American Bitcoin Posts $126 Million Profit as Bitcoin Holdings Gain Value

American Bitcoin Corp.’s third-quarter profit tells two different stories: the company reported $126 million in net income, but its mining business produced fewer bitcoin at higher cost. The gap matters because a miner’s earnings can reflect both the work of producing bitcoin and changes in the value of bitcoin it already holds. This quarter, the swing came chiefly from a mark-up in the value of those digital assets, rather than stronger operating performance.

The miner, co-founded by Eric Trump and majority-owned by Hut 8, reported the results on Nov. 4 for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2026. It had posted a $57.2 million net loss in the second quarter, making the latest reversal look dramatic at first glance. A $197.3 million gain on digital assets replaced the prior quarter’s $71.2 million loss, while a $64.3 million derivatives loss weighed on results. Those movements show how quickly reported earnings can shift when a company’s balance sheet is tied to bitcoin prices and related contracts.

Profit depends on the value of its bitcoin

American Bitcoin reported $127.6 million in pre-tax income. Without the digital-asset gain, its pre-tax result would have been a loss of about $69.8 million, based on the company’s reported figures. That calculation puts the quarter’s headline profit in context: the accounting gain was larger than the reported pre-tax income, while the underlying mining operation faced weaker production and margins.

Adjusted EBITDA reached about $221 million, well above net income. The company’s calculation adds back the derivatives loss, depreciation, taxes and stock compensation, while retaining gains on digital assets. That choice leaves the measure sensitive to bitcoin’s price as well as mining operations, so readers should look at the definition before treating it as a clean proxy for operating performance. This is more significant than it looks: two companies can report the same label while including different adjustments.

Eric Trump, the company’s co-founder and chief strategy officer, said in the earnings release that American Bitcoin delivered “approximately $126 million in net income and $221 million in Adjusted EBITDA” as it grew its bitcoin reserve. He described the results as significant in a challenging digital asset market. The statement highlights the figures management chose to emphasize, though the quarter’s operating metrics tell a more mixed story. The reserve increased, but production and mining revenue declined.

Mining production and margins weakened

The company mined about 891 bitcoin, down from 932 in the second quarter. Mining revenue fell to approximately $63.4 million from $67 million, while gross margin narrowed to 41% from 49%. Together, those figures indicate pressure on the core business during the quarter, even as the value of the company’s existing bitcoin holdings boosted reported earnings. A lower output can reduce revenue, while a narrower margin leaves less room to absorb rising operating costs.

Its cost to produce one bitcoin rose about 15%, to $42,100 from $36,500. American Bitcoin attributed most of the increase to seasonal power costs at its sites. Power is a major operating input for bitcoin mining, so changes in electricity costs can affect how much revenue remains after production expenses. The company’s explanation points to a seasonal factor, but the quarter’s figures alone don’t show how quickly those costs might ease.

Bitcoin holdings totaled about 8,427 at quarter-end, up from 8,002 on June 30. That balance includes roughly 3,090 bitcoin pledged under miner purchase agreements with Bitmain, meaning the headline reserve includes assets tied to those arrangements. The 425-bitcoin increase was less than half of the quarter’s mining output; the company said it sold some production to meet operating costs. The difference helps explain why mined bitcoin and the reserve balance don’t move in lockstep. Production can add to holdings, while operating needs and contractual commitments shape what remains available.

The company’s measure of satoshis backing each share increased about 5%, to roughly 11,572. It said it neither issued shares through its at-the-market program nor purchased bitcoin during the quarter. That measure connects the bitcoin reserve to the share count, giving investors another way to track the company’s stated accumulation strategy. But it doesn’t, by itself, describe the cost of mining, the value of the reserve at a given price, or the obligations attached to pledged bitcoin.

A volatile year for the stock

In July, American Bitcoin completed a 1-for-15 reverse stock split after its shares had fallen more than 95% from their peak. A reverse split changes the number of shares and the per-share price proportionally; it doesn’t, on its own, change the underlying value of the business. The episode provides context for why per-share measures and the company’s efforts to build its bitcoin reserve may draw attention. Its second-quarter report had cited record production of 932 bitcoin.

The quarter’s figures leave a clear distinction for investors tracking the business: treasury gains lifted reported earnings, even as mining output, revenue and margins moved lower. That distinction is easy to lose when a large net-income figure dominates the headline. The results don’t establish whether the gain can be repeated, since its size depends on the value of bitcoin held and the accounting treatment of digital assets. And yet, mining costs and production still matter: they shape the company’s ability to add bitcoin through operations rather than market appreciation.

What the results say about the business

American Bitcoin is presenting itself through both its mining activity and its growing reserve, but those sources of performance carry different risks. Mining produces bitcoin at an operating cost; holding bitcoin exposes the balance sheet to changes in its market value. When the two effects move in different directions, one strong quarter can mask weakness in the other. The numbers here are underwhelming for the mining business, even as the balance-sheet gain made the overall result look strong.

If you’re working in this space, the useful question is whether production economics can support reserve growth when the company isn’t buying bitcoin or issuing shares through its at-the-market program. The latest figures don’t answer that on their own, particularly because management attributed most of the cost increase to seasonal power expenses. What they do show is the need to separate mined output, costs, holdings and valuation gains when assessing performance. A larger reserve. A weaker quarter for mining.

What this means for you as a reader is that the $126 million profit shouldn’t be read as a simple measure of mining strength. Future results will depend in part on bitcoin’s value and the economics of producing it, as the company itself has demonstrated this quarter. Here’s the thing: the balance sheet can change the earnings story faster than the mining operation changes its output. That said, the figures provide a snapshot, not a guarantee of how either part of the business will perform next.

Related Listen: Strategy Had a Massive Quarter: Impressive Numbers, But Are They Sustainable?