The following is a guest post and opinion from Armando Aguilar, Head of Capital Formation and Growth at TeraHash.
ETFs may dominate the headlines, but the real architects of Bitcoin’s liquidity are the miners quietly building balance sheets. Since the April 2024 halving, the role of miners as a whole has shifted from pure producers to systemic stabilizers. While institutions celebrate inflows, miners are doing the hard work of anchoring Bitcoin-native finance (BTCFi).
In this article, I explore the way miners are emerging as financial actors, how they’re deploying balance-sheet strategies, and what BTCFi infrastructure still lacks in order for this evolution to succeed.
The 2024 halving slashed block rewards, tightening margins across the industry. As a result, many miners had to restructure their operations not just to survive, but to manage capital with greater precision. No longer content with selling block rewards at market, miners began behaving more like corporate treasuries: timing BTC sales, collateralizing reserves, and building financial buffers.
We’re witnessing a full-cycle pivot. Rather than merely producing Bitcoin, miners are actively shaping its capital markets.
Naturally, the 2024 halving didn’t create this mindset, but it certainly accelerated it. Post-2024, these financial strategies became necessary for survival rather than merely optional.
Miners have begun sending deliberate signals to the broader ecosystem. Holding BTC is about more than just a belief in the protocol now. It’s a message: “This asset matters, and we’re managing it accordingly.”
When large public miners delay sales, markets take notice. Their actions now influence sentiment and pricing, much like central banks adjusting interest rates. This dynamic used to be the domain of exchanges—not anymore.
Meanwhile, major names like Saylor’s MicroStrategy and Marathon Digital are accumulating and disclosing BTC positions with the same transparency you would expect from institutional asset managers.
Put simply, when miners act like treasuries, mining itself turns into institutional capital management, setting the tone for Bitcoin’s financial maturity as a global asset. Whether the headlines reflect this or not, that’s exactly what we’re seeing now.
Yet, while miners mature, BTCFi remains fragile. The infrastructure meant to support this financial layer is still underdeveloped.
Settlements remain slow, with confirmation delays limiting composability. Liquidity is siloed across fragmented protocols with minimal coordination. Instruments are often trust-based, lacking the neutrality BTC-native systems demand.
Projects are continuously experimenting—custody-free lending protocols, BTC-backed stablecoins, hash-rate forwards—but most of these tools are still in the early stages, far from broader adoption.
This gap between maturing miner behavior and underdeveloped protocol infrastructure is dangerous. Left unresolved, it could turn a stabilizing force into a point of failure. If BTCFi stalls, miners could stand to lose credibility just as their role becomes essential.
That’s why real infrastructure is necessary here:
Without these, reserves meant to stabilize the system could become systemic liabilities…
Miners didn’t ask for this role, but they’ve stepped into it. In a system without a central bank, someone must set the floor. Today, it’s miners who are holding reserves, managing risk, and acting with systemic foresight.
If BTCFi fails to mature, it won’t be because miners fell short. It will be because the ecosystem refused to acknowledge the financial infrastructure they were already building and support the actors holding it all together.
Pull-quote:
“Bitcoin turns institutional when miners act like treasuries. And that’s exactly what’s happening—whether the headlines catch up or not.”
