Fair fee — buying hashpower

Most projects that buy hashrate split each period's mined output by fixed percentages — "80% to holders, 15% compounding, 5% development". This works out what that structure needs from the market to actually work.

It is entirely satoshi-denominated: capital goes in as BTC, hashrate mines BTC back, and the answer is a ratio. No BTC price forecast, no capex, no depreciation, no halving cliff — the subsidy cut moves hashvalue and order prices together.

The split, per distribution

Buying discipline

Discount: positive buys below hashvalue and creates BTC; zero is exactly breakeven on the hashrate; negative is what the live market charges.

Months to commit all capital: nobody puts the whole raise into one order. Set to 6 and a sixth of the pot is committed each month for six months. Set to 1 and it all goes in at once.

One month = one distribution, matching a project that pays out monthly.

What does the order need to return?

Holding the split fixed, this is the only question that matters: how far below hashvalue must every Braiins order be filled for holders to get their money back?

Discount to hashvalue every order must achieve, for holders to break even

Against a best available discount of on the book right now — the cheapest ask anyone is offering.

The bar depends only on the non-fee share of output. Shifting between rewards and reinvestment does not move it at all — both eventually reach holders, one directly and one by buying hashrate that pays them later. The fee is what sets it.

Required order yield

satoshis mined per satoshi spent, every order

Best on the book

cheapest ask, sat

Largest workable fee

at that best discount, vs charged

Ceiling on rewards

buying at hashvalue exactly, tolls still charged

The fee sets the bar

The shaded band is what the order book can actually deliver. A fee puts the requirement at , well outside it; at a zero fee the bar drops to about 2% and comes within reach. On today's book the largest workable fee is roughly .

Worth being precise about why: in lifetime terms the fee is small — it takes only of the initial capital. But it is charged on the margin the strategy depends on, and that margin is only a couple of percent wide. A small slice of a thin edge is what decides whether the structure clears at all.

Does the required order actually exist?

The requirement is one thing; whether anyone is offering it is another. This is the live sell side, cheapest first — listed hashrate versus what is already matched to other buyers, leaving what a new buyer could actually lift.

This is the assumption the strategy rests on, measured rather than assumed: the cheap hashrate is not sitting there waiting. Every rung meaningfully below hashvalue has already been taken by someone else, and what remains free is priced where no fee can be supported. A discount strategy is competing for that edge, not helping itself to it.

What does the 15% actually buy?

Capital is committed over months rather than all at once. Each month's hashpower comes from two places: fresh capital still being rolled out, and the reinvested slice from last month's mining. This splits them, so the reinvestment's real contribution is visible rather than buried.

Reinvestment's peak share

of hashpower bought in any month, while capital is still going in

Total ever reinvested

of the original pot, across all months

After capital stops

of peak hashpower remains in month

The blue band is the entire "compounding" story. It never exceeds about 15% of what is bought in any month — because that is exactly what it is, 15% of the previous month's output — and the moment fresh capital stops at month , it is all that is left. It then decays by × per month and is effectively gone within three.

For the reinvested slice to hold hashpower steady it would need to be of output — more than everything mined. At 15% this is not compounding, it is a drawdown with a small top-up. The grey band is what is actually keeping the lights on, and it runs out.

Where the BTC ends up

Multiples are of the initial deployment, summed over the whole life of the structure. The development fee does not compound — it is a fixed share of each period's output, taken alongside the reinvestment rather than before it. Which is why it is worth in total, and why it is second-order next to the reinvestment percentage.

The two levers that exist

Lifetime rewards to holders, across buying discipline and reinvestment share. Reinvestment is taken out of the rewards slice; the fee is held fixed.

Reading up a column shows the trade every project faces: reinvesting more sustains the base but pays holders less now. Reading across a row shows what buying discipline is worth. Note that no amount of buying discipline rescues a low reinvestment share — the ceiling is set by the split before price ever enters.

Assumptions

Hashvalue sat/EH/day · market VWAP () · best ask (). Data as of .