Bitmain, Canaan and MicroBT Have Started Establishing Bitcoin Mining Production Facilities In U.S.

The three largest Bitcoin mining hardware manufacturers—Bitmain, Canaan, and MicroBT—have begun establishing production facilities in the United States, primarily in response to trade tensions and tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. These companies, all based in China, collectively account for over 90% of the global market for Bitcoin mining rigs, which are specialized application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) designed for mining cryptocurrencies.

The largest of the three, Bitmain started manufacturing in the U.S. in December 2024, shortly after the announcement of new tariffs. This move aims to circumvent import restrictions and maintain market access in the U.S., which has become a significant hub for Bitcoin mining due to its favorable energy costs and regulatory environment in certain states like Texas.

Canaan has initiated early-stage trials to assess the feasibility of U.S.-based production. The company, known for its Avalon brand of mining rigs, is exploring localization to reduce tariff exposure and ensure long-term operations in the U.S. market.

MicroBT, a competitor to Bitmain, has also confirmed plans to localize production in the U.S. to mitigate the impact of tariffs. The company is working on establishing facilities to maintain its market share in the growing U.S. Bitcoin mining sector.

This shift reflects a broader trend of the U.S. becoming a global hub for Bitcoin mining, with its hashrate share increasing nearly 50% from April 2024, driven by abundant energy resources and a relatively permissive regulatory environment in states like Texas, Georgia, and New York. These manufacturers are adapting to maintain their dominance in supplying ASICs to U.S.-based mining operations, which include major players like Marathon Digital Holdings, Riot Platforms, and Core Scientific.

The establishment of U.S. production facilities by the three largest Bitcoin mining hardware manufacturers—Bitmain, Canaan, and MicroBT—has significant implications for the Bitcoin mining industry, global supply chains, and the geopolitical landscape. By setting up production in the U.S., these manufacturers reduce reliance on Chinese imports, which face tariffs and potential supply chain disruptions. This ensures a steadier supply of mining hardware for U.S.-based miners, reinforcing the U.S.’s position as a global Bitcoin mining hub (already holding nearly 50% of global hashrate as of 2024).

Localized production could lower shipping costs and delays, benefiting major U.S. mining firms like Marathon Digital, Riot Platforms, and Core Scientific. However, initial setup costs and higher U.S. labor expenses may temporarily increase hardware prices. The U.S. offers abundant energy resources (e.g., natural gas in Texas, hydropower in New York), which, combined with local hardware production, creates a robust ecosystem for mining operations.

The Trump administration’s tariffs on Chinese goods, including mining hardware, have pushed these manufacturers to localize production to avoid import costs. This reflects broader U.S.-China trade tensions and efforts to reduce dependence on Chinese tech supply chains. Moving production to the U.S. reduces China’s grip on the global Bitcoin mining hardware market (previously near-monopolized by these three firms). This could diversify the global supply chain but also risks escalating trade disputes if China retaliates.

U.S. facilities could create high-tech manufacturing jobs, boosting local economies in states like Texas or Georgia. However, the scale of job creation depends on the size of these facilities, which remains unclear. Localized production mitigates risks from geopolitical disruptions, such as export bans or shipping delays, ensuring U.S. miners have consistent access to cutting-edge ASICs.

Proximity to U.S. miners and tech ecosystems could spur R&D collaborations, potentially leading to more efficient or specialized mining hardware tailored to U.S. energy profiles or regulatory needs. U.S. production may face stricter environmental regulations than in China, potentially pushing manufacturers to develop greener manufacturing processes or energy-efficient ASICs to align with growing ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) concerns in the crypto industry.

With all three manufacturers moving to the U.S., competition could intensify, potentially stabilizing or reducing ASIC prices for miners. However, initial investments in U.S. facilities might keep prices elevated in the short term. These manufacturers aim to maintain their dominance in the U.S., the largest Bitcoin mining market, while continuing to serve global clients. However, their ability to balance U.S. and international operations will depend on navigating trade policies and local regulations.

The shift to U.S. production is a direct response to U.S. tariffs and policies aimed at reducing reliance on Chinese manufacturing. This deepens the decoupling of U.S. and Chinese tech ecosystems, with Bitcoin mining hardware as a key battleground. The U.S. has already surpassed China in Bitcoin mining hashrate following China’s 2021 crypto mining ban. U.S.-based manufacturing further cements this shift, potentially marginalizing China’s role in the mining hardware supply chain.

China’s restrictive crypto policies contrast with the U.S.’s patchwork of state-level regulations, which are generally more permissive (e.g., Texas’s pro-crypto stance). This divide shapes where mining operations and hardware production concentrate. Developing nations, particularly in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia, may face challenges accessing advanced ASICs if U.S.-based production prioritizes North American markets. Higher costs or export restrictions could exacerbate this gap.

The U.S. benefits from relatively low-cost energy in certain regions, unlike many developing countries with higher electricity costs or unreliable grids. This makes it harder for miners in the Global South to compete, even if they secure hardware. The concentration of mining hardware production and hashrate in the U.S. could undermine Bitcoin’s decentralized ethos. A few large U.S. mining firms, backed by local ASIC production, may dominate the network, raising concerns about control over hashrate and potential 51% attack risks.

Smaller miners, especially outside the U.S., may struggle to afford new ASICs or compete with large-scale operations, widening the gap between industrial and retail mining. U.S. miners increasingly face pressure to adopt renewable energy or offset carbon footprints, especially with ESG scrutiny. In contrast, regions with lax regulations may continue using coal-based energy, creating a divide between “green” and “dirty” mining operations.

U.S. production facilities may adopt cleaner technologies due to stricter regulations, while legacy plants in other regions (e.g., Southeast Asia) might lag, creating disparities in environmental impact. The move by Bitmain, Canaan, and MicroBT to establish U.S. production facilities strengthens the U.S.’s position as a Bitcoin mining powerhouse but widens global divides in hashrate distribution, hardware access, and regulatory approaches. It mitigates supply chain risks for U.S. miners and could foster innovation, but it also risks centralizing mining power and marginalizing smaller players or developing regions.