Computing Power Subprime Crisis: The AI Infrastructure Debt Wave, Miner Leverage, and the Vanishing 'Liquidation Liquidity'

marsbitPublished on 2025-12-18Last updated on 2025-12-18

Abstract

AI Infrastructure Debt Crisis: A Looming "Compute Subprime" Scenario Beneath the surface of booming AI investment and data center expansion, a severe financial mismatch is brewing. Credit investors are growing alarmed as the industry uses long-term, real-estate-like debt models to finance rapidly depreciating tech assets with an effective shelf life of just 18 months. The core issue is a fundamental asset-liability mismatch. AI compute is inherently deflationary; inference costs are falling 20-40% annually due to technological advances, eroding the future cash flows used to service debt taken out at peak 2024 prices. This risk is amplified by a shift in financing. High-risk, venture-grade tech assets are being packaged into low-risk, utility-grade project finance and asset-backed loans (ABL), transforming potential equity losses into systemic defaults. Crypto miners, often portrayed as successfully "pivoting" to AI, are particularly vulnerable. Many have not deleveraged but have instead taken on double leverage—using volatile crypto holdings as collateral to borrow more dollars to buy GPUs. This creates a dangerous correlation risk where a crypto crash and a drop in AI rental prices could occur simultaneously. The final, critical flaw is the illusion of collateral. Unlike real estate, a defaulting borrower's GPUs are nearly impossible to liquidate. They are physically dependent on specialized infrastructure, face rapid obsolescence, and lack a deep secondary market, mean...

Author: Anita @anitahityou

If you only read tech news in 2025, the world seems rosy: AI investment continues, North American data center construction accelerates, and crypto miners have finally "exited the cycle," successfully transforming their highly volatile mining operations into stable AI computing power services.

But in the credit departments of Wall Street, the atmosphere is completely different.

Credit investors aren't discussing model performance or which generation of GPU is stronger. They stare at the core assumptions in their Excel spreadsheets and begin to feel a chill: we seem to be using a 10-year real estate financing model to purchase a perishable product with a shelf life of only 18 months.

Back-to-back reports from Reuters and Bloomberg in December revealed the tip of the iceberg: AI infrastructure is rapidly becoming a "debt-intensive industry." But this is just the surface; the real crisis lies in a deep financial structure mismatch—when high-depreciation computing assets, highly volatile miner collateral, and rigid infrastructure debt are forcibly bundled together, a hidden chain of default transmission has already formed.

I. Deflation on the Asset Side: The Brutal Revenge of "Moore's Law"

The core logic of credit is Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR). Over the past 18 months, the market assumed AI compute租金 (rent) would be as stable as real estate rent, or even as inflation-resistant as oil.

Data is mercilessly shattering this assumption.

According to Q4 2025 tracking data from SemiAnalysis and Epoch AI, the unit cost of AI inference has decreased by 20–40% year-over-year in the past year.

  • The adoption of model quantization, distillation techniques, and efficiency improvements in dedicated inference chips (ASICs) have led to an exponential increase in the efficiency of computing power supply.
  • This means so-called "compute租金" has a natural deflationary attribute.

This creates the first duration mismatch: the issuing entities purchased GPUs at 2024 peak prices (CapEx), locking in a rental income curve destined to plummet post-2025.

If you are an equity investor, this is called technological progress; if you are a creditor, this is called collateral depreciation.

II. The Distortion on the Financing Side: Packaging Venture Risk as Infrastructure Returns

If returns on the asset side are thinning, the liability side should rationally become more conservative.

But reality is恰恰相反 (precisely the opposite).

According to the latest statistics from The Economic Times and Reuters, the total debt financing for AI data centers and related infrastructure surged 112% in 2025, reaching a scale of $25 billion. The main drivers of this surge are "Neo-Cloud" vendors like CoreWeave and Crusoe, as well as transitioning mining companies, which are大规模采用 (large-scale adoption of) Asset-Backed Lending (ABL) and Project Finance.

The本质变化 (essential change) in this financing structure is extremely dangerous:

  • Past: AI was a game for tech VCs; failure meant equity goes to zero.
  • Present: AI has become an infrastructure game; failure means debt default.

The market is mistakenly placing high-risk, high-depreciation tech assets (Venture-grade Assets) into a low-risk financing model (Utility-grade Leverage) meant for highways and hydropower plants.

III. Miners' "Fake Transformation" and "Real Leverage"

The most fragile link appears among crypto miners. The media loves to praise miner转型 (transformation) to AI as "de-risking," but from a balance sheet perspective, this is risk叠加 (stacking).

Consulting data from VanEck and TheMinerMag reveals a counterintuitive fact: the net debt ratios of leading listed mining companies in 2025 have not substantially decreased compared to the 2021 peak.甚至 (Even), the debt scale of some aggressive mining firms has surged by 500%.

How did they achieve this?

  • Left hand (Asset side): Still holds highly volatile BTC/ETH, or uses future computing income as implicit collateral.
  • Right hand (Liability side): Issues convertible notes or high-yield bonds, borrows USD to purchase H100s/H200s.

This is not deleveraging; this is a Rollover (debt extension).

This means miners are playing a "double leverage" game: using Crypto's volatility as collateral to bet on GPU cash flow. During顺风期 (favorable periods) this means double profits, but once the macro environment tightens, "coin price decline" and "compute租金 decline" will occur simultaneously**. In credit models, this is called correlation convergence, the nightmare of all structured products.

IV. The Non-Existent "Repo Market" (The Missing Repo Market)

What keeps credit managers awake at night is not the default itself, but the清算 (liquidation) after default.

In the real estate subprime crisis, banks could at least foreclose and auction houses. But in AI compute financing, if a miner defaults, who can the creditor sell those ten thousand H100 GPUs to?

This is a secondary market whose liquidity is严重高估 (severely overestimated):

  1. Physical Dependence: High-end GPUs aren't something you can just plug into a home computer; they heavily depend on specific liquid-cooled racks and power density (30-50kW/rack).
  2. Technical Obsolescence (Hardware Obsolescence): With the release of NVIDIA's Blackwell and even Rubin architectures, older cards face non-linear depreciation.
  3. Buy-Side Vacuum: When systemic selling occurs, there is no "lender of last resort" willing to take on obsolete electronic waste.

We must be wary of this "collateral illusion"—the LTV on the books looks safe, but that secondary repo market capable of absorbing tens of billions of dollars in selling pressure simply doesn't exist in reality.

This Isn't Just an AI Bubble; It's a Failure of Credit

It needs to be clarified that this article does not否定 (deny) AI's technological prospects, nor does it deny the real demand for computing power. What we question is the wrong financial structure.

When deflationary assets (GPUs) driven by Moore's Law are priced like inflation-resistant real estate; when miners who haven't truly deleveraged are financed like premium infrastructure operators—the market is actually conducting a credit experiment that has not been sufficiently priced in.

Historical experience repeatedly proves: credit cycles often peak earlier than technology cycles. For macro strategists and credit traders, the primary task before 2026 might not be predicting which large model will win, but重新审视 (re-examining) the true credit spreads of those "AI Infra + Crypto Miners" combinations.

https://epoch.ai/data-insights/llm-inference-price-trends

https://epochai.substack.com/p/the-epoch-ai-brief-april-2025

https://semianalysis.com/2025/

https://www.reuters.com/commentary/breakingviews/shaky-data-centre-tenants-could-choke-off-ai-boom-2025-12-10/

https://longbridge.com/en/news/269179463

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/data-center-capacity

https://www.webpronews.com/ais-debt-fueled-data-center-frenzy-risks-mounting-in-2025-boom/

https://www.alpha-matica.com/post/assessing-risks-in-ai-infrastructure-finance

https://www.blackstone.com/news/press/coreweave-secures-7-5-billion-debt-financing-facility-led-by-blackstone-and-magnetar/

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coreweave-secures-7-5-billion-debt-financing-facility-led-by-blackstone-and-magnetar-301848093.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/17/ai-startup-coreweave-raises-7point5-billion-in-debt-blackstone-leads.html

https://happycoin.club/en/vaneck-za-god-dolgi-bitkoin-majnerov-vyrosli-na-500-do-127-mlrd/

https://www.binance.bh/en-BH/square/post/10-23-2025-crypto-news-bitcoin-miner-debt-surges-500-as-industry-gears-up-for-hashrate-

https://www.aicerts.ai/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Publications-Certification-Impact-Report-1.pdf

https://www.webpronews.com/ais-debt-fueled-data-center-frenzy-risks-mounting-in-2025-boom/

https://www.alpha-matica.com/post/assessing-risks-in-ai-infrastructure-finance

Trending Cryptos

ctr
CitreaCTR
wstusdt
wrapped stUSDTWSTUSDT
apr
aPrioriAPR
ctx
Cryptex FinanceCTX
audio
AudiusAUDIO
mantra
MantraMANTRA
xvs
VenusXVS
waxl
AxelarWAXL
bill
Billions NetworkBILL
pyth
PYTH (Pyth)PYTH
rune
THORChainRUNE
velodrome
Velodrome FinanceVELODROME
brev
BrevisBREV
zrx
ZRX（0X）ZRX
cake
PancakeSwapCAKE

Related Questions

QWhat is the core financial mismatch that the article identifies as the root of the potential 'Compute Subprime Crisis'?

AThe core financial mismatch is using long-term, real estate-style infrastructure financing models (e.g., 10-year debt) to purchase rapidly depreciating and deflationary tech assets (e.g., GPUs with an 18-month effective lifespan). This creates a duration mismatch where the cost of capital is locked in at a high price point, but the revenue from the asset is on a steeply declining curve due to technological progress.

QAccording to the article, why is the 'AI compute rental' income stream inherently deflationary?

AAI compute rental income is deflationary due to rapid technological advancements, specifically model quantization, distillation techniques, and the efficiency gains from specialized inference chips (ASICs). These factors cause the cost of performing a unit of AI inference to decrease by 20-40% year-over-year, crushing the assumption of stable, inflation-resistant rental income.

QHow does the article characterize the risk transformation from the 'past' state of AI to the 'now' state?

AThe article states that in the past, AI was a venture capital (VC) game where the risk was borne by equity investors, and failure meant equity going to zero. Now, AI has become an infrastructure game where the risk is shifted to debt markets, and failure means a debt default, posing a systemic risk to the credit system.

QWhat 'double leverage' game are crypto miners playing according to the analysis?

ACrypto miners are playing a 'double leverage' game by using their highly volatile crypto assets (BTC/ETH) or future compute revenue as collateral to take on more dollar-denominated debt (e.g., via convertible notes) to purchase more GPUs. This creates a dangerous correlation convergence where a downturn could simultaneously crash both crypto prices and AI compute rental rates, triggering a crisis.

QWhy does the article argue that the secondary market for GPUs (the 'repo market') is an illusion and a critical vulnerability?

AThe article argues the secondary market is an illusion because high-end GPUs lack true liquidity for large-scale liquidation events. They are physically dependent on specialized infrastructure like liquid-cooled racks, become obsolete quickly due to new architectures, and there is no 'lender of last resort' to absorb billions of dollars worth of outdated hardware during a systemic sell-off, making the collateral's stated loan-to-value (LTV) ratio dangerously misleading.

Related Reads

Injective software package hit by malicious supply chain attack – Details

In a software supply chain attack, malicious actors compromised the Injective Labs TypeScript SDK (@injectivelabs/sdk-ts v1.20.21) by uploading a tainted version to the npm registry. The attackers gained access to a legitimate contributor's GitHub account to distribute malicious commits. The compromised package, disguised as a routine update, contained malware that activated only when developers used specific wallet generation functions, stealing private keys and mnemonic seed phrases. This breach impacted approximately 50,000 weekly downloads and spread through transitive dependencies in 17 other Injective packages. While a clean version (v1.20.23) was later released, the malicious package remained accessible. Affected users are advised to rotate credentials, create new wallets, and move their funds.

ambcrypto1h ago

Injective software package hit by malicious supply chain attack – Details

ambcrypto1h ago

After Aave's Exit and TVL's Sharp Fluctuation, Where Does MegaETH's Valuation Anchor Lie?

Following the withdrawal of Aave and a sharp drop in its Total Value Locked (TVL), the valuation of the high-performance DeFi blockchain MegaETH faces scrutiny. Once a highly anticipated project with a fully diluted valuation (FDV) reaching around $2 billion, MegaETH saw its TVL plummet from a May peak of $245 million to just over $30 million in July, a roughly 70% decline. Its native token, MEGA, currently trades around $0.048 with a market cap of approximately $54 million and an FDV of about $480 million. The report identifies a core vulnerability: MegaETH's TVL was heavily dependent on a single protocol, Aave V3, which at its peak contributed around 90% of the chain's TVL. A significant portion of this capital is attributed to leveraged yield-farming strategies involving stablecoins like USDe. When the profitability of these strategies diminished, capital rapidly exited, exposing the lack of diversified, sustainable activity. Three key mismatches between MegaETH's valuation and its fundamentals are highlighted: 1. **Valuation vs. Real Usage:** With an FDV of ~$4.8B but only ~$1M in annualized protocol revenue and ~2,600 daily active addresses, the valuation appears disconnected from current economic activity. 2. **Token Narrative vs. Ecosystem Reality:** Despite its DeFi narrative, nearly 80% of the chain's recent protocol revenue comes from a trading card game, Monster, not from core DeFi applications like Aave. The chain's native stablecoin, USDM, also shows low trading volume and a declining market cap. 3. **Short-Term Hype vs. Long-Term Delivery:** Initial hype from token generation, blue-chip integrations, and influencer support has faded. Major protocols like Uniswap now hold minimal TVL on the chain, indicating that early capital was largely transient and driven by incentives rather than organic demand. The situation reflects a broader market trend where investors are becoming less tolerant of valuations based on inflated TVL and narrative, demanding clearer evidence of sustainable transactions, revenue, and ecosystem development. While MEGA's price may experience short-term rebounds from market sentiment, a fundamental re-rating likely depends on the team's ability to convert its remaining resources into tangible, user-retaining applications and genuine ecosystem growth.

链捕手1h ago

After Aave's Exit and TVL's Sharp Fluctuation, Where Does MegaETH's Valuation Anchor Lie?

链捕手1h ago

Goldman Sachs In-Depth Report: Who Will Be the Long-Term Winners in China's AI Large Model Industry?

Goldman Sachs Report: China's AI Models at an Inflection Point China's open-source/open-weight large language models (LLMs) have reached performance parity with top global proprietary models, according to a Goldman Sachs report. This is driven by architectural innovations and higher parameter efficiency, allowing Chinese models to achieve comparable capabilities at 2%-10% the parameter size and significantly lower cost. The market is evolving into a two-tiered structure: a high-end segment (e.g., GLM5.2, Qwen3.7 Max) with premium pricing and a low-end, price-sensitive segment for global SMEs and individual users. Key points: * **Cost & Performance:** Innovations like Mixture of Experts (MoE) enable high performance with smaller models. Projects like Meituan's LongCat 2.0, trained on domestic hardware, highlight progress in tech self-sufficiency. * **Open-Source Strategy:** Most Chinese players use open-source/open-weight models for flexibility and ecosystem growth. However, Goldman notes this may underreport actual deployment and revenue. A shift toward "open-weight + community license" models with revenue sharing (e.g., MiniMax) could improve monetization. * **Market Shift & Global Expansion:** Enterprise AI adoption is shifting from "token maximization" to "ROI-first." International expansion, especially in non-US markets, is a major growth driver. Chinese models are increasingly available on global platforms like AWS Bedrock and Microsoft Copilot. * **Competitive Landscape:** Using a framework based on pricing power, cost advantage, and financial strength, Goldman identifies **Zhipu AI and DeepSeek** as the strongest in foundational text models, and **ByteDance** as the leader in multimodal/video generation. The report maintains Buy ratings on MiniMax and Kuaishou. * **Market Growth:** China's AI model API and subscription revenue is projected to grow from an estimated ¥35 billion in 2026 to ¥879 billion by 2030.

marsbit1h ago

Goldman Sachs In-Depth Report: Who Will Be the Long-Term Winners in China's AI Large Model Industry?

marsbit1h ago

Goldman Sachs Deep Dive Report: Who Will Become the Long-Term Winners in China's AI Large Model Industry?

Goldman Sachs Report: Who Will Be the Long-Term Winners in China's AI Large Model Industry? China's AI large model sector is at a historic inflection point. Goldman Sachs argues that the intelligence of Chinese open-source/open-weight models is approaching top global proprietary models. Rapid adoption by domestic enterprises and global SMEs is creating a data flywheel effect that will further drive model iteration. The evolution is summarized as moving from "DeepSeek's cost-efficiency moment last year to GLM's model-intelligence moment this year." Chinese models achieve near-state-of-the-art performance at significantly lower cost, primarily due to architectural innovations like Mixture of Experts (MoE) and higher parameter efficiency. Models like DeepSeek V4 Pro (1.6T params), GLM5.2 (0.7T), and MiniMax M3 (0.4T) are much smaller than global leaders. Recent advancements in coding capability are attributed to better data curation and RLHF. Landmarks like Meituan's LongCat 2.0, trained fully on domestic AI chips, demonstrate progress in hardware stack independence. The market is forming a "two-tiered structure." The high-end tier (e.g., GLM5.2, Alibaba's Qwen3.7 Max) prices around $1 per million tokens, about 10-25% of US top models, with estimated inference gross margins of 10-20%. The low-end tier (priced as low as $0.06-$0.2 per million tokens) targets price-sensitive global SMEs and individuals. MiniMax derives 60-70% of revenue overseas. Goldman forecasts China's AI model API/subscription revenue to grow from an estimated RMB 35bn in 2026 to RMB 879bn by 2030. Most Chinese players adopt open-source/open-weight strategies for deployment flexibility and community feedback, though this limits monetization as deployments on third-party platforms (e.g., Alibaba Cloud) may not generate direct revenue. A shift towards "open-weight + community license" models with revenue-sharing agreements (like MiniMax's approach) could improve unit economics. International expansion, particularly in non-US markets, is the key growth driver. The global enterprise AI paradigm is shifting from "token maximization" to "ROI prioritization." Chinese models are already hosted on major global platforms like AWS Bedrock and are under consideration for integration into Microsoft Copilot. Using a competitive framework based on pricing power, cost advantage, and financial strength, Goldman identifies the strongest players: In foundational text models, Zhipu AI (initiated coverage) and DeepSeek lead. In multimodal/video generation, ByteDance's Seed is the frontrunner, with Kuaishou's Kling and MiniMax's Hailuo also well-positioned. Goldman maintains a Buy rating on MiniMax, citing its attractive valuation.

链捕手1h ago

Goldman Sachs Deep Dive Report: Who Will Become the Long-Term Winners in China's AI Large Model Industry?

链捕手1h ago

Circle secures final OCC approval for national trust bank to strengthen USDC infrastructure

Circle has received final approval from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to establish Circle National Trust, a federally regulated national trust bank. This marks a key regulatory milestone, bringing core parts of the company's USDC stablecoin infrastructure under direct federal oversight. The new bank will initially provide digital asset custody services for Circle and its affiliates, with a pathway to serve institutional clients and potentially manage the USDC reserve in the future. The approval advances Circle from the conditional stage it reached alongside other crypto firms in late 2025. This move reflects a broader trend of integrating crypto infrastructure into the existing U.S. banking framework through national trust charters, which specialize in custody and fiduciary services rather than traditional lending.

ambcrypto1h ago

Circle secures final OCC approval for national trust bank to strengthen USDC infrastructure

ambcrypto1h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of AI (AI) are presented below.

活动图片

Top Questions