Welcome to another installment of Soluna’s AMA (Ask Me Anything) series, where we turn the mic over to you.

For this edition, we crowdsourced questions directly from our community on X. You can view the original thread and join the conversation here. 

In this Q&A, Soluna CEO John Belizaire responds to questions from shareholders, prospective investors, and followers who want a deeper look at our strategy, growth, and vision for Bitcoin, AI, and Renewable Computing.

Paul asked, “Can you elaborate more on any advantages SLNH may have in terms of time to power? Specifically, do you have an advantage in the ERCOT cue, and how might that benefit SLNH? Can you also elaborate more on clustering? Specifically, are there any large sites in the 2.8 GW pipeline that could be clustered and are currently being sought? Keeping investors up to date on sites as they’re progressing (term sheets, PPA, etc.) would likely be helpful.”

On time-to-power, our advantage is less about “cutting in line” and more about the advantages of our unique behind-the-meter approach. Our sites are already powered. They are tied to existing renewable generation and interconnection points, which can significantly reduce complexity and the timeline compared to starting from scratch on a greenfield grid interconnect. In ERCOT specifically, we evaluate each project on its own facts—interconnection status, deliverability, curtailment dynamics, and what upgrades (if any) are required.  Once this is done, we submit via a known process to connect large loads to generation.

On clustering: yes, clustering is a real lever for us. If you have multiple proximate sites, you can potentially share development workstreams (commercial, permitting, design standards), improve procurement leverage, and create larger, more financeable “packages” for customers who want scale. This is especially true for AI. Clustering helps us develop larger campuses powered by renewables while still leveraging our unique behind-the-meter approach to accelerate the speed to power. We do have several sites that are close to each other.  We’ll say more about this in the future.

Deebo asked, “Will battery storage play a role in this strategy, and given the declining costs and OBBA credits, would it make sense to utilize battery storage at all sites in order to further assist in stabilizing the grid and enhancing your total power capacity?”

Battery storage is absolutely on the menu—but not as a “default install everywhere.” Batteries solve specific problems: ride-through, power smoothing, peak shaving, and, sometimes, revenue from grid services. They also add CapEx, interconnection complexity, and operating requirements. So our approach is project and use-case-specific:

For AI/HPC uptime, batteries can help with short-duration events and power-quality issues, ride-through, and other applications, but they are not a substitute for proper redundancy and firming strategies. We have other solutions for that.

Anonymous asked, “Given the company is in the intersection of green energy + intensive computing + bitcoin/cryptocurrency + AI, there are diverse risks: regulatory, energy cost/availability, crypto-volatility, hardware supply, cooling/thermal risk. Which one do you view as the biggest risk in the next 12-18 months, and what mitigation steps are you taking?”

In the next 12–18 months, the biggest risk is AI execution risk at scale because everything else (power, hardware, markets, counterparties) ultimately runs through execution. That includes supply chain timing, construction productivity, commissioning, interconnect coordination, regulatory changes, and the conversion of commercial agreements into definitive form.

Mitigation steps we’re taking (and will keep taking):

• Standardization in design and procurement — repeatable blocks, fewer bespoke decisions.
• Counterparty discipline — credit, security, and contract structure aligned to risk. We always select the best, strongest counterparties. For AI, we are also focused on creditworthy counterparties, including hyperscalers.
• Operational controls — power management, forecasting, and performance monitoring.
• Portfolio balance — not being over-exposed to any single revenue driver (including crypto volatility).
• Regulatory Changes — ERCOT is seeing unprecedented demand for its power. So, they are making changes to help streamline processes and protect their grid.  Our behind-the-meter approach is well-positioned for these changes.  We will focus on exploiting this approach to build our pipeline.

Finn asked, “With the recent Siemens partnership to manage GPU power swings, how does the team plan to balance the high-uptime requirements of enterprise AI clients with the naturally variable output of renewable sites? It seems like a tough engineering hurdle if you’re moving beyond just batchable mining.”

At the core of our strategy is Behind-the-Meter integration with renewable energy sites. But, this doesn’t mean no grid power.  We have access to both the power generation (curtailed and non-curtailed energy) and grid energy to service all our needs. 

The partnership with Siemens is about managing rapid load changes and power quality to protect both the customer workload and the grid. 

Two clarifications:

• We’re not trying to power “always-on enterprise AI” directly off raw renewable variability with no buffering or controls. That’s not the “product.”
• The product is AI compute backed by engineered electrical design + controls (including MaestroOS) + an appropriate firming strategy (which includes grid, onsite generation, storage, or hybrids, depending on the site). In short, a mix of resources to ensure 99.9999?% power reliability.

Mining helped prove the model because it’s flexible. AI/HPC is less flexible, so the system has to be engineered with additional power resources. That’s where we’re investing now.  

@Brovester asked, “Will any of your projects require ERCOT to upgrade any of their facilities? If so, which ones and why? Is it true that 1 GW per hour is curtailed from renewables in this region? On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the greatest, how bright is the future?”

Some projects may require upgrades somewhere in the chain: interconnection facilities, transmission constraints, substation work, protection settings, etc. Whether upgrades are required is project-specific and determined through studies and operator processes. We won’t generalize it into a yes/no across the portfolio.

On curtailment: curtailment is real in certain regions and hours. The exact number varies by time, weather, congestion, and market conditions, so I can’t validate a specific “1 GW per hour” figure in an AMA format. Studies show that over 20TWh per year is wasted on the US grid alone.  

But what matters is that curtailment represents stranded low-cost energy, and our model is designed to convert that into compute value. But this is not the only source of energy for our projects. We also purchase power from the wind farm when it is not curtailed, as well as from the grid. For AI, we expect on-site gas generation, along with other systems, to provide the required power availability.

“How bright is the future?” I’m obviously biased, but I’d say this: the future is bright if we execute. Demand for power and compute is structural. The winners will be the teams that deliver megawatts reliably, on time, with bankable uptime.

Scott asked, “Execution looks good, John, but the capital structures used seem to erode long-term retail equity on the way to returns. Since I invested, we’ve had the 1-for-25 reverse split in 2023, the increase in authorised shares to 375M, and warrant repricings. Shareholders have been diluted faster than projects are creating per-share value. I’m hoping that turns around this year, but my position is -50%, in hindsight, I’d have been better off trading the swings, which isn’t really how I like to invest. I understand lenders need protection, but common equity seems to have absorbed the cost during this timeframe. At what point does the strategy shift from more projects and financing towards protecting or growing shareholder equity? Will it happen this year?”

Scott, I hear you, and I take it seriously. We’ve financed through a tough market. We executed on transactions to keep the company moving when capital was scarce, and the opportunity set was time-sensitive.

But here’s the pivot point: as we scale operating cash flow and access more project-level capital, our objective is to reduce reliance on expensive or highly dilutive capital. That’s not a slogan; that’s a math problem we work on every week.

Will it happen this year? I’m not going to promise a calendar outcome. What I will say is that per-share value creation is the scoreboard, and we are pushing hard to align financing, execution, and partnerships to improve it.

Zed asked, “What is the expected timeline for Project Kati 2 to be fully operational and available for AI/HPC workloads (meaning customers can sign contracts and use the capacity)?”

We can’t provide a precise “fully operational” date in an AMA. Project Kati-2 is still in development.  We provide continuous updates in our monthly business update press releases.  

What we can say is that large AI/HPC deployments typically come online in stages. Commercial contracting can begin before full buildout, and capacity is delivered in phases as infrastructure is completed, commissioned, and accepted.

As milestones become definitive and disclosable (commercial, construction, energization), we’ll update investors through press releases, filings, and earnings calls.

Alexandre asked, “Have you considered creating a dedicated business unit focused on licensing the Maestro system, similar to how Lancium monetizes its orchestration technology? What are the main reasons Soluna hasn’t pursued this model yet?” 

We’ve looked at the “license the orchestration layer” model. It’s a valid strategy. For us, the question is focus and ROI: our orchestration capabilities are a strategic advantage inside our integrated power-to-compute platform. Licensing can be attractive, but it also requires a different operating model: product roadmap, support, integrations, sales cycles, and a different set of liabilities and customer expectations.

So the short version is: we’re not dismissing it. We’re prioritizing where we believe we create the most value per unit of effort — building and operating compute-ready power at scale. If we ever decide to commercialize software externally in a meaningful way, we’ll do so deliberately and disclose it appropriately.

Dr. Paul Christianson asked, “I’d like to know more about Cameron County. Based on the location, I anticipate clustering Ellen and Hedy for a 220MW site? Have you spoken with Duke Energy about their two sites nearby and any potential offtake? What about solar offtake from nearby sites? If you have 350MW dedicated for AI/HPC at Kati 2, an additional 220MW would take you to 570MW. When I add in the 187MW at Rosa (which it appears could also potentially be upsized) I’m coming to 757MW+ that should be shovel-ready by Q127? Annie, Fei, and Gladys get you over 1GW. At a ~$85M market cap, it appears you may have as much cash on the balance sheet (~$60M last update) as your entire market cap. I think investors want to know how you plan to achieve Tier III uptime and the impacts on ERCOT. It appears as though dilution concerns may be easing based on new partnerships and bringing in a new CFO.”

On Cameron County and clustering: conceptually, clustering nearby assets can create scale and improve economics, but I can’t confirm specific MW rollups, customer readiness dates, or “shovel-ready by X quarter” characterizations unless we’ve already disclosed that publicly.

On counterparties such as Duke Energy or solar offtake, we talk to many parties across the ecosystem — utilities, IPPs, offtakers, and developers. We do not comment on specific counterparties or discussions unless and until they become disclosable.

On Tier 3-type uptime, the important point is this: enterprise compute requires engineered redundancy, not wishful thinking. Whether the electrons originate from wind, solar, or grid mix, the facility design must meet the availability requirement through electrical architecture, controls, and operational discipline. We are building toward those standards where the commercial opportunity demands it.  

At Project Kati-2-AI, for instance, we are using both grid and renewable energy, as well as behind-the-meter options (e.g., gas & clustering) to source energy for this project.

On capital structure and dilution, we hear investors clearly. Our job is to finance growth responsibly and minimize the cost of capital over time, while responsibly managing the company’s and project’s debt load. What we can commit to is investing in high-ROIC projects that build enterprise value. Those funds will be raised at the project and corporate level using a prudent mix of debt and equity. It’s a delicate balancing act, and we will continue to align financing decisions with the creation of shareholder value.

Hani asked, “What is the clear, fully funded roadmap to reach 350MW [at Project Kati 2], and can you confirm whether future expansion will avoid further shareholder dilution?”

We address the funding and shareholder dilution issue in detail above. Project Kati-2 is still in the development phase.  As we sign a tenant, we’ll publish information to show the full plan and timing.

On dilution: We continuously pursue a capital stack that includes project-level financing, debt where appropriate, strategic capital, and customer-aligned structures with the goal of lowering the weighted cost of capital and improving per-share outcomes over time.

@Mastacash asked, “With the immense demand for HPC/AI data centres, are you actively looking for alternative funding for Kati2? Instead of the direct dilution of existing shareholders. Thanks.”

Yes, we are actively evaluating multiple funding paths for large projects, including project-level financing and strategic structures that may be less dilutive than corporate-level equity. The right answer depends on the cost of capital, speed, customer requirements, and risk allocation. When we have definitive outcomes that are disclosable, we’ll communicate them through the appropriate channels.

Someone asked, “How would Soluna $SLNH function in an environment where wind energy support died down or was transitioned into Solar? It doesn’t take much to see how many turbines aren’t maintained as well as they could be, or seem to fall behind over time. In the worst case, if a wind farm plans to shut down, how does Soluna handle this without shafting the client?”

Good question. Our approach is to avoid a “single point of failure” dependency on the long-term O&M whims of a single asset. We structure projects to protect customer service through contract terms, operational planning, and diversification, and we underwrite the long-term health of the generation asset, including O&M standards and repower potential where relevant.

Also: we’re not “wind-only.” If a region transitions toward solar or hybrid resources, that doesn’t break our model. Our model is renewable-aligned compute, not one technology.

Robert asked, “How will estimated revenues increase quarterly over the next 12 months?”

We don’t provide quarterly revenue forecasts in an AMA. Revenue will be driven by uptime, deployed capacity, and market conditions, and we’ll report results through our quarterly filings and earnings calls. In addition, we expect to publish our 2026 Earnings Power presentation next quarter, likely after our Q1 earnings release.  What we can say is we’re focused on the leading indicators that translate into revenue: energized MW, contracted MW, and operational performance.

Mike asked, “Hi, as you scale power-hungry, less-flexible AI and HPC workloads at projects like Kati 2, do you see battery energy storage systems becoming complementary — for example, for power smoothing, higher uptime during low-curtailment periods, or stacking grid services revenue?”

Yes, potentially, and for the same reasons discussed earlier: smoothing, ride-through, and sometimes stacking value through services, depending on rules and interconnection. But we’ll deploy storage where it improves the customer product and the economics, not as a blanket policy.

Jazzy Jay asked, “Have any of the larger players approached you to acquire or merge to obtain the pipeline of power you possess?”

We don’t comment on market rumors or inbound interest. Like any public company, we evaluate opportunities that could enhance shareholder value. If anything becomes material and disclosable, we will disclose it.

@TechQuestioner asked, “With BTC volatility rising, is Soluna planning a stronger pivot to AI and reduced exposure to mining? Any risk of Nasdaq delisting or further dilution? Also, are there potential major partnerships with large AI players ahead?” 

Today, we manage BTC volatility through operational discipline, contract structure, and portfolio balance. We are building an AI/HPC business because it is the next evolution of our business, and we believe the demand is durable and the margin opportunity is compelling.

Right now, it’s a diversification-and-portfolio approach.  Not every project will fit the current needs of AI; some will remain for BTC, although that could change as the needs of AI companies evolve.

On the Nasdaq listing, we monitor compliance requirements closely and take them seriously. If we ever needed to take action, we’d address it through the proper public process and disclosure.

On partnerships: we’re in active discussions with tenants, tech partners, and financing partners across the ecosystem. We will name partners when agreements are definitive.

Someone asked, “When will the pilot agreement with Siemens be finalized? What course of action will be taken if this pilot project is successful or unsuccessful? Do you plan to start working with Siemens in future agreements as well?” and “Could the stock face a risk of delisting because it has fallen below $1?”

On Project Grace (Siemens pilot), we’ll share milestones when they’re finalized and can be disclosed. If the pilot is successful, the natural next step is to evaluate broader deployment across our projects. If it’s not successful, we’ll take the learnings and adjust—engineering is iterative.

On the stock price and listing requirements: We monitor all Nasdaq compliance thresholds and will take appropriate actions if needed, consistent with public disclosure obligations.

Thank you for submitting your questions!

If you’re reading this and haven’t had a chance to ask your question, it’s not too late. Drop your questions on Twitter @SolunaHoldings to have your questions answered in our next AMA installment.

If your question wasn’t answered here, be sure to subscribe to our newsletter. We’re providing business insights and answering questions there as well.

In the meantime, keep up with the latest from Soluna by visiting our Investor Center and reading our Latest News. 

Safe Harbor Statement

This AMA contains forward-looking statements. These statements are made under the “safe harbor” provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include all statements, other than statements of historical fact, regarding our current views and assumptions with respect to future events regarding our business, operations, project developments and financing plans, and other statements that are predictive in nature. These forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as “will,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “future,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “estimates,” “confident,” and similar statements.  Readers are cautioned that any forward-looking information provided by us or on our behalf is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those contained in these forward-looking statements as a result of various factors disclosed in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), including the “Risk Factors” section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 31, 2025. All forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which they are made, and we undertake no duty to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except to the extent required by law.