Morgan Stanley Initiates Bitcoin Miner Coverage, Rates Cipher and TeraWulf Overweight, Marathon Underweight

TheNewsCryptoОпубликовано 2026-02-10Обновлено 2026-02-10

Введение

Morgan Stanley has initiated coverage on major Bitcoin miners, framing them as infrastructure businesses rather than pure cryptocurrency plays. The bank assigned Overweight ratings to Cipher Mining and TeraWulf, citing their potential to transition into stable utility-like companies through long-term power contracts and site leasing—particularly to AI tenants. Cipher is seen as well-positioned for a potential “REIT endgame,” while TeraWulf’s management experience in power and infrastructure supports its positive outlook. In contrast, Marathon Digital received an Underweight rating due to its heavy dependence on Bitcoin price volatility, mining difficulty, and energy costs, making it a higher-risk investment. Morgan Stanley emphasizes that the infrastructure model offers more predictable income and deserves higher valuation multiples.

Morgan Stanley has started formally analyzing the three major publicly traded Bitcoin miners. They argued that these miners should not be viewed as a cryptocurrency bet; instead, they should be valued as an infrastructure business. The bank has given overweight ratings on Cipher Mining and Terawulf, while giving Marathon Digital an underweight rating.

Morgan Stanley believes that once the mining company starts building large, powered sites and signing long-term contracts with customers, it starts looking like a real utility and infrastructure company. Infrastructure investors usually pay higher valuations because income is predictable and contracted with less dependence on the bitcoin value.

Why Cipher and TeraWulf Seem to be Positive

Morgan Stanley says Cipher is well-positioned for what he called a “REIT endgame.” If the Cipher leases its building and power capacity to the AI instead of mining, then risk drops, and valuation could increase. Morgan Stanley sees more upside if the transaction happens.

TeraWulf also received a similar positive rating because the management has deep power and infrastructure experience, with the company already having a history of signing hosting and data center agreements. The analyst believes that future sites can be converted from mining to AI tenants.

Why is Morgan Stanley Cautious on Marathon Digital

For Marathon Digital, Stanley took a different position. Morgan Stanley says that the MARA behaves mainly like the bitcoin price vehicle, and it actively tries to increase BTC exposure. So its stock performance depends heavily on the difficulty, power costs, and BTC price swings. Morgan Stanley warns that mining profitability faces pressure from competition and rising energy demands.

These reports arrive when the investors are debating the future identity of Bitcoin miners. Morgan Stanley replies with its report to all the investors that the infrastructure model gives more stability and deserves a higher value than pure mining.

Highlighted Crypto News:

Dogecoin Price Shows Mixed Signals as Key Technical Levels Are Tested

TagsCipher MiningJPMorganMarathon

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat is Morgan Stanley's main argument regarding the valuation of major Bitcoin miners?

AMorgan Stanley argues that Bitcoin miners should not be viewed as a cryptocurrency bet but should be valued as infrastructure businesses, as they build large powered sites and sign long-term contracts, making them similar to utility companies.

QWhich two Bitcoin mining companies received an 'overweight' rating from Morgan Stanley?

ACipher Mining and TeraWulf received overweight ratings from Morgan Stanley.

QWhy does Morgan Stanley view Cipher Mining positively, specifically mentioning a 'REIT endgame'?

AMorgan Stanley views Cipher positively because it is well-positioned for a 'REIT endgame,' where leasing its building and power capacity to AI instead of mining would reduce risk and increase valuation.

QWhat is the reason for Morgan Stanley's cautious (underweight) rating on Marathon Digital?

AMorgan Stanley is cautious on Marathon Digital because it behaves mainly as a Bitcoin price vehicle, actively increasing BTC exposure, making its stock performance heavily dependent on mining difficulty, power costs, and BTC price swings, with profitability facing competition and rising energy demands.

QAccording to the report, what advantage does the infrastructure model offer to investors?

AThe infrastructure model offers more stability and deserves a higher valuation because income is predictable and contracted, with less dependence on the value of Bitcoin.

Похожее

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

The article "a16z: AI's 'Amnesia' – Can Continual Learning Cure It?" explores the limitations of current large language models (LLMs), which, like the protagonist in the film *Memento*, are trapped in a perpetual present—unable to form new memories after training. While methods like in-context learning (ICL), retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and external scaffolding (e.g., chat history, prompts) provide temporary solutions, they fail to enable true internalization of new knowledge. The authors argue that compression—the core of learning during training—is halted at deployment, preventing models from generalizing, discovering novel solutions (e.g., mathematical proofs), or handling adversarial scenarios. The piece introduces *continual learning* as a critical research direction to address this, categorizing approaches into three paths: 1. **Context**: Scaling external memory via longer context windows, multi-agent systems, and smarter retrieval. 2. **Modules**: Using pluggable adapters or external memory layers for specialization without full retraining. 3. **Weights**: Enabling parameter updates through sparse training, test-time training, meta-learning, distillation, and reinforcement learning from feedback. Challenges include catastrophic forgetting, safety risks, and auditability, but overcoming these could unlock models that learn iteratively from experience. The conclusion emphasizes that while context-based methods are effective, true breakthroughs require models to compress new information into weights post-deployment, moving from mere retrieval to genuine learning.

marsbit2 ч. назад

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

marsbit2 ч. назад

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbit3 ч. назад

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbit3 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片