Adam Back vs. Charles Edwards: Is Miners' Shift to AI a Threat to Bitcoin?

Against the backdrop of a mass transition of public miners toward AI computing — according to forecasts by Charles Edwards of Capriole, the share of “crypto revenue” in the sector will drop from 90% to 30% by 2026 — two polar-opposite expert views on network security have emerged in the industry.

Edwards warns of a security collapse due to an outflow of Bitcoin hash power, and Blockstream CEO Adam Back draws a line under speculation about the threat, proposing viewing this process as natural market arbitrage.

Is AI boom really threat to Bitcoin?

Edwards points out that the market is “voting with its feet” as the capitalization of companies that chose AI has grown by an average of 500%, while pure miners show negative returns. He believes the fundamental security of BTC is deteriorating at the very moment when the development of quantum computing demands maximum protection.

No, this is actually good for miners: if Hashrate falls profit margin increases. it's an arbitrage, with equilibrium when mining margin is the same as ai workloads. Higher profit margin adds to positive reflexivity - miners sell less Bitcoin to cover power, and as price rises.

— Adam Back (@adam3us) April 17, 2026

Back counters that the exit of some players into AI is a mechanism of optimization. Reduced competition for hash rate increases margins for those who remain, allowing them to sell fewer mined BTC, creating a supply deficit and pushing the price upward.

According to Edwards, many industry giants have stopped upgrading their ASIC fleets, directing all investments into AI infrastructure. For him, this signals a loss of interest in the network. Back sees a different logic as profits from AI contracts effectively become a subsidy for mining. Financially stable companies can use artificial intelligence as a liquidity source to accumulate Bitcoin, transforming from forced sellers into net buyers.

Edwards fears that miner outflows will leave the network exposed to external threats. Back argues that 90% of hash rate controlled by financially resilient companies is strategically more valuable than the 100% controlled by players operating on the edge of bankruptcy.