The upside case is a credible mix-shift from volatile mining into contracted AI data center revenue, using mining as the swing-load backstop. The risk case is that capex and dilution arrive before durable tenants do, keeping valuation tethered to Bitcoin cycles.

Riot’s plausible non-linear upside is a re-rating from BTC-cycle miner to “power-dense compute landlord + grid-optimized operator”: keep mining as the monetizable swing load while converting incremental Texas campus capacity into contracted AI data center revenue and scaling its engineering/electrical kits into a repeatable second engine by 2031.

Compute and power become strategic bottlenecks; Riot’s advantage is turning large, flexible power into monetizable compute capacity, but it lacks a software/network moat and remains BTC-linked.

By 2031, Riot can credibly be valued less like a pure miner and more like a contracted digital-infrastructure operator if (1) it converts a meaningful share of its power-dense campuses into multi-year AI data center contracts (even if some capacity is sold as discounted, preemptible compute), (2) it maintains mining as a profitable “buyer of last resort” for power, and (3) Engineering becomes a scaled supplier into the same AI buildout cycle. That mix shift would reduce earnings volatility, extend duration, and justify a higher through-cycle multiple than a miner. The implied multiple assumes Riot earns a hybrid multiple: below pure data-center landlords (due to crypto and capex intensity) but above commodity miners (due to contracted revenue and vertical integration).

The core risk is a timing and financing mismatch: Riot must win credible AI tenant contracts and deliver capacity on time, without over-diluting shareholders, while BTC-cycle volatility and power-market/policy changes can hit cash generation mid-build.

Shifted to a more execution-weighted view given limited evidence of binding AI tenant contracts vs peers announcing large deals.

$25.76