In June, U.S.-listed Bitcoin miners reached a record high in their share of the global network hashrate, according to a report from JPMorgan. The combined hashrate of the 13 miners tracked by the bank increased by 99% year-on-year, while the overall network hashrate rose by 55% during the same period. These miners now account for approximately 31.5% of the global network.

The report highlighted that these miners added 11 exahashes per second (EH/s) of capacity since April, with CleanSpark, Hive Technologies, and Riot Platforms leading this growth. Despite this increase in capacity, the hash price—a measure of daily mining profitability—declined by 2% since late May.

The total market capitalization of these companies grew by $2.4 billion or about 10% in the first two weeks of June. Riot Platforms notably outperformed its peers with a gain of 20%, while Bitfarms experienced a decline of 9%. The overall network hashrate averaged around 890 EH/s in early June after dropping about 10 EH/s.

Additionally, it was noted that while there was an unexpected decrease in network hashrate during this period, it still represented over a 50% increase year-on-year.

Original article

The provided text is a report on the growth of U.S.-listed Bitcoin miners and their increasing share of the global network hashrate. Upon close examination, several biases and manipulative language patterns emerge, revealing a subtle yet pervasive narrative that warrants critical analysis.

One of the most striking biases in this text is its economic and class-based bias. The report presents a glowing picture of the growth of Bitcoin miners, highlighting their increased market capitalization and profitability. The language used to describe this growth is consistently positive, with phrases such as "record high," "combined hashrate increased by 99% year-on-year," and "total market capitalization grew by $2.4 billion." This framing creates an implicit narrative that these companies are successful, innovative, and deserving of attention and investment. However, this narrative overlooks the potential risks associated with investing in cryptocurrencies, such as market volatility and environmental concerns related to mining operations.

Furthermore, the text exhibits linguistic and semantic bias through its use of emotionally charged language. The phrase "record high" creates a sense of excitement and achievement, while words like "growth" and "profitability" have positive connotations that reinforce the overall narrative. This type of language manipulation can influence readers' perceptions without them even realizing it. Additionally, the report's focus on individual companies' successes (e.g., Riot Platforms' 20% gain) creates a sense of competition among investors, which may lead to further speculation and risk-taking.

The text also reveals structural bias through its selective presentation of data. While it mentions that some companies experienced declines (e.g., Bitfarms' 9%), these losses are framed as minor compared to others' gains. This selective framing creates an implicit narrative that emphasizes success over failure, reinforcing a pro-business or pro-investment worldview without acknowledging potential risks or drawbacks.

Another notable bias in this text is its temporal bias through presentism – focusing on current events without sufficient historical context or consideration for future implications. The report highlights recent developments in Bitcoin mining but does not provide any historical context for how these trends have evolved over time or how they might impact future markets.

Moreover, when discussing technological claims (e.g., exahashes per second), the report relies on technical jargon without providing sufficient explanation or critique for readers who may not be familiar with these terms. This lack of transparency can create an information gap between those who understand technical details versus those who do not – reinforcing existing power dynamics within financial circles.

Regarding cultural bias specifically related to nationalism or Western worldviews is less apparent here; however there's still room for interpretation since one could argue that focusing solely on U.S.-listed Bitcoin miners reinforces American dominance within cryptocurrency markets worldwide which might be seen as subtly promoting nationalistic interests albeit unintentionally so given no overt statements made towards such ends.



Finally regarding confirmation bias where assumptions are accepted without question one could argue that accepting at face value JPMorgan's assessment about record-breaking performance reinforces existing narratives about cryptocurrency adoption being driven primarily by institutional investors rather than retail users.



In conclusion while there isn't overt virtue signaling present throughout much like other forms examined above subtle biases remain embedded within structure framing data selection presentation all contributing toward reinforcing specific ideologies economic interests thereby warranting critical evaluation before accepting information presented at face value