Bitcoin holders are selling their coins to pay bills, and MARA provides the reason for this.

According to MARA, based on the transactions disclosed in 2026, the company has sold over 40,000 bitcoins to fund its operations, repay debts, and support expansion into power infrastructure. Its most recent sale generated approximately $1.1 billion and released tokens that were used as collateral for loans, providing a financial explanation for the company's selling activities during market downturns.

• According to MARA, as of the end of September, 26,984 BTC were sold, followed by another 13,597 BTC sold, bringing the total disclosed quantity to 40,581 BTC.
• The latest sale raised approximately $1.1 billion, of which $750 million was used to repay loans, and 17,477 BTC tokens that were used as collateral were recovered.
• The company's net profit for the third quarter was $632.1 million, which includes $885.3 million in unrealized digital asset gains, while revenue decreased by 35% year-over-year.
• CleanSpark delivered 700 units of BTC in September by exercising a call option, and also sold another 2 units of BTC on the spot market, exceeding its production of 529 units of BTC.
• On November 5th, in a announcement regarding Long Ridge, MARA stated that the acquisition of a power plant authorized to sell 485 megawatts of electricity was in progress, but the transaction was still to be completed.

MARA disclosed the latest sales and repayment details in its letter to shareholders on November 9th. In the months prior to that, the company had already been using Bitcoin to provide cash for its operations. The average price of this sale was $81,039, which is lower than the price cited during the market sell-off on November 13th.

As previously reported by crypto.news, after the loan was repaid, 17,477 BTC were released from the mortgage restriction. MARA relinquished ownership of the tokens that were intended for sale and simultaneously regained control of another portion of the assets that were previously used as collateral for the loan.

The documents of this mining company group several different cash requirements under the same market heading. Salaries and electricity costs, repayments to lenders, infrastructure purchases, as well as proposed share repurchases are all listed in its financial records, but they do not constitute the same type of expenditure.

MARA Selling Bitcoin to Pay Off Debts and Release Collateral

In the third-quarter shareholder letter, MARA stated that the sale at the end of the quarter generated approximately $1.1 billion in revenue. Of this amount, $750 million was used to fully repay a term loan secured by Bitcoin.

This repayment allowed for the recovery of 17,477 BTC that were previously pledged to the lender. The release of the collateral will change the assets available to the company, but it will not create new bitcoins out of thin air, nor will it reverse the sale that was used to repay the loan.

Calculated by the amount disclosed, the collateral recovered is 3,880 BTC more than the coins sold. This result comes from 17,477 minus 13,597; it describes the relationship between the two transactions, rather than an increase in the total holdings of MARA.

For shareholders who track a company's treasury, ownership and availability must be considered separately. The coins can still be considered company assets, but if lenders have rights to restrict their free use, it’s like a building that is still listed on the balance sheet but at the same time mortgaged for a mortgage loan.

Repaying the loan will terminate that specific right. Selling Bitcoin will remove the sold coins from the company's treasury, leaving the company with the proceeds from the sale and the remaining assets.

The borrowing under MARA includes $600 million in new capital and $150 million in refinancing of existing financing arrangements. If the total of $750 million is considered as new funds, it would lead to an incorrect interpretation of the replacement of old loans as a new investment in the business.

The company stated that at the time of the loan, the price of Bitcoin was around $64,000, and it subsequently sold at a higher price. Management estimates that this financing and execution resulted in a net profit of $170 million, which is the company's own assessment.

According to the narrative, the company initially planned to use its funds to secure financing, and then decided to sell assets to repay the loans. The disclosed records do not indicate that the lenders carried out a forced liquidation of the collateral during the sale period in November.

Calculated at a ratio of approximately 68%, about $750 million out of the total revenue of around $1.1 billion is used for repayment. After deducting these rounded figures, there is approximately $350 million remaining, which has not yet been allocated for other purposes or transaction costs.

This portion of the balance will not automatically become part of the budget for any single project. Unless the document explicitly specifies the purpose or expenditure items, the cash will be incorporated into the company's financing resources.

Therefore, a sale can either reduce assets or lower financial risk. Whether shareholders are willing to accept this trade depends on the amount of debt that is reduced, alternative financing channels available, and their assessment of the value of maintaining their exposure to Bitcoin.

The cash flow statement explains why profits are not sufficient to pay all the bills.

MARA reported revenue of $164.2 million in the third quarter, with a net profit of $632.1 million. According to the quarterly disclosure, its earnings included unrealized gains related to digital assets amounting to $885.3 million.

The unrealized gain will change the carrying amount of the assets already held, but the company will not receive the corresponding cash merely because the valuation increases on the reporting date.

The 10-Q report for September from MARA shows that mining bitcoins held on the balance sheet are not included in operating cash flow, whereas the proceeds from liquidating these coins are recorded as investment cash flow.

This accounting treatment disperses a part of the company's normal economic cycle across different sections of the financial statements. Mining consumes cash to operate the equipment, produces Bitcoin, and generates revenue in US dollars when these coins are sold or used for financing.

In the first nine months, operating activities consumed $642.7 million in cash; investment activities provided $1.53 billion; financing activities utilized $483.3 million.

Adding up these three rounded categories, we obtain a cash increase of approximately $404 million, without considering the impact of exchange rates. After taking these effects into account and including restricted cash in the reconciliation, the company's financial statements show a cash increase of $399.4 million.

The reason this calculation is useful is that if one only looks at the cash outflows from operations, they will overlook the revenue generated from selling products. If one assumes that MARA did not sell any bitcoins, then they would miss the core method by which this business generates cash.

Similarly, a positive investment cash flow does not mean that MARA obtained this money by selling factories. Its documents clearly state that the sale of Bitcoin is the main source of income in this category.

During that period, investment expenditures included property and equipment costs, acquisition payments, as well as a deposit for research on power interconnection. In other words, although these expenditures support the business, not all of them are included in the total operating expenses.

Shareholders can reconcile cash changes without considering net profit as disposable cash. The beginning balance, cash income, cash expenditures, and restricted balances together form the necessary framework for this reconciliation.

The same is true when Bitcoin falls in value. A loss in fair value may reduce reported profits, but no corresponding cash payment is required on the reporting date; however, when a loan matures, a cash payment may be required, regardless of whether the company has reported a profit or not.

Therefore, the quarterly profit figure for MARA and its decision to sell reserves can coexist. The former reflects the financial performance under accounting rules, while the latter provides the currency accepted by creditors and equipment suppliers.

Selling 40,000 coins does not equal losing 40,000 coins.

According to MARA, 26,984 BTC were sold within nine months up to the end of September, followed by another 13,597 BTC sold thereafter. Adding these two non-overlapping periods together, a total of 40,581 BTC were sold.

This total combines transactions from different dates and at different prices. It should not be directly multiplied by the Bitcoin price on November 13th and used as the cash received on MARA.

The company reported revenue of approximately $1.9 billion in the first phase and about $1.1 billion in the second phase. Overall, the disclosed revenue amounts to around $3 billion.

In the first half of the year, a total of 23,093 BTC were sold from its fund pool, generating approximately $1.63 billion in revenue. The remaining 3,891 BTC were sold in the third quarter.

By subtracting the quantity from the first half of the year from the total quantity for nine months, one can determine the quantity for that quarter. This prevents the repeated disclosures from the first half of the year from being counted as another sale in addition to the total quantity for nine months.

The fund pool is replenished through mining and can also change due to purchases, lending arrangements, and other transactions. Therefore, the cumulative sales volume does not match the changes between two points in time on the balance sheet.

For example, suppose a mining company initially held 100 coins, produced 20 coins, and sold 30 coins, ultimately holding 90 coins. It sold 30 coins, yet its reported fund balance only decreased by 10 coins.

MARA held 34,012 units of BTC at the end of September, and by the end of 2025, that number had increased to 53,822 units. The difference between the two is 19,810 units of BTC, which is significantly lower than the total amount sold over nine months, as there were other changes in the fund pool as well.

If we mechanically subtract the quarterly sales volume from the balance at the end of September, we would get 20,415 BTC. However, this calculation ignores the production after September and other changes, so it cannot be used as the verified holding amount on November 13th.

When a company no longer publishes monthly production updates, this distinction becomes important. Quarterly balances and subsequent disclosed transactions do not necessarily provide a complete picture of the current inventory.

In a report in November, Lookonchain stated that the total amount of Bitcoin sold by listed companies reached $8.08 billion. The summary provided by this research institution reflects the sellers it tracked and the valuation methods used, rather than a complete ledger of all transactions made by companies.

For files with MARA, it is possible to examine one of the participants in more detail. The number of transactions, income, and the purpose of cash usage can be reconciled with each other, without assuming that a single large transfer or a decrease in balance necessarily means a transaction loss.

Zero-coupon bills can also incur cash obligations.

MARA reduced its convertible bonds with Bitcoin earlier this year. In its announcement on March 26, the company stated that it had reached an agreement to repurchase approximately $1 billion in zero-coupon notes maturing in 2030 and 2031.

The company sold 15,133 BTC from March 4 to March 25, raising approximately $1.1 billion. The planned uses include providing funds for bill repurchases, and the remaining income can be used for general corporate purposes.

"Zero interest" refers to the absence of regular interest payments, but it does not mean that the principal is lost, nor does it imply that the conversion and repayment conditions stipulated in the contract are invalidated.

MARA corresponds to a series of payments totaling $322.9 million, repurchasing approximately $367.5 million in principal; for another series, payments amount to $589.9 million, repurchasing about $633.4 million in principal. The two cash transactions total $912.8 million, corresponding to approximately $1001 million in principal.

The difference is approximately $88.1 million, before deducting transaction costs, which is consistent with the discount income claimed by the company. Repaying debts at a price lower than par is not the same as paying normal quarterly operating expenses.

"By settling debts exceeding $1 billion in face value at a discount, we realized a value of approximately $88 million," stated Fred Thiel, Chairman and CEO of MARA, in the announcement.

Convertible bonds grant holders contractual rights, which may include the option to convert them into stocks as well as the right to receive repayment. The specific terms of the agreement determine when the issuer needs cash and when other settlement methods can be employed.

MARA The debt statement for September provides a more straightforward example illustrating that it is not sufficient to only look at the maturity year. The table shows that for the notes due in June 2031, there is a put option for the holder on June 4, 2027, and for the series due in March 2030, the put option exists on December 1, 2027.

As of the end of September, the principal amounts for these two series were approximately $291.6 million and $632.5 million respectively. In total, about $924.1 million in principal is related to these two series, and this remains the case before any subsequent repurchases, conversions, or other changes occur.

The put option for the holder is a right granted by the contract to request repurchase in accordance with the terms of the instrument. The existence of this right does not imply that all holders will exercise it, but it provides the issuer with a potential cash inflow date prior to the nominal maturity date.

Therefore, investors comparing debts and funds should not only look at the maturities for 2030 and 2031. It is the conversion conditions, put-off dates, and the issuer's settlement rights that determine the potential demand for funds.

The table also separately lists notes amounting to approximately $48.1 million that are due on December 1, 2026. This amount belongs to another series and should not be confused with the principal that was repurchased in March as part of the same transaction.

It is necessary to examine each series separately in order to reconcile for the next disclosure. Repayments should reduce the relevant principal, while conversions or negotiated buybacks will change the amount of cash and equity required based on specific terms.

Repurchasing notes can eliminate future obligations as well as potential dilution related to conversions. However, the issuer still must first provide cash to complete the repurchase.

For companies holding Bitcoin, selling part of their reserves provides a financing option. Issuing stocks, borrowing from other channels, or retaining more operating cash are alternative options with different costs.

Even if management remains optimistic about Bitcoin, a discounted buyback could still seem attractive. This decision is made by comparing the available debt discounts, the expected returns and risks of holding assets, as well as the costs of using other sources of funds.

This does not mean that every future debt relief will come with the same terms. Bond prices, conversion rights, and available cash will all change, and once the related instruments are settled, the company will not be able to repeatedly benefit from historical discounts.

What MARA disclosed in March and November were two separate debt financing decisions made at different times of sale. If they are considered as part of the same difficult situation, it would overlook the chronological order and differences in debt terms.

Long Ridge Makes the power business the backbone behind treasury decisions

On November 5th, an update from Long Ridge stated that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has authorized MARA to acquire the asset from FTAI Infrastructure. The company expects to complete the transaction in the coming weeks.

Long Ridge includes a natural gas power plant located in Hannibal, Ohio, as well as more than 1,600 acres of adjacent land. The latest announcement distinguishes between a rated installed capacity of 505 megawatts and 485 megawatts that are approved for sale.

MARA is expected to obtain authorization for its full rated capacity in the first half of 2027. If the full 505 megawatts are considered as already authorized, it would mean that matters that are still anticipated have been moved into the completed category.

The location is equipped with infrastructure for electricity, water, fiber optics, and railways. MARA describes it as part of an artificial intelligence and high-performance computing initiative, which is also related to the existing business operations at that site.

Power plants can sell electricity in advance according to the contract before new computing tenants move into the data centers planned for deployment. The development of data centers, however, requires further expenditures and completion work; only thereafter can the proposed computing capacity generate its own revenue.

The company stated that it does not anticipate reducing the current capacity of Long Ridge supplied to the PJM power grid. Future computing demands, including possible post-meter facilities, are expected to utilize incremental power generation capabilities that will be gradually developed over time.

Therefore, their plan is not to disconnect the power plant from the grid and then immediately allocate all the generated electricity to AI. The existing commitments do not match the proposed development schedule.

The Bitcoin collateral loans of MARA supported this acquisition strategy. The fund was used to finance changes in the company's asset structure, as well as to repay financial liabilities.

Therefore, investors who buy shares in this mining company obtain more than just a vault filled with Bitcoin. Their interests also include the mining operations, infrastructure investments, company expenses, as well as the financing used to acquire these assets.

If shareholders wish for the company to retain every Bitcoin, they must find other sources of funding for that same commitment. If infrastructure expansion is supported, it means that some of the cash and management resources will be directed towards assets that are measured in different ways from Bitcoin.

The company believes that investments in electricity and computing can create value that surpasses the value of the tokens themselves. This argument still depends on completed transactions, operational performance, and customer revenue, rather than just the megawatt figures presented in the presentations.

Regulatory authorization has fulfilled one of the conditions for the acquisition. In its announcement on November 5th, MARA still described the delivery as a future event, which means that the ownership of the assets and the purchase permit are still separate.

The option delivery of CleanSpark presents another pathway to withdraw funds from the treasury.

Not all corporate Bitcoin sales begin with placing orders to sell coins on spot exchanges. According to the operational update in September, CleanSpark, the company delivered 700 BTC by exercising call options, while only 2 BTC were sold on the spot market.

The company produced 529 BTC in that month. When the two types of disposals are combined, it amounts to 702 BTC, which exceeds the production by 173 units. This corresponds to a decrease in their reported holdings from 13,703 to 13,530 units.

Covered call options can generate premium income, and at the same time, they create an obligation to deliver the underlying asset when the option is exercised. The final delivery is part of the derivative arrangement, just as it is in the case of selling the underlying asset in the spot market.

The average selling price published by CleanSpark includes both the net premium and the selling income, therefore it cannot be directly compared with the simple spot transaction average price reported by another mining company.

This difference is evident in the comparison of mining companies' capital pools, as different companies have adopted various methods for handling reserves. A headline figure that indicates "how many coins were sold" may simultaneously include both ordinary spot sales and contract deliveries.

During July, August, and September, CleanSpark disclosed a total of 2,102 BTC disposed of, while the production was 1,708 BTC. There is a difference of 394 BTC between the two, which is consistent with the quarterly reduction mentioned in that report.

Its September operational announcement also revealed another path for expansion financing. A subsidiary has completed the issuance of $2.276 billion in senior secured notes with a coupon rate of 7.875%, maturing in 2031.

Multiplying the principal by the annual interest rate yields an nominal interest of approximately $179.2 million per year, without considering other terms and costs stipulated in the agreement. This calculation describes the annual interest on the entire principal of the note, not the total interest expenses for CleanSpark.

CleanSpark Chairman and CEO Matt Schultz stated that the Sandersville project has received full funding support upon completion. The company has linked these invoices to a lease agreement, which is expected to generate approximately $6.6 billion in contract revenue during the initial period.

Multiple-year contract revenues do not equate to the cash received on the day of financing. The proceeds from debts can be used for construction first, while payments from the completed facilities will come in gradually according to the lease arrangements.

This comparison provides a second explanation for mining companies to raise external capital while selling Bitcoin. One set of transactions is for managing existing reserves, while another set is for financing specific construction projects.

This does not prove which company has a better financing mix. Behind the debt repayment of MARA and the new bonds of CleanSpark, there are different assets, maturities, commitments, and starting balance sheets respectively.

The management's stance is to maintain flexibility, rather than to retain every single coin.

MARA The current treasury policy is different from the one announced in 2024. In the company's second-quarter performance report for 2024, it was mentioned that a full holding strategy was adopted, and subsequently, an additional $100 million worth of Bitcoin was purchased.

Performance in August 2024 shows that management is full of confidence in the long-term value of Bitcoin. The same announcement also revealed that the company sold 51% of its production during that quarter to cover operating costs, and this occurred before any policy changes.

Therefore, retention is not an inherent attribute of Bitcoin mining, but rather a publicly announced financing option. MARA later allowed the sale of the output and further expanded the scope of the policy to include existing reserves as well.

Management now describes Bitcoin as a long-term investment and a source of liquidity. Their argument is that reserves should support operations and opportunities when management deems its uses attractive.

The most compelling example of this flexibility comes from debt transactions. Repaying a loan eliminates the lender's rights, while repurchasing notes at a discount reduces the principal amount and mitigates the potential dilution that would occur from conversion.

If one insists on never selling the coins, then those coins can be retained, but the company must find other ways to finance the same commitments. Borrowing can maintain the exposure to Bitcoin, but it comes with obligations; issuing stocks can raise funds, but it will change the shareholding ratio of existing shareholders.

Simply because they aim to avoid selling assets, these alternative options do not become cost-free. Their cost depends on market conditions, as well as whether the company will be able to generate sufficient cash in the future to fulfill the corresponding commitments.

On the contrary, shareholders' preferences are also specific. By retaining Bitcoin to continue participating in subsequent price increases and using the profits for other businesses, shareholders expose themselves to the execution and operational risks of that investment.

A company can improve one indicator while weakening another. It may either reduce debt and the amount of unrestricted Bitcoin holdings, or it may issue enough shares while retaining its currency, resulting in a decrease in the value of each Bitcoin share.

A comparison with a company that focuses on funds pools further illustrates this point. In its update on November 9th, Strategy disclosed that it purchased 1,036 units of BTC for $81.9 million, and at the same time spent $188.3 million to repurchase preferred shares of STRC.

These two uses of capital fall within the same disclosure period. Investors evaluating this update must consider both the obligations of preferred securities and the Bitcoin purchases mentioned in the headline.

Shareholders face their own portfolio of assets and liabilities. Management's claims can be tested through debt balances, completed investments, and operating cash flow, while alternatives to retaining more Bitcoin can be measured by the amount of coins abandoned and their future market capitalization.

The enterprise sold products that were already on the market on the date of the transaction.

The selling pressure on November 13 provided a real reason to examine corporate supply, but the disclosure on November 9 by MARA does not mean that all subsequent sales for that quarter occurred on that day. The disclosure of documents and the execution of transactions are two different events.

Companies may disclose these transactions only after they have been absorbed by the buyers. If the sold coins are recalculated on each subsequent reporting date, the same supply would be repeatedly attributed to new market periods.

There is also a timing issue with wallet transfers. A transfer to a broker may occur before a sale, it may be part of a collateral arrangement, or it could simply be an asset transfer between different custodial accounts, depending on the recorded transactions.

Compared to simple address changes, the company's sale disclosures provide more reliable information on completed dispositions. However, it is still possible that only an average of multiple transactions is reported, without listing each individual transaction venue and timestamp separately.

To explain the entire market, both buyers and sellers are necessary. Comparing the historical sales of a particular mining company with the cash flow on a certain day ETF can lead to confusion regarding different time periods and overlook other market participants.

Transaction records are more suitable for assessing future financial needs. The remaining debt, project commitments, and the amount of unrestricted cash determine the resources that management can utilize without undertaking another financing transaction.

The September documents for MARA show that there is an unused quota of approximately $1.5 billion under its plan to issue shares at market price. The quota is merely a permission for the company to raise funds through this plan; it only becomes cash once the shares are issued and investors make their payments.

The $500 million repurchase authorization approved by the board of directors is in the opposite direction. It allows the company to repurchase common shares, but it does not mean that the entire amount has already been spent.

Emitters can retain both of these tools simultaneously and decide which one to use based on market conditions. Readers who wish to track the resulting Bitcoin holdings need to look at the executed transactions, rather than the authorized maximum scale.

The quarterly report indicates when the reported balance was measured. Subsequent events disclose specific changes that occurred after that date, while activities from other quarters will be covered in subsequent reports.

CleanSpark has reduced the frequency of releasing another type of information. In its announcement in September, it stated that as the business develops towards energy and data center activities, the company will stop monthly operational updates and switch to standard quarterly reports.

Matters that require attention

• Fund pool reconciliation: Opening positions, Bitcoin production, purchases, sales, and other changes within the same reporting period.
• Debt repayment: The principal that has been repaid, the cash used, as well as the scale of collateral release disclosed in subsequent documents.
• Infrastructure expenditure: Completed acquisitions, construction payments, and customer revenue corresponding to assets financed by the sale of the fund pool.
• Executed capital actions: actual stock issuance and repurchase, distinguished from the unused quota or maximum amount authorized by the board of directors.
• Disclosure date: The transaction period behind the new sale announcement, including whether it overlaps with the quantities that have already been accounted for.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many bitcoins has MARA disclosed to have sold in 2026?

According to MARA, as of the end of September, 26,984 BTC were sold, followed by another 13,597 BTC. Adding these two periods together, a total of 40,581 BTC have been sold, with revenue amounting to approximately $3 billion when rounded. This figure does not represent the total real-time transaction volume as of November 13th.

MARA Why sell Bitcoin after the third quarter?

The company stated that it used $750 million of its approximately $1.1 billion in revenue to repay a term loan secured by Bitcoin. Following the repayment, 17,477 previously pledged BTC were released. MARA describes its fund pool as a source of liquidity, as well as a long-term investment holding.

Will the release of collateral increase the Bitcoin holdings of MARA?

The coins that were released were originally assets of MARA, they were just restricted by the lender. Taking back control of 17,477 BTC will not create new coins, nor will it reverse the sale of 13,597 BTC. It merely changes the availability of the collateral after the related debts have been repaid.

Why sell coins while reporting quarterly profits?

MARA The net profit of $632.1 million in the third quarter includes $885.3 million in unrealized digital asset gains. These gains did not result in corresponding cash. The company still needs dollars to fulfill its financial obligations, yet its cash flow statement classifies the income from Bitcoin sales as investment activities.

CleanSpark Are all the disposals in September just spot sales?

CleanSpark reports that 2 BTC were sold on a spot basis, and 700 BTC were delivered by exercising call options. The total amount disposed of, which is 702 BTC, exceeds its production of 529 BTC by 173 units. The average selling figures it published include net option premiums, therefore they are not entirely comparable to ordinary spot sales.

Do zero-coupon convertible bonds need to be repaid?

Zero interest simply means that the instrument does not pay regular interest, but it does not imply that the principal disappears. The agreement determines the rights to repayment and conversion. MARA repurchased approximately $1 billion in principal at a discount in March, before the nominal maturity date of the instrument.

Can the new Bitcoin sales explain the market decline on that day?

It is necessary to match the execution period with the market period being analyzed. MARA disclosed quarterly sales in November, but not each execution was attributed to the date of the document release. Sales that were completed prior to this should not be considered as new supply with each discussion of the disclosure.

Has MARA completed the acquisition of Long Ridge?

On November 5th, it was announced that regulatory authorization had been obtained, and delivery was expected to be completed within the coming weeks. While the authorization is a condition that has been met, ownership still depends on the completion of the transaction. The most recent announcement should not be construed as a delivery notice. This is educational analysis and does not constitute investment advice.