Cloud Mining in 2025: Recent developments promises, pitfalls
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
Cloud mining has surged in popularity as a seemingly accessible way for individuals to mine cryptocurrencies like BSV and BTC, without investing in expensive hardware or managing complex setups. Users can earn a share of mined coins with minimal effort by renting computational power from remote data centres. Recent developments in 2025, driven by a bullish crypto market and pro-crypto policies, have brought renewed attention to cloud mining platforms like Zaminer, HashFly, and PAIRMiner. However, alongside these advancements, warnings about scams, profitability challenges, and centralization risks highlight why cloud mining often fails to benefit users as promised, making on-site mining a more reliable alternative for those seeking control and long-term value.
The cloud mining boom in 2025
The cryptocurrency market's recovery, with BTC breaking $94,000 in January 2025 and BSV climbing to $59.53, has fueled interest in cloud mining. Platforms have capitalized on this momentum, launching new services and promotions. On May 19, 2025, Zaminer, a U.K.-based cloud mining platform, announced its eco-friendly approach, using solar and wind energy across 100+ data centers in Europe, North America, and Asia. Zaminer emphasizes high-efficiency NVIDIA and AMD GPUs, requiring no user hardware management, positioning itself as a sustainable and accessible option. Similarly, HashFly launched 'cutting-edge' mining solutions on the same day, promising high hash rates and optimized energy use for Bitcoin and Ethereum mining. DNminer also debuted cloud mining services for Bitcoin and XRP, offering flexible plans to suit various budgets.
These platforms highlight the allure of cloud mining: no need for costly ASIC miners (priced at $1,000-$10,000) or technical expertise. For BSV, with transaction fees under $0.0007 and unbounded block sizes (up to 2GB), cloud mining providers like PAIRMiner, which offered a $150 signup bonus on May 7, 2025, tout the potential for frequent small rewards, appealing to investors betting on price growth. Posts on X reflect this enthusiasm, with VN Bit Cloud's launch on May 20, 2025, promoting a 79% bonus to enhance accessibility. The Trump administration's pro-crypto policies, including designating Bitcoin and XRP as strategic reserves, have further boosted investor confidence, driving cloud mining's appeal.
The dark side of cloud mining
Despite the hype, recent warnings underscore cloud mining's pitfalls. On May 15, 2025, Brave New Coin reported that cloud mining scams, such as Tophash and GlobaleCrypto, continue to proliferate, defrauding users with false promises of high returns. These scams often mimic legitimate platforms, using fake testimonials and unrealistic profit projections. A 2024 CryptoCompare analysis found that many cloud mining contracts for BSV and BTC yielded negative returns after one year, with maintenance fees (e.g., $0.01 per GH/s daily) often exceeding earnings, especially at BSV's current ~$35 price; CoinGecko, 2025. Transparency remains a critical issue. Users have little visibility into hash power allocation or operational efficiency, relying entirely on providers. In 2023, a major cloud mining platform faced lawsuits for failing to deliver payouts, with users losing thousands. Centralization is another concern. Cloud mining concentrates hash power in third-party data centers, contradicting BTC's decentralized ethos, prioritizing data integrity and sovereignty. This centralization risks hacks or shutdowns, as seen in a 2022 case where a provider abruptly ceased operations, leaving users empty-handed.
The case for on-site mining
On-site mining, where users operate their own hardware, offers a compelling alternative. While requiring upfront investment—ASICs for BSV cost $1,000-$10,000—users gain full control, enabling optimization of hardware and pool selection (ASIC Miner Value, 2025). BSV's high-throughput model allows miners to process thousands of transactions per block, earning consistent fees despite diminishing block subsidies. A 2025 Association study estimated break-even within 18-24 months for on-site miners, far outperforming cloud mining's uncertain profitability.
On-site mining also bolsters BSV's network security, critical given its low hash rate (BitInfoCharts, 2025). Miners contribute directly to decentralization, reducing the risks of attacks. Additionally, on-site miners can leverage BSV's enterprise applications, like timestamping or smart contracts, for extra revenue (BSV Blockchain Association, 2024). Renewable energy options, such as solar, further lower costs, with U.S. electricity averaging $0.12-$0.20 per kWh (EIA, 2025).
Challenges and outlook
On-site mining isn't without challenges. High initial costs and noise pollution, reported in rural U.S. communities in 2025, pose barriers. Technical expertise is also required, unlike cloud mining's simplicity. However, declining ASIC prices (under $2,000 for used models) and online tutorials make it more accessible (ASIC Miner Value, 2025; Reddit, 2025).
Cloud mining's recent developments highlight its appeal but mask persistent issues: scams, high fees, and centralization. For BSV miners, on-site operations align better with the network's scalable, decentralized vision, offering control and profitability. As the crypto market matures, users must weigh cloud mining's convenience against its risks, opting for on-site mining to truly benefit from their efforts.
Watch | Bitcoin mining in 2025: Is it still worth it?
title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen="">
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour spends £35k on pub beer mats to boast about minimum wage rise
Labour spent more than £35,000 of taxpayer cash on beer mats in pubs advertising the increase to the national minimum wage, a minister has admitted. The Government sent out promotional material to pubs across the country to tell workers that the minimum wage and national living wage were going up. Justin Madders, the employment minister, rationalised the £35,580 expense as he said the beer mats offered a 'unique opportunity to engage audiences in a social, high-dwell environment where financial conversations naturally occur'. The red and pale blue beer mats were government-branded and said: 'Millions got a pay rise.' 'National minimum and living wages went up on 1st April', it added, and displayed a barcode for customers to scan for details on how to 'make sure you're getting paid correctly'. The employment minister responded to a written question by Richard Holden, the shadow paymaster general, about the cost of the drink mats. He said: 'The cost to advertise in pubs using beer mats was £35,580, which was approved at official level.' He confirmed that the advertising push was approved by the Cabinet Office, and came out of the 2025 National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage campaign budget of £650,000. He added: 'The 2024 campaign saw an increase in reach to eligible workers. However, recognition remained low, reinforcing the need for bolder, more engaging formats for the 2025 campaign, which expected to deliver an estimated 3.2 million impressions. 'It offered a unique opportunity to engage audiences in a social, high-dwell environment where financial conversations naturally occur. 'This setting encourages discussion and word-of-mouth sharing about rate changes and offers an effective nudge for audiences to 'check their pay'.' 'We will be ruthless' Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have both pledged a war on waste in Whitehall, with the Government having taken such moves as freezing government credit cards and abolishing NHS England. The Prime Minister said in October: 'We will also be ruthless in clamping down on government waste, just as we will be ruthless on clamping down on tax avoidance ', emphasising the intention to show so the British people that 'every penny counts'. He added: 'Every single person in this country had to do that during the cost-of-living crisis and government must be no different.' The national living wage for those aged 21 and over rose from £11.44 per hour to £12.21 per hour, an increase of 6.7 per cent. The national minimum wage for those between 18 and 20 went up from £8.60 to £10 per hour, a 16.3 per cent boost. The Government has also begun to name and shame firms that do not pay their workers the appropriate wages, demanding they pay back what they owe and in some instances a further financial penalty.
Telegraph
40 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump: Elon has lost his mind
Donald Trump said Elon Musk has 'lost his mind' as he attempted to draw a line under a bitter White House feud. On Friday, the president said he was 'not particularly' interested in speaking with Mr Musk after they clashed publicly over his tax and spending bill. White House sources told The Telegraph that the president was 'over it' and wanted to move on from the public spat, raising hopes of a truce. Mr Musk had called for Mr Trump to be impeached and linked the president to the late paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, at the height of a toxic row that played out on the two men's social media platforms. Mr Musk appeared to climb down late on Thursday night amid reports of a White House call to smooth relations. Asked if he would get on the phone with Mr Musk, Mr Trump told ABC News: 'You mean the man who has lost his mind?' Mr Trump and Mr Musk have resisted any further public attacks. A Trump official told The Telegraph: 'I don't think the president is interested in speaking to Elon right now. But he's also over it and wants to stay focused on passing the bill. 'That was his mindset when he left last night, and that's his mindset moving forward.' Insiders told The Telegraph that JD Vance could be positioned as the man to mediate in the feud and act as a bridge between the pair. Mr Trump is now planning to give away or sell the red Tesla Model S, which he purchased from Mr Musk in March. It is currently parked at the White House and used by staffers to move around the capital. Shares of Mr Musk's electric car company tanked by more than 14 per cent on Thursday as investors dumped holdings as the row intensified. But as tensions cooled on Friday, shares rose 5 per cent in early trading on Wall Street, pushing the company's market value back above $1 trillion. Since stepping down as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency last week, Mr Musk has trashed Mr Trump's so-called 'big, beautiful' tax and spending bill, describing it as a 'disgusting abomination' which will increase the national debt. The bill will end tax breaks for electric vehicles worth billions to his company. One insider described Mr Trump as concerned about Mr Musk's mental state, telling Politico: 'The president is worried Elon is not well… and is just kind of freaking out.' Another senior official hinted that the administration is unsurprised that their relationship has suddenly soured. 'Everyone knew this was gonna end badly. We're dealing with someone who is unstable… we saw it coming,' they said. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, called Mr Musk's behaviour 'an unfortunate episode', adding the Tesla boss is 'unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted'. In a post on X, Ms Leavitt wrote that Mr Trump's 'number one focus' is ensuring that the legislation passes smoothly. 'This is a transformative piece of legislation that delivers on the Make America Great Agenda by delivering the largest tax cuts and border security investments in HISTORY,' she added.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
‘Spiteful' boss cut pregnant accountant's hours after she told him she had morning sickness
A 'spiteful' boss cut his pregnant employee's work hours after she told him she had morning sickness, and then fired her when her maternity leave was due to start, a tribunal has heard. Sadia Shakil had worked as an accountant and bookkeeper at the property development firm Samsons in Bedford since October 2020, and became pregnant early the following year. But after Ms Shakil phoned her boss Mohammed Saleem on 30 March 2021 to inform him that she was experiencing morning sickness due to her pregnancy, he then proceeded to tell her in an email the following day that he was cutting her working hours. In the email seen by the tribunal, Mr Saleem wrote: 'Considering that I am unable to give you extra work as I am abroad and in view that you are feeling unwell during your pregnancy it would be best if you only come into work for 2 days per week.' The tribunal ruled that this was a 'fundamental' breach of Ms Shakil's employment contract, which caused her to experience 'stress, anxiety and panic' while questioning how she and her husband would be able to afford essential items for their baby now that their main source of income had been unilaterally reduced. During this period, Ms Shakil suffered sleepless nights and panic attacks while being 'plagued by worrisome thoughts', including 'doubts about whether she had done the right thing to have a baby at all when she was not financially stable'. After informing her boss that she needed to resign, Ms Shakil managed to secure a second full-time job in May, but she continued to work at Samsons in her spare time in the hope she would be able to resume her full-time role at the firm after her maternity leave. In the months that followed, Mr Saleem ignored multiple emails from Ms Shakil about her upcoming maternity leave, 'which caused her further stress and worry', at a time when she also suffered complications, being admitted to hospital on two occasions. By the end of September, blood tests had revealed a potentially serious condition which Ms Shakil was told put her baby at risk of still birth, resulting in the hospital booking her in to have her baby induced on 17 October. Two days after Ms Shakil's final email on 27 September, informing Mr Saleem that her leave would now commence on 1 October, he finally responded – referring to a letter she had not received 'putting her role at risk of redundancy '. Ms Shakil was dismissed with effect from 1 October 2021, when she began maternity leave, the tribunal noted. After her son was born on 18 October, the family were forced to move back in with Ms Shakil's parents 'due to the financial pressure that [her] loss of employment and lack of maternity pay had created'. Ms Shakil's subsequent claim to the Department for Work and Pensions for maternity allowance was then rejected on the grounds that her employer was responsible for paying it. 'The claimant's early weeks and months with her new baby were marred by the need to devote time to trying to resolve her financial predicament and bringing the employment tribunal proceedings,' the tribunal found. After an initial tribunal in Birmingham in April 2023, Ms Shakil was awarded £5,000 in damages for maternity discrimination and Samsons ordered to pay her for income lost while on reduced hours. In an email sent in June 2023 in which he asked Ms Shakil to provide her bank details so that he could pay her the sum awarded by the tribunal, Mr Saleem wrote 'I hope that you have a wonderful time utilising the monies gained from me', adding that the loss of money 'will make no difference to me'. A further appeal hearing in March 2025 found that Ms Shakil 'was horrified' by the email – which she described as 'disturbing and 'nasty' – and 'was shocked that Mr Saleem could be so spiteful to her'. Ms Shakil's appeal that the sum awarded to her had been too low was accepted, and the judge ordered Samsons to pay her a total of £31,860. Finding it to be a 'serious case of discrimination', the tribunal found: 'The discrimination took place at a time in the claimant's life which she had hoped and planned would be exciting and happy – the pregnancy, birth and early life of her first child. 'Instead, she suffered physical and emotional symptoms of anxiety and distress. These included sleepless nights, panic attacks, intrusive anxious thoughts and tearfulness. There was evidence that the claimant's confidence and self-esteem were damaged by the discrimination. 'These symptoms persisted from the time she was told that her hours had been cut to two days per week, until her baby was born. The symptoms did not stop then, however, because of the claimants' ongoing financial struggles.' It added: 'The effects of the discriminatory dismissal were ongoing at the time of the hearing, four years later, because the claimant is still worried that she might have a similar experience with her new employer if she decides to have another baby.'
