention in a business increasingly dependent on colocation. It does not establish that the entire amount was funded by Bitcoin sales.
What to check before acting on the earnings headline
If CORZ appears on your watchlist as a Bitcoin-linked holding, compare the company's segment revenue with the reason you hold it. Record the reporting period beside each figure. A quarterly operating result and a current BTC quote can be considered together, but they should not be presented as measurements of the same activity.
For an existing exchange position, inspect the full instrument name, settlement asset and position size in your account before making any connection to the earnings. This article does not verify a CORZ token or contract listing at any venue. Readers following derivatives conditions can use the funding-rate board and liquidation board for their separate market checks.
The next company filing can be compared against specific lines: colocation revenue, billing megawatts, self-mining costs and construction expenditure. That keeps the comparison anchored in the reported business. The present release does not establish future Bitcoin prices, the date every remaining mining facility will convert, or the stock's next move.
Quick answers
Did Core Scientific make $233 million from Bitcoin mining?
No. The company reports $232.866 million in total revenue, of which $215.432 million came from colocation. Self-mining supplied $12.263 million and hosted mining $5.171 million.
Why can revenue rise while mining revenue falls?
The colocation line increased enough to outweigh the declines in the two mining categories. The 187% total increase and roughly 79% self-mining decline describe different revenue lines against the same quarter a year earlier.
Does the reported profit measure cash generated by mining?
The company attributes much of net income to a non-cash warrant valuation gain. Read the operating result and cash-flow statement separately before comparing profit with mining activity.