And that for us, points to a lot of opportunities in the research we’ve been doing over the past several months. So, we’re excited about it and see it as another home that will spin up and do similar things and gain the same efficiencies.
Josh Siegler: Yes, absolutely. Interested in seeing how it plays out. I guess as a follow up to that would just be if we could dive a little bit deeper into the power structure for Mississippi. How are you thinking about fixed versus floating? And ultimately, where do you see your overall cost of electricity trending as we enter into the halving?
Zachary Bradford: Yes. So we see it staying fairly stable. So all of these sites come with a fixed price power agreement in the $0.05 range. When you blend that into what last quarter’s prices were to you throw this in on a percentage basis, it would shift our average power cost still into the mid-fours. So that’s what we’re still looking at, a blended average. We’re also watching the market. The market is pointing to a continued flatness or even a slight decrease in power prices in the state of Georgia, because they do share parent companies. We think that we’re going to see similar availability. I would expect us actually, as we expand and use this foundation of a fixed price power in Mississippi to actually look towards more market based power rates, because we’ve been incredibly successful in basically beating the fixed price rates, which usually represents a hedge price on the other side.
But we’re going to climb that hill as we continue to grow in Mississippi and thought that an entry point with a fixed price five-year power agreement was a great place to start.
Josh Siegler: Great. I appreciate the color there and congratulations again on the results.
Zachary Bradford: Thank you.
Operator: Great. Thanks, Josh. [Operator Instructions] And our next question comes from Greg Lewis at BTIG. Greg, please go ahead.
Gregory Lewis: Yes. Hey, thank you and good afternoon everybody. Zach congrats Mississippi. Just kind of curious was that – how competitive of a process was that? Were you looking at that acquisition against others? And really, when did that kind of first come across or come into your guys purview as a potential acquisition opportunity? What I’m trying to understand is you mentioned lots of M&A opportunities. We’re hearing some of that you’re probably seeing more than we’re hearing about, but just kind of any kind of color around the Mississippi opportunity and how that evolve?
Zachary Bradford: What I can say is relationships are the first thing that matter. This site was owned by a party that we’d already acquired a site from, and so it was where we got basically a first and early look at it. Now, we actually looked at it in a prior quarter. And at the time, all things considered, we didn’t move on it, because we were highly focused on what we were doing. We’re now in a situation where we have lots of machines coming, and it made all the sense in the world. And so getting the first look and first opportunity on this allowed us to engage in negotiations on an exclusive basis, which is what we bargained for as part of the process. So, again, I believe it would have been competitive had we not had the relationship we already had. So, we did leverage our relationships to make sure it went very smoothly and quickly.
Gregory Lewis: Okay, great. And then I would be curious, just because it’s something that we’re thinking about, you mentioned the having potentially knocking off 15% to 30% of global hash. I don’t know how detailed you need to get on the call, but kind of, if you could give us maybe some broad strokes, how you’re kind of coming up with that number.
Zachary Bradford: Yes, I’m going to give you some broad strokes. One thing that nobody knows is really the exact percentage of what machines are where and what their power rates are behind that. What we do know and what we can see is that there are a lot of machines that are still plugged in that are not nearly as efficient as they’re going to need to be. An easy example of that is there’s public companies that are still openly running miners that have an efficiency between 38 and 44. And so I really believe, whether it’s immediately at halving or sometime plus or minus a month around having, I’m a believer that everything on the above average side is going to start to struggle. And as much as public companies may have balance sheets that can allow them to last a little while through some of these tough times, everybody else, they’re kind of going day by day on their cash flows.
So we point to that and we say, okay, we know that even there’s some public companies running 38 to 44. That means also that there are other assets out there that are significantly higher. What percentages, we don’t know. And that’s where our estimate comes into, 15% to 30%. So in our opinion, global hash rate, there’s at least 15% to 30% that’s less efficient than a 38 watt per terahash machine.
Gregory Lewis: Super helpful. Thank you very much.
Operator: All right, thank you, Greg. And our next question comes from Reggie Smith at JPMorgan. Reggie, please go ahead.
Unidentified Analyst: Hey, everyone, this is Charlie on for Reggie. Thanks for taking the question. I know you provided some details on under and overclocking efficiency last quarter, and I realized it’s early days on the S21s, but I was wondering if you had a sense of how reliable, how efficient, and kind of how flexible. From an overclocking, underclocking perspective, these machines are straight out of the box. I know some earlier models, specifically, I think, like the XPs had some performance issues kind of on the first go around. So any context there would be helpful. Thanks.
