Bitcoin Hash Rate Falls 2.4% as Miner Holdings Rise 8,087 BTC

By Elena Vasquez

Bitcoin’s seven-day average hash rate fell to 1.027 zettahashes per second (ZH/s) on Nov. 7, a nearly three-week low, according to the reported mining series. The measurement at midnight ET Saturday, Nov. 7 (5 a.m. UTC), sat 25.73 exahashes per second (EH/s) below the prior week, a 2.4% decline.

One zettahash per second equals 1,000 exahashes per second, making 1.027 ZH/s equivalent to 1.027 million EH/s. The weekly change implies a prior reading near 1.05273 ZH/s if the displayed values are treated as exact. The report does not name a mining-data provider, so it establishes the stated direction and magnitude but not the underlying collection or estimation method.

What does the hash-rate decline show?

The seven-day figure summarizes a full week rather than a single mining day. At face value, the 2.4% contraction indicates less computation devoted to Bitcoin mining than during the preceding week. It does not identify which operators changed activity or whether capacity returned after the measurement.

For mining businesses, lower network hash rate can ease competition for block rewards. That effect remains conditional because the source gives no difficulty, transaction-fee, electricity-cost or profitability data. It therefore cannot establish that any miner shut down, became insolvent or resumed operations.

Takeaway: Hash rate weakened measurably, but the source supports a network-level operating signal, not a diagnosis of individual miner distress.

Why did miner-linked balances rise?

Balances attributed to miners increased by 8,087 BTC over the same stretch, reaching roughly 1.2021 million BTC. Subtracting the reported gain from the rounded ending balance puts the prior level near 1.1940 million BTC, placing the increase at about 0.68% of that earlier stock.

The two series moved in opposite directions because they measure different things. Hash rate captures mining activity at a given time; a miner-linked balance is a stock of BTC assigned to identified addresses. A higher balance does not automatically show purchases, while lower hash rate does not automatically show coin sales.

The source does not explain whether the 8,087 BTC increase came from retained mining rewards, transfers into tracked wallets or reduced selling. It also does not disclose the addresses included in the miner category or provide transaction-level records. Any assertion that miners deliberately accumulated bitcoin would exceed the evidence.

Takeaway: Miner-linked holdings grew while mining activity contracted, but the balance data alone cannot distinguish retention from other wallet movements.

What does the Puell Multiple indicate?

The Puell Multiple fell to 0.93 from about 1.03 a week earlier, a drop of roughly 0.10, or 9.7%. The measure compares the daily dollar value of newly issued BTC with its average over the preceding year.

A reading below 1.0 means the daily value of new issuance sat below that one-year benchmark. At 0.93, the measure stood 7% below the threshold. For miners, this is a narrow revenue signal: the dollar value of newly issued bitcoin was weaker relative to its prior-year average.

The metric does not measure total miner revenue, operating profit or realized selling. The source supplies neither the underlying dollar value of issuance nor the bitcoin price used in the calculation, so readers cannot reconstruct the absolute revenue change. Nor does a lower multiple prove miners sold more coins; it does not directly track wallet transactions.

Takeaway: The Puell Multiple shows weaker issuance value relative to its annual benchmark, not a confirmed change in miner distribution behavior.

What remains unresolved?

Taken together, the weekly data contain three distinct signals:

• Hash rate: down 2.4% to 1.027 ZH/s.
• Miner-linked balances: up 8,087 BTC to roughly 1.2021 million BTC.
• Puell Multiple: down to 0.93 from about 1.03.

These movements do not establish a single causal story. The source does not support claims of miner capitulation, strategic accumulation or widespread sales.

The absence of a named data provider and wallet methodology is material. Miner classifications depend on address labeling, and balance totals can change when coins move into or out of the tracked set. Without those details, the divergence remains an indicator worth monitoring rather than proof of a coordinated market strategy.

Takeaway: The indicators diverge, and the source does not establish whether miners were accumulating, retaining or distributing bitcoin.

A seven-day reading one week later, around Nov. 14, would test whether weaker mining activity and larger miner-linked balances persist. Continued balance growth alongside a subdued hash rate and a Puell Multiple below 1.0 would strengthen, but not settle, the case that miners retained more newly issued bitcoin.