In short: Fourth of Byrd's five. The article's framing of the whole group: as miners shifted to the data-center model "their stocks have traded like AI names" — and therefore sold off with them, "unfortunately for them," as states paused grid approvals. Byrd's argument is that the correlation ran ahead of the fundamentals.
MARA is one of the largest of the miners, and it illustrates the mechanism the article describes: as these companies shifted toward renting power and buildings to tech tenants, "their stocks have traded like AI names." That worked well while AI power was the hottest theme in the market. It worked badly for the past month, when states started freezing grid approvals and everything with an AI-power label fell together.
Byrd's point is that this is a correlation, not an exposure. The political risk lands on projects that still need a permission slip. A miner's existing halls already have theirs. If he is right, the last month's selloff is the entry, not the warning.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.