코인톡

$SLNH

The financing discussion around Soluna is important, but I think many people are looking at it from the wrong angle.

Yes, dilution matters.

Yes, Soluna has used equity aggressively in the past.

But the real question now is not simply “will there be dilution?”

The real question is:

What is the capital being used to build?

That is where Soluna becomes much more interesting.

Soluna is no longer just funding small Bitcoin hosting sites. The company is trying to move into AI/HPC infrastructure at the exact moment when power has become one of the biggest bottlenecks in the entire data center market.

That changes the conversation.

AI infrastructure is expensive. A serious AI/HPC campus requires buildings, substations, switchgear, cooling, backup power, redundancy, fiber, long-lead equipment and tenant-specific design. Soluna has discussed roughly $10–12M per MW for AI/HPC buildout, which means a 100 MW first phase at Kati 2 could represent around $1.0–1.2B of total project capex.

A company like Soluna should obviously not fund that mainly through common stock.

And that is the point.

The real upside in Soluna comes if the company transitions from a parent-level equity-funded story into a tenant-backed, project-financed AI infrastructure platform.

That is exactly what the market rewarded in peers.

TeraWulf became a different story when it moved from Bitcoin mining into a large AI/HPC lease structure with Fluidstack and Google-backed credit support.

Applied Digital became a different story when it signed major hyperscaler leases.

IREN became a different story when its Microsoft-backed AI contract helped unlock large-scale financing.

The pattern is clear:

Strong tenant/offtake
→ stronger financing
→ lower cost of capital
→ bigger project value
→ market re-rating

This is the part I think many people miss with Soluna.

Soluna does not need to have Kati 2 fully built today for value to be created.

In infrastructure, value often starts to move when the project becomes bankable.

That means:

tenant agreement,
credit support,
project-level debt,
strategic equity,
clear construction plan,
and retained economics.

The June 9 update was important because Soluna said Kati 2 now has a definitive JV with Metrobloks, the initial design package is completed, the Phase I RFP has launched, formal commercial negotiations are underway with at least one potential tenant, and a top-tier investment bank has been engaged to lead capital formation.

That is not random activity.

That is the correct sequence for an AI infrastructure project:

design package
→ RFP
→ tenant negotiations
→ financing mandate
→ project-level capital stack
→ construction

This is why I do not view the shelf/ATM discussion in isolation.

A shelf or ATM is not automatically bearish. It depends on timing, valuation and purpose.

Using equity at low valuation with no value-creating milestone is bad.

Using capital after a major tenant deal, at a much higher valuation, to fund high-ROIC project equity alongside project debt and strategic partners can be value-accretive.

That distinction matters.

Soluna’s past dilution is real, but it also bought assets, control and positioning: Kati 1, Briscoe, Dorothy consolidation, Kati 2 development work, and now the AI/HPC transition with Metrobloks.

The question is whether those assets now become the foundation for a much larger platform.

For Kati 2 Phase I, the ideal structure would not be “Soluna sells stock and builds everything.”

The ideal structure is closer to:

100 MW Critical IT first phase
tenant-backed lease
70–80% project-level debt
strategic/project equity partners
possible tenant contribution or credit support
limited parent-level dilution
Soluna retains meaningful economics

That is the model that could change the entire investment case.

And this is why I think the next Kati 2 update could be a major inflection point.