Bitcoin holders are selling to pay the bills. MARA shows why

The payment rail for your crypto. One card. Every chain. No KYC. Spend with Apple Pay or Google Pay in 180+ countries.

MARA has sold more than 40,000 Bitcoin across its disclosed 2026 transactions, using its treasury to finance operations, retire debt and support an expansion into power infrastructure while its latest sale has raised roughly $1.1 billion and released coins pledged against loans, putting a financial explanation behind the corporate selling visible during a falling market.

Summary

MARA disclosed sales of 26,984 BTC through September and another 13,597 BTC afterward, taking the combined reported amount to 40,581 BTC.
The latest sale raised roughly $1.1 billion, with $750 million used to repay loans and recover 17,477 BTC pledged as collateral.
Its third-quarter net income of $632.1 million included $885.3 million in unrealized digital-asset gains while revenue fell 35% from a year earlier.
CleanSpark delivered 700 BTC through exercised call options in September and sold another 2 BTC on spot markets, exceeding production of 529 BTC.
MARA’s November 5 Long Ridge announcement described a power plant authorized to sell 485 megawatts, with its acquisition still awaiting completion.

MARA’s November 9 shareholder letter disclosed the latest sale and repayment, following months in which the company had already used Bitcoin to supply cash for its business. The sale price averaged $81,039, well before the market prices being quoted during the November 13 selloff.

As crypto.news previously reported, the loan repayment released 17,477 BTC from collateral restrictions. MARA gave up ownership of the coins it sold, while recovering control of a separate pool that had secured its borrowing.

The miner’s filings put several different cash demands behind one familiar market headline. Payroll and power costs, repayments to lenders, purchases of infrastructure and a proposed stock buyback all appear in its financial records, but they do not represent the same kind of spending.

MARA’s Bitcoin sale retired a liability and freed collateral

In its third-quarter shareholder letter, MARA said the post-quarter sale produced approximately $1.1 billion. It used $750 million to repay its Bitcoin-collateralized term loans in full.

The repayment recovered 17,477 BTC previously pledged to lenders. A collateral release changes which assets the company can use, without creating new Bitcoin or reversing the sale that funded the repayment.

Using the disclosed quantities, the recovered collateral exceeded the coins sold by 3,880 BTC. The calculation is 17,477 minus 13,597; it describes the relationship between those two transactions, not an increase in MARA’s total holdings.

For a shareholder following the treasury, ownership and availability have to be tracked separately. Coins can remain company assets while a lender’s claim prevents their unrestricted use, just as a building remains on a balance sheet while securing a mortgage.

Repaying the loan removes that particular claim. Selling Bitcoin removes the sold coins from the company’s treasury, leaving the company with the proceeds and whatever remaining assets it owns.

JUST IN: MARA Holdings reportedly moves 1,000 $BTC worth $80.19M

According to Lookonchain, the Bitcoin mining company transferred the 1,000 BTC around six hours ago, though the move does not by itself confirm a sale. pic.twitter.com/vATG5kKK51
— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 27, 2026

MARA’s borrowing included $600 million of new capital and $150 million that refinanced an existing facility. Calling all $750 million fresh funding would count the replacement of the older loan as a new contribution to the business.

The company said it borrowed against Bitcoin when the asset traded around $64,000 and subsequently sold at a higher price. Management estimated a net benefit of $170 million from its financing and execution, a figure presented as its own assessment.

Its account describes a planned use of the treasury to obtain funding, followed by a decision to sell assets and clear the loan. The disclosed record does not describe a lender liquidating the collateral during the November selloff.

Around 68% of the rounded $1.1 billion in proceeds went to the $750 million repayment. Subtracting those rounded figures leaves roughly $350 million, before assigning any other use or transaction cost.

The remainder is not automatically a budget for a single project. Cash joins the company’s funding resources unless a filing identifies a specific restriction or expenditure.

A sale therefore can reduce both assets and financial risk. Whether shareholders prefer that trade depends on the debt removed, the alternative financing available and the value they assign to retaining exposure to Bitcoin.

The cash-flow statement explains why profit did not pay every bill

MARA reported third-quarter revenue of $164.2 million and net income of $632.1 million. Its earnings included $885.3 million in unrealized gains connected with digital assets, according to the quarterly disclosures.

An unrealized gain changes the reported value of an asset already owned. A company does not receive matching dollars merely because the accounting value rises at the reporting date.

MARA’s September Form 10-Q states that mined Bitcoin held on its balance sheet is excluded from operating cash flow. Proceeds from monetizing those coins appear in investing cash flow.

The accounting places part of the company’s normal economic cycle in different sections of the statement. Mining consumes cash to operate equipment, produces Bitcoin and generates dollars when the coins are sold or used to raise financing.

For the first nine months, operating activities used $642.7 million of cash. Investing activities supplied $1.53 billion, while financing activities used $483.3 million.

Adding the three rounded categories gives a cash gain of roughly $404 million before exchange-rate effects. The company’s statement reports a $399.4 million gain after those effects, including restricted cash in its reconciliation.

The calculation is useful because the operating outflow alone leaves out the proceeds from selling the product. Reading it as if MARA sold no Bitcoin would omit a central part of how the business obtained cash.

Equally, the positive investing figure does not mean MARA received that amount from selling factories. Its filing identifies Bitcoin sales as the principal source in that category.

During the period, investing expenditures included property and equipment, acquisition payments and a security deposit for a power-interconnection study. Several cash uses therefore sit outside the operating total even though they support the business.

A shareholder can reconcile the change in cash without treating net income as the amount available for spending. The starting balance, cash receipts, cash payments and restricted balances supply the required bridge.

The same distinction applies when Bitcoin falls. A fair-value loss can reduce reported earnings without requiring a matching cash payment on the reporting date, while a loan maturity can require cash regardless of whether the company reports a profit.

MARA’s headline quarterly earnings and its decision to sell reserves can consequently coexist. One records financial performance under the accounting rules; the other supplies a currency that creditors and equipment suppliers accept.

Forty thousand coins sold is not the same as forty thousand lost

MARA disclosed 26,984 BTC sold during the nine months through September and another 13,597 BTC afterward. Adding the nonoverlapping periods produces 40,581 BTC.

The total combines transactions across different dates and prices. It should not be multiplied by November 13’s Bitcoin price and presented as the cash MARA received.

The company reported roughly $1.9 billion of proceeds in the first period and $1.1 billion in the second. Together, the rounded disclosed proceeds amount to approximately $3 billion.

Its first-half treasury sales accounted for 23,093 BTC, with proceeds near $1.63 billion. The remaining 3,891 BTC sold through September belong to the third quarter.

Subtracting the first-half amount from the nine-month total reproduces that quarterly quantity. It prevents the first-half disclosure from being counted again as a separate sale on top of the nine-month figure.

The treasury is replenished through mining and can change through purchases, lending arrangements and other transactions. Cumulative sales therefore differ from the change between two balance-sheet snapshots.

For example, a hypothetical miner beginning with 100 coins, producing 20 and selling 30 ends with 90. It has sold 30 coins even though its reported treasury fell by only 10.

MARA held 34,012 BTC at September-end, compared with 53,822 BTC at the end of 2025. The difference is 19,810 BTC, substantially below the nine-month sale total because the treasury had other movements.

You might also like: MARA sells $1.1 billion in Bitcoin as Q3 revenue falls 35%

Applying the post-quarter sale mechanically to September’s balance would produce 20,415 BTC. Such subtraction leaves out production and any other changes after September, so it is not a verified November 13 holding figure.

The distinction becomes important when a company has stopped publishing monthly production updates. A quarterly balance and a subsequently disclosed transaction do not necessarily provide a complete current inventory.

Lookonchain’s tally of public-company Bitcoin sales put corporate disposals at $8.08 billion in a November report. The researcher’s aggregate describes its tracked sellers and valuation method, rather than a comprehensive balance of every corporate purchase and sale.

MARA’s filings allow a closer examination of one contributor. Its transaction quantities, proceeds and cash uses can be reconciled without assuming that a large transfer or a shrinking balance establishes a trading loss.

A zero-interest note can still create a cash obligation

MARA had already used Bitcoin to reduce convertible debt earlier in the year. Its March 26 announcement described agreements to buy back roughly $1 billion of zero-coupon notes due in 2030 and 2031.

The company sold 15,133 BTC between March 4 and March 25 for approximately $1.1 billion. The planned use included funding the note repurchases, with remaining proceeds available for general corporate purposes.

Zero coupon refers to the absence of periodic coupon payments. It does not erase the principal owed or the contractual conditions governing conversion and repayment.

MARA agreed to pay $322.9 million for approximately $367.5 million of one note series and $589.9 million for approximately $633.4 million of the other. Adding the two cash amounts gives $912.8 million against around $1.001 billion in principal.

The difference is roughly $88.1 million before transaction costs, matching the company’s stated discount benefit. Retiring debt below face value is a different transaction from paying a normal quarterly operating expense.

“By retiring over $1 billion of face value debt at a discount, we captured approximately $88 million in value,” Fred Thiel, MARA’s chairman and CEO, said in the announcement.

A convertible note gives its holder contractual rights that can include conversion into shares and repayment provisions. The exact agreement determines when the issuer needs cash and when another form of settlement is available.

MARA’s September debt table gives a more immediate example of why the maturity year alone is insufficient. It lists a holder put option on June 4, 2027 for the remaining June 2031 notes and another on December 1, 2027 for the March 2030 series.

The principal amounts at September-end were approximately $291.6 million and $632.5 million, respectively. Adding them produces roughly $924.1 million of principal associated with those two series, before any later repurchase, conversion or other change.

A holder put is a contractual right to require repurchase under the note’s terms. The presence of the right does not establish that every holder will exercise it, but it gives the issuer a potential cash date before the headline maturity year.

An investor comparing debt with the treasury therefore needs more than a list of 2030 and 2031 maturities. Conversion conditions, put dates and the issuer’s settlement rights determine the possible demands on its funds.

The table separately lists approximately $48.1 million of notes maturing on December 1, 2026. That amount belongs to another series and should not be added to the principal already retired in March as if it were part of the same repurchase.

Keeping the series separate allows the next disclosure to be reconciled. A repayment should lower the relevant principal, while a conversion or a negotiated repurchase can change both the cash required and the share count under its specific terms.

Buying back the note can remove future obligations and potential dilution associated with conversion. The issuer nevertheless has to find the cash for the repurchase now.

For a company holding Bitcoin, selling part of the reserve provides one funding route. Issuing stock, borrowing elsewhere or retaining more cash from operations provide alternatives with different costs.

A discounted repurchase can look attractive even to management that remains optimistic about Bitcoin. The decision compares an available debt discount with the expected benefits and risks of holding the asset or using another source of funds.

The transaction does not establish that every future debt reduction will offer the same terms. Bond prices, conversion rights and available cash change, and a company cannot repeatedly capture a historical discount after the relevant notes have been retired.

MARA’s March and November disclosures describe two separate debt decisions, funded through different sale periods. Treating them as one distressed event would discard both the chronology and the terms of the obligations removed.

Long Ridge puts a power business behind the treasury decision

The November 5 Long Ridge update said the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had authorized MARA’s planned acquisition from FTAI Infrastructure. The company expected completion in the following weeks.

Long Ridge includes a natural-gas power plant in Hannibal, Ohio, and more than 1,600 contiguous acres. The latest announcement distinguished its 505-megawatt nameplate capacity from the 485 megawatts it was authorized to sell.

MARA expected authorization for the full nameplate capacity in the first half of 2027. Using the full 505 megawatts as already authorized would move a company expectation into the completed column.

The site provides access to power, water, fiber and rail infrastructure. MARA described it as part of its plans for artificial intelligence and high-performance computing, alongside its existing activities at the location.

A power plant can sell electricity under contracts before a new computing tenant occupies a planned data center. A data-center development requires further spending and completion work before the proposed computing capacity supplies its own revenue.

The company said it did not expect to reduce Long Ridge’s existing supply of capacity to the PJM grid. Future computing demand, including potential behind-the-meter facilities, was expected to use incremental generation developed over time.

Its stated plan therefore does not describe unplugging the plant from the grid and immediately assigning all output to AI. Existing commitments and proposed development have different schedules.

MARA’s Bitcoin-backed borrowing helped support this acquisition strategy. The treasury was being used to finance a change in the assets owned by the business, alongside paying down financial liabilities.

Investors buying the miner’s shares consequently own exposure to more than a vault of coins. Their claim includes mining operations, infrastructure investments, corporate expenses and the financing used to obtain those assets.

A shareholder who wants the company to retain every Bitcoin would need another funding source for the same commitments. A shareholder who supports the infrastructure expansion accepts that some cash and management attention will go toward assets whose performance is measured differently from Bitcoin.

The company’s position is that power and computing investments can generate value beyond retaining the coins. That argument remains tied to completed transactions, operating performance and customer revenue, not simply the number of megawatts in a presentation.

Regulatory authorization completed one condition of the acquisition. MARA’s November 5 announcement still described closing as an event to come, keeping ownership of the plant separate from permission to buy it.

CleanSpark’s option deliveries show another route out of a treasury

Corporate Bitcoin disposals do not all begin with an order to sell coins on a spot exchange. CleanSpark’s September operating update recorded 700 BTC delivered through call-option exercises and only 2 BTC sold at spot.

The company produced 529 BTC in the month. Adding the two disposal categories gives 702 BTC, exceeding production by 173 BTC and reconciling the fall from 13,703 to 13,530 BTC in its reported holdings.

A covered call can bring in a premium while creating an obligation to deliver the underlying asset if exercised under the contract. The eventual delivery belongs to the derivatives arrangement, even though the treasury loses coins as it would in a spot sale.

CleanSpark’s published average sale figure incorporates net premiums as well as sale proceeds. It is therefore not directly interchangeable with a simple average spot execution price reported by another miner.

The difference appears in the miner treasury comparison, which tracked companies taking different approaches to their reserves. A headline total for coins sold can combine ordinary spot selling with contractual deliveries.

Across July, August and September, CleanSpark’s reported disposals totaled 2,102 BTC against production of 1,708 BTC. The 394 BTC difference matches the quarterly reduction described in that coverage.

Its September operating release disclosed another financing route for expansion. A subsidiary had closed $2.276 billion of senior secured notes carrying a 7.875% coupon and maturing in 2031.

Multiplying the principal by the annual coupon gives roughly $179.2 million a year in stated interest, before the agreement’s other provisions and costs. The calculation describes the bond’s annual coupon on full principal, not CleanSpark’s entire interest expense.

Matt Schultz, CleanSpark’s chairman and CEO, said the Sandersville project was fully funded through completion. The company linked the notes to a lease expected to produce approximately $6.6 billion of contracted revenue over its initial term.

Contracted revenue over several years is not cash received at the financing date. Debt proceeds can fund construction first, with payments from the completed facility arriving according to the lease.

The comparison supplies a second explanation for why a miner might sell Bitcoin while securing outside capital. One set of transactions manages its existing reserve, while another finances a particular construction project.

It does not establish that either company’s funding mix is superior. MARA’s debt repayment and CleanSpark’s new bond have different assets, maturities, commitments and starting balance sheets behind them.

Management’s case is to retain flexibility, not every coin

MARA’s current treasury policy differs from the one it publicized in 2024. Its second-quarter results that year described a full holding approach and a subsequent $100 million Bitcoin purchase.

The August 2024 results recorded management’s confidence in Bitcoin’s long-term value. The same release disclosed that the company had sold 51% of the Bitcoin produced during that quarter to fund operating costs, before the policy change.

Retention was therefore an announced funding choice, not a property inherent in Bitcoin mining. MARA later permitted sales of production and then widened its policy to include existing reserves.

Management now describes Bitcoin as both a long-term investment and a source of liquidity. Its argument is that a reserve should support operations and opportunities when management considers the use attractive.

The strongest case for that flexibility is in the debt transactions. Repayment removed lender claims, while the discounted note repurchases reduced principal for less than face value and lowered potential conversion-related dilution.

A policy of never selling would have preserved those coins but left the company to fund the same commitments elsewhere. Borrowing would retain Bitcoin exposure while carrying an obligation; stock issuance would raise cash while changing existing shareholders’ ownership percentage.

Neither alternative is free simply because it avoids selling an asset. Their cost depends on market terms and the company’s ability to generate enough future cash to meet the resulting commitments.

The opposing shareholder preference is equally concrete. Retaining Bitcoin preserves participation in any subsequent price rise, while committing the proceeds to another business exposes shareholders to that investment’s execution and operating risks.

A company can improve one measure while reducing another. It might lower debt and unrestricted Bitcoin holdings at the same time, or retain coins while issuing enough shares that Bitcoin per share declines.

Comparison with a dedicated treasury company reinforces the distinction. Strategy disclosed a 1,036 BTC purchase for $81.9 million in its November 9 update, alongside $188.3 million spent repurchasing STRC preferred shares.

The two uses of capital belonged to the same disclosed financing period. Investors evaluating that update have to consider the preferred-security obligation alongside the headline Bitcoin purchase.

MARA’s shareholders face their own combination of assets and liabilities. Management’s case can be examined through debt balances, completed investments and operating cash, while the alternative of holding more Bitcoin remains measurable through the coins forgone and their eventual market value.

A corporate sale reaches the market on its transaction date

The November 13 selloff provides a current reason to examine corporate supply, but MARA’s November 9 disclosure does not place every post-quarter sale on that day. Publication of a filing and execution of a trade are different events.

A company can disclose transactions after they have already been absorbed by buyers. Recounting the sold coins on each subsequent reporting date would repeatedly assign the same supply to new market sessions.

Wallet transfers present another timing problem. A transfer to a broker can precede a sale, form part of a collateral arrangement or move assets between custody accounts, depending on the documented transaction.

The company’s sale disclosure supplies firmer information about completed disposals than an address movement alone. It may still report an average across several executions without identifying every venue and timestamp.

A market-wide explanation needs buyers as well as sellers. Comparing one miner’s historical sale with a single day of exchange-traded fund flows would combine different periods and omit other market participants.

The transaction record is more useful for evaluating future financial demands. Remaining debt, project commitments and the amount of unrestricted cash establish the resources management can draw on without another financing transaction.

MARA’s September filing reported approximately $1.5 billion of unused capacity under its at-the-market share program. Capacity is permission to raise funds under the program; it becomes cash only when shares are issued and investors pay for them.

The board’s $500 million repurchase authorization operates in the other direction. It permits purchases of common shares but does not establish that the entire amount has been spent.

An issuer can retain both tools and decide which to use according to market conditions. A reader tracking the resulting Bitcoin position needs executed transactions, not the maximum sizes of the authorizations.

The quarterly statement identifies when the reported balance was measured. Subsequent-event disclosures describe specified changes after that date, while leaving other post-quarter activity to later reports.

CleanSpark has reduced the frequency of another source of information. Its September release said it would discontinue monthly operational updates and move to standard quarterly reporting as its business developed toward energy and data-center activities.

What to Watch

Treasury reconciliation: Opening holdings, Bitcoin produced, purchases, sales and other movements disclosed for the same reporting period.
Debt repayment: Principal retired, the cash used and the amount of Bitcoin released from collateral restrictions in subsequent filings.
Infrastructure spending: Completed acquisitions, construction payments and customer revenue associated with the assets funded through treasury sales.
Executed capital actions: Actual stock issuance and repurchases, distinguished from the unused capacity or maximum amount authorized by the board.
Disclosure dates: The transaction periods behind new sale announcements, including whether they overlap with quantities already counted.

FAQs

How much Bitcoin has MARA disclosed selling in 2026?

MARA reported 26,984 BTC sold through September and another 13,597 BTC afterward. The combined disclosed total is 40,581 BTC across those separate periods, with rounded proceeds of approximately $3 billion. The figure is not a live total for every transaction through November 13.

Why did MARA sell Bitcoin after the third quarter?

The company said it used $750 million of roughly $1.1 billion in proceeds to repay Bitcoin-backed term loans. Repayment returned 17,477 BTC previously pledged as collateral. MARA describes its treasury as a source of liquidity alongside its long-term investment holdings.

Did the collateral release add to MARA’s Bitcoin holdings?

The released coins were already MARA’s assets, subject to lender restrictions. Recovering control of 17,477 BTC did not create new coins or reverse the sale of 13,597 BTC. It changed the availability of the collateral after the associated liability was repaid.

Why sell Bitcoin while reporting a quarterly profit?

MARA’s $632.1 million third-quarter net income included $885.3 million of unrealized digital-asset gains. Those gains did not supply matching cash. The company still needed dollars for financial commitments, while its cash-flow statement recorded Bitcoin-sale proceeds in investing activities.

Were all of CleanSpark’s September disposals spot sales?

CleanSpark reported 2 BTC sold at spot and 700 BTC delivered through call-option exercises. Total disposals of 702 BTC exceeded its 529 BTC production by 173 BTC. Its stated average sale measure included net option premiums, affecting comparisons with ordinary spot sales.

Does a zero-coupon convertible note require repayment?

A zero coupon means the note does not pay a regular coupon, not that principal disappears. The agreement governs repayment and conversion rights. MARA’s March transaction used cash to repurchase around $1 billion in principal at a discount before the notes’ stated maturities.

Does a new Bitcoin sale explain that day’s market decline?

The execution period has to match the market period being examined. MARA disclosed post-quarter sales in November without assigning every execution to the filing date. A previously completed sale should not be counted as fresh supply every time its disclosure is discussed.

Has MARA completed the Long Ridge acquisition?

Its November 5 announcement reported regulatory authorization and described closing as expected in the following weeks. The authorization completed a condition, while ownership depended on completing the transaction. The latest cited announcement should not be read as a closing notice. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of November 13, 2026. Legal and tax questions should be discussed with qualified professionals.

US crypto regulation hub

Crypto mining in the US: federal rules and the state map

Crypto kiosk rules by state: bans, licenses and the fraud data

Crypto ETF rules in the US: how a fund gets listed now

Crypto banking access in the US: master accounts, the chokepoint, and what changed

CFTC and crypto in 2026: what the agency now governs

Is crypto legal in the US? Yes, and here is the structure

Crypto executive orders: what the White House has actually ordered

SEC crypto enforcement in 2026: from registration war to fraud beat

IRS crypto tax rules in 2026: what actually gets taxed

The OCC and crypto: national trust charters, explained

View all