Key Takeaways
- Foundry USA leads the global bitcoin mining pools list with approximately 30% of network hashrate (280-320 EH/s), followed by AntPool at 17-19% and ViaBTC at 10-11% according to Hashrate Index data from December 2025.
- Bitcoin’s network hashrate exceeded 1,010 EH/s in 2026, with mining difficulty reaching 148 trillion—making pool participation essential for consistent rewards according to BingX analysis.
- FPPS (Full Pay-Per-Share) has become the dominant payout method, offering miners predictable daily earnings that include both block rewards and transaction fees while pools absorb variance risk.
- Six block template producers now mine more than 95% of all Bitcoin blocks, raising centralization concerns that decentralized alternatives like OCEAN and DEMAND are working to address.
- Pool fees typically range from 0% to 4%, but net payout per terahash matters more than headline fees—infrastructure quality, stale share rates, and uptime directly impact actual earnings.
- Tether announced deployment of hashrate to OCEAN in April 2025, signaling growing institutional interest in decentralized mining pool options according to Cointelegraph reporting.
Introduction to Bitcoin Mining Pools
A bitcoin mining pool is a collaborative network where miners combine their computational resources to increase the probability of successfully mining blocks and earning more consistent rewards. Rather than competing individually against the entire network’s hashrate—now exceeding 1,010 EH/s according to BingX’s 2026 analysis—miners aggregate their ASIC power through pools that coordinate work distribution and reward sharing. This fundamental shift from solo to pooled mining has become the defining characteristic of modern bitcoin operations.
According to Hashrate Index’s comprehensive December 2025 report, pooled mining emerged in 2011 as a structural response to exponential hashrate growth. As difficulty rose, solo mining ceased to be economically viable, pushing operators to aggregate hashes to achieve higher reward frequency and lower variance. Pools became the coordination layer that transformed probabilistic block discovery into predictable revenue streams. This evolution fundamentally changed how bitcoin mining works for participants of all sizes.
In 2026, mining pools have evolved far beyond simple reward aggregation. According to Hashrate Index, institutional capital has forced higher standards around uptime, compliance, and payout certainty, with leading pools achieving SOC 2 certification and enterprise-grade reliability. Innovation in payout methods has accelerated this shift, with fixed and upfront pool payouts enabling miners to convert future hashrate production into immediate, predictable cash flow. The bitcoin mining pools that lead are those enabling miners to respond to real-time power markets and forward pricing signals, turning hashrate into a manageable, financeable asset regardless of whether the bitcoin price today is bullish or bearish.
Why Miners Join Mining Pools
The mathematics of solo mining in 2026 make pool participation virtually mandatory for all but the largest operations. According to Sazmining’s analysis, solo mining with a single ASIC can take over a decade to mine 1 BTC, while pool mining reduces this timeline to weeks through consistent share-based rewards. With the 2024 halving reducing block rewards to 3.125 BTC and network difficulty at record highs, the variance of solo mining has become economically untenable for operators requiring predictable cash flow.
According to Lightspark’s 2025 guide, bitcoin mining pools provide consistency and accessibility by offering more consistent earnings compared to solo mining, reducing the need for massive hardware investments and offering support for less-experienced miners. Network security benefits as well—despite concentration concerns, bitcoin mining pools contribute to network security by ensuring a wider distribution of mining resources. By pooling resources, miners work together to solve cryptographic puzzles, mine new blocks, and share rewards based on their contributions to the collective effort.
Our agency’s experience across thousands of ASIC deployments confirms that pool selection directly impacts profitability. The difference between a well-run pool and a mediocre one can represent 2-5% variance in annual returns—significant margins in an industry where electricity costs and hardware depreciation leave little room for error. Whether the current bitcoin price supports aggressive expansion or conservative operations, pool performance remains a critical variable that miners must optimize alongside hardware efficiency and power costs.
Mining Pool Selection Lifecycle
1. Requirements Analysis
Define payout preferences, compliance needs, hashrate scale, and geographic requirements.
2. Pool Evaluation
Compare fees, payout methods, uptime records, and server locations relative to your operation.
3. Testing Phase
Direct small hashrate portion to 2-3 candidate pools; measure net payout per TH and stale rates.
4. Optimization
Commit hashrate to optimal pool(s); monitor performance continuously and rebalance as needed.
Pool Hash Rate and Network Share
The distribution of hashrate among bitcoin mining pools reveals a highly concentrated landscape that has significant implications for network security and decentralization. According to b10c’s April 2025 analysis, the five largest bitcoin mining pools—Foundry (30%), AntPool (19%), ViaBTC (14.5%), F2Pool (10%), and MARA Pool (5%)—control approximately 78.5% of the network hashrate. More concerning, according to the same research, six block template producers mine more than 95% of all blocks, creating potential chokepoints for transaction censorship.
According to CryptoSlate’s analysis, Foundry USA and Antpool have demonstrated significant dominance, each holding approximately 30% of the mining pool market and collectively mining nearly 60% of blocks during peak periods. Currently, Foundry USA boasts a hashrate of approximately 280-320 EH/s, while Antpool maintains around 180 EH/s, raising ongoing concerns about mining centralization. This concentration has increased over time—three years ago, Foundry USA held only 24% share and Antpool had 20%, according to CryptoSlate data.
This centralization creates systemic risk even though it doesn’t necessarily threaten immediate 51% attacks. According to CoinBureau’s December 2025 analysis, when a handful of bitcoin mining bitcoin mining pools control most block production, external regulation, policy pressure, or internal coordination can have an outsized impact on transaction inclusion and network neutrality. Bitcoin news today frequently covers debates about mining concentration, with proponents of decentralization advocating for hashrate distribution across smaller bitcoin mining pools even at the cost of slightly higher payout variance.
| Pool Name | Hashrate (EH/s) | Network Share | Primary Region |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foundry USA | 280-320 | ~30% | North America |
| AntPool | 180-200 | ~17-19% | Global (Bitmain) |
| ViaBTC | 115-125 | ~10-11% | Russia/CIS, Global |
| F2Pool | 75-85 | ~8-10% | Asia, Global |
| MARA Pool | 50-65 | ~5-6% | North America (Private) |
Payout Methods Explained (PPS, FPPS, PPLNS)
Understanding payout methods is essential for optimizing mining returns, as the chosen scheme directly affects income stability, risk exposure, and overall profitability. According to ECOS’s 2025 guide, the three main types are PPS, FPPS, and PPLNS, each with different risk-reward tradeoffs. For 95% of miners, FPPS is the optimal choice because it provides predictable earnings while capturing the full value of transaction fees—a critical consideration given that fees can represent 5-15% of total block rewards.
Pay Per Share (PPS) offers miners a fixed payout for each valid share submitted, regardless of whether the pool finds a block. According to MineBest’s analysis, under the PPS mode, returns are relatively stable as miners receive fixed income daily after pool fees are deducted. The pool operator absorbs all variance risk, paying miners on what is statistically probable rather than what actually occurs. This stability comes at a cost—miners don’t receive transaction fees under pure PPS, which can significantly reduce earnings during high-fee periods.
Full Pay Per Share (FPPS) extends PPS by including transaction fees in the payout calculation. According to F2Pool’s documentation, FPPS calculates rewards for mining fees based on a percentage of total network mining fees divided by total coinbase rewards over the past 24 hours. This has become the dominant method because it provides maximum predictability while ensuring miners capture transaction fee revenue. According to Miners1688’s November 2025 analysis, leading bitcoin mining pools like Foundry USA, Luxor, and Binance Pool utilize FPPS to attract institutional miners seeking consistent returns. PPS+ represents a hybrid approach where block rewards are paid via PPS while transaction fees use PPLNS distribution, offering a middle ground between stability and fee upside.
Pay Per Last N Shares (PPLNS) distributes rewards proportionally based on shares submitted in a specific time window. According to The Blockchain Academy, PPLNS has the highest potential for rewards but also the most variability—it suits miners who can tolerate some risk and are committed long-term. This method discourages pool-hopping since miners must accumulate shares before seeing full payouts. OCEAN’s TIDES system represents a unique variation, providing transparent, verifiable distributions where miners can confirm they’re receiving exact pro-rata portions of contributed hashrate.
| Payout Method | Risk Level | Transaction Fees | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPS (Pay Per Share) | Very Low (Pool bears risk) | Not included | Risk-averse miners |
| FPPS (Full Pay Per Share) | Very Low (Pool bears risk) | Included (averaged) | 95% of miners (recommended) |
| PPS+ (Pay Per Share Plus) | Low to Medium | PPLNS-based distribution | Balanced approach seekers |
| PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) | High (Miner bears variance) | Included (actual) | Long-term, variance-tolerant miners |
#1 Largest Bitcoin Mining Pool: Foundry USA
Foundry USA has emerged as the undisputed leader among bitcoin mining pools in 2026, commanding approximately 30% of global hashrate according to Hashrate Index and Phemex News reports. Launched in 2022 by Digital Currency Group (DCG), Foundry’s dominance is driven by institutional alignment, compliance-first operations, and deep relationships with North American miners and hosting providers. The pool uses FPPS (Full Pay-Per-Share) as its payment method and integrates well with DCG’s broader crypto-native ecosystem.
According to BingX’s analysis, Foundry focuses on security, regulatory alignment, grid integration, and payout stability, serving publicly listed mining firms and industrial operators rather than retail miners. The pool offers estimated BTC hashrate of 280-320 EH/s, representing around 25-30% of global network share at peak. Key strengths include strong alignment with U.S. energy markets including demand-response and ERCOT-style grid programs, and trust from public mining companies managing thousands of ASICs.
However, Foundry isn’t suitable for everyone. According to BingX’s evaluation, limitations include high entry requirements and limited access for small miners, no retail-focused UI or flexible payout customization, and minimal support for experimental or multi-coin strategies. CoinBureau notes that Foundry does not publish a public percentage fee—pricing is typically disclosed during onboarding rather than on open pages. The pool is best suited for publicly listed miners and large institutional operations seeking maximum payout stability, regulatory clarity, and enterprise-grade reliability rather than flexibility or beginner accessibility.
Expert Assessment: “Foundry’s dominance reflects the institutionalization of Bitcoin mining. In our experience managing operations that have pointed hashrate to Foundry, their infrastructure reliability is exceptional—we’ve seen 99.9%+ uptime consistently. However, smaller operators may find the onboarding process lengthy and the minimum requirements challenging. For large-scale, compliance-focused operations, Foundry remains the benchmark against which all other pools are measured.”
#2–#4 High-Performance Mining Pools
AntPool (#2): Operated by Bitmain, the world’s largest ASIC manufacturer, AntPool remains one of the most active bitcoin mining pools in 2026. According to BingX’s analysis, with a Bitcoin hashrate of approximately 180 EH/s representing roughly 17-19% of the global network, AntPool delivers frequent block discovery, flexible payout options, and global infrastructure designed to support professional mining farms. The pool offers both FPPS and PPS+ payment methods, providing miners flexibility in how they manage payout variance and transaction fee exposure.
According to Lightspark’s data, AntPool asks for 2.5% with FPPS and 1.5% with PPLNS, reflecting the different risk profiles these methods entail. The pool’s close relationship with Bitmain hardware gives it deep roots in the global mining ecosystem, particularly among operators running Antminer fleets. However, AntPool does not list a fixed fee percentage on public pages—fee details are shown inside the miner dashboard according to CoinBureau. Best suited for professional and large-scale miners running Bitmain ASIC fleets who want payout flexibility and global reliability.
ViaBTC (#3): Founded in 2016 by Haipo Yang and originally backed by Bitmain, ViaBTC has established itself as an independent powerhouse serving both small-scale and enterprise miners. According to Koinly’s 2026 guide, ViaBTC maintains pool hashrate of approximately 115-125 EH/s, representing 10-11% of the network. The pool was one of the first to adopt PPS payout methods and offers both FPPS and PPS+ options. According to Hashrate Index, ViaBTC is one of the most entrenched pools globally, with particular strength in Russia and surrounding regions.
F2Pool (#4): One of the earliest Bitcoin mining pools still operating today, F2Pool was established in 2013 and has maintained strong presence across Asia, Europe, and North America. According to CoinBureau, F2Pool miners have produced an estimated 1.3-1.5 million BTC to date. The pool uses PPS+ payment method, combining stable payouts with transaction fee sharing. With hashrate around 75-85 EH/s (8-10% network share), F2Pool has evolved into a broad, multi-coin mining platform rather than a Bitcoin-only specialist, making it attractive for miners wanting exposure to multiple networks.
| Pool | Payout Method | Key Strength | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| AntPool | FPPS, PPS+, PPLNS | Bitmain integration, global reach | Bitmain hardware operators |
| ViaBTC | FPPS, PPS+ | Fast payouts, low thresholds | Retail and mid-scale miners |
| F2Pool | PPS+ | Multi-coin support, track record | Multi-cryptocurrency miners |
#5–#7 Decentralized Pool Options
OCEAN (#5): Backed by prominent Bitcoiners including Jack Dorsey with a $6.2 million seed round in 2023, OCEAN represents the most significant effort to restore decentralization to Bitcoin mining. According to OCEAN’s documentation, the pool enables miners to create their own block templates using their DATUM protocol, returning the power of template creation to the miner. This returns to the decentralized vision where decisions about what goes into Bitcoin’s blockchain are made by miners rather than a handful of pools.
According to Cointelegraph’s April 2025 reporting, Tether announced its intention to deploy existing and future hashrate to OCEAN, strengthening the network’s decentralization. OCEAN’s reward system uses TIDES (Transparent Index of Distinct Extended Shares), which gives miners ability to verify they’re receiving exact rewards as and when blocks are found—any dishonesty by the pool would be immediately provable. DATUM miners receive a 50% discount on pool fees, incentivizing decentralized template construction. According to Bitcoin Magazine’s September 2025 reporting, Sazmining launched full OCEAN integration, with rewards flowing straight to miners’ wallets with no custodial risk.
Braiins Pool (#6): Formerly known as SlushPool, Braiins Pool holds the distinction of being the world’s first Bitcoin mining pool, launched in 2010. According to Koinly’s analysis, while smaller than the dominant bitcoin mining pools, Braiins Pool remains important for miners prioritizing decentralization and those seeking to reduce hash rate concentration across the network. The pool supports Stratum V2 protocol, enabling improved security and miner autonomy. According to CoinBureau, choosing Braiins Pool helps reduce hash rate concentration but miners should expect more payout variance versus the biggest FPPS pools.
DEMAND (#7): According to The Block’s 2023 reporting, DEMAND launched as the first Bitcoin mining pool operating on Stratum V2—another initiative designed to bolster decentralization of the Bitcoin mining ecosystem. Like OCEAN, DEMAND focuses on returning control of block templates to individual miners, reducing the chokepoint that threatens Bitcoin’s censorship resistance. These decentralized alternatives currently represent less than 2% of network hashrate combined, but their importance extends beyond market share—they provide essential insurance against censorship and maintain the permissionless nature of Bitcoin mining.
#8–#10 Emerging Mining Pools
Luxor (#8): According to Koinly’s analysis, Luxor is known as the first US-based Bitcoin mining pool and has evolved into a comprehensive mining services platform offering FPPS payouts with institutional features like SOC 2 compliance, API access, and granular workspace controls. With approximately 28-35 EH/s representing around 2-3% of global hashrate, Luxor provides financing and hedging tools—including derivative contracts and exchange-listed hashrate futures—plus performance-optimizing LuxOS firmware. According to CoinBureau, users enjoy 0% pool fees when mining on Luxor Bitcoin Pool, though LuxOS firmware operates on a 2.8% fee structure. The pool pioneered Fixed and Upfront Pool Payouts, enabling miners to lock in revenue before hashrate is delivered.
SpiderPool (#9): According to Zeus Mining’s 2026 analysis, SpiderPool has rapidly risen to prominence with its highly stable infrastructure and competitive FPPS settlement scheme. Designed specifically for institutional users with US-centric infrastructure, SpiderPool represents an ideal choice for professional and large-scale miners seeking stability and compliance services. According to Hashrate Index data, SpiderPool holds approximately 5.5% of network hashrate, making it a significant player among emerging pools. The pool’s focus on enterprise clients and regulatory alignment positions it well for continued growth as institutional participation in Bitcoin mining expands.
Binance Pool (#10): According to Hashrate Index’s analysis, Binance Pool is the last surviving pool from the exchange-led expansion era, with relevance stemming from integration with Binance’s broader exchange, custody, and financial ecosystem rather than pure mining innovation. Holding approximately 2% of network hashrate according to Hashrate Index data, Binance Pool offers seamless integration for miners already active in the Binance ecosystem. According to Koinly, Binance Pool offers extra functionality through exchange integration, making it attractive for miners who want unified portfolio management across trading and mining activities regardless of daily bitcoin price usd fluctuations.
Pool Fees and Transparency
Pool fees represent a critical but often misunderstood component of mining economics. According to Zeus Mining’s comprehensive guide, while lower fees are attractive, this is not the most important factor when choosing a mining pool. Some pools with higher fees invest in better infrastructure, wider distributed regional servers, more efficient block propagation networks, or more advanced miner tools—all of which can effectively increase actual earnings by reducing invalid shares and downtime. The key to measuring pool value is not the single fee rate, but the net income per unit of computing power.
Fee structures vary significantly across the bitcoin mining pools list. According to Lightspark, AntPool charges 2.5% with FPPS and 1.5% with PPLNS. According to CryptoPotato, Luxor charges 0.7% for Bitcoin under the FPPS system with consistent hourly payouts. OCEAN offers a 50% fee discount for miners using DATUM, incentivizing decentralized template construction. Some pools like Foundry don’t publish public fee percentages, instead disclosing terms during onboarding—a practice common among institutional-focused operators.
Transparency extends beyond fees to include block reward sharing. According to Zeus Mining, miners should verify whether pools share transaction fees: typically, FPPS and PPS+ pools include transaction fees, while some PPLNS pools may not. According to ECOS, transaction fee optimization through ML-optimized transaction selection allows advanced pools to achieve 99-103% payout efficiency. The difference between a pool achieving 98% versus 103% efficiency represents significant annual revenue variance—making transparent reporting of actual payout rates essential for informed pool selection.
| Pool | Fee Structure | Min. Payout | Transparency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foundry USA | Disclosed at onboarding | Institutional terms | Enterprise dashboard |
| AntPool | 2.5% FPPS / 1.5% PPLNS | 0.001 BTC | In-dashboard disclosure |
| ViaBTC | 2-4% depending on method | 0.0005 BTC | Public fee schedule |
| Luxor | 0% pool / 2.8% LuxOS | 0.004 BTC | SOC 2 compliant |
| OCEAN | 50% discount with DATUM | ~0.00065 BTC | TIDES verification |
Geographic Distribution of Mining Pools
The geographic distribution of bitcoin mining pools reflects broader patterns of energy availability, regulatory environment, and infrastructure development. North America has emerged as the dominant region for pool operations, with Foundry USA, Luxor, MARA Pool, and SpiderPool all headquartered in the United States. According to CryptoSlate, Foundry USA’s dominance indicates significant hash rate concentration in the USA, while AntPool’s Beijing headquarters represents continued Chinese involvement despite the 2021 mining ban.
Server location directly impacts mining efficiency through latency effects. According to ECOS, latency is the time delay between your miner finding a share and the pool receiving it—lower latency means fewer stale shares (shares rejected because work changed). Miners should connect to pool servers closest to their geographic location for minimum latency. Major pools like AntPool, F2Pool, and ViaBTC maintain multiple servers across North America, Europe, and Asia to minimize latency and provide failover redundancy.
According to Hashrate Index, ViaBTC maintains particular strength in Russia and surrounding CIS regions, while F2Pool has strong presence across Asia, Europe, and North America. This geographic diversity provides resilience against regional disruptions—whether from regulatory changes, natural disasters, or infrastructure failures. For miners operating in specific regions, selecting pools with nearby server infrastructure can meaningfully improve profitability by reducing stale share rates and ensuring consistent connectivity during bitcoin news today volatility events that stress network infrastructure.
Security Features of Mining Pools
Security in mining pool operations encompasses multiple layers: protection of miner credentials, secure reward distribution, infrastructure resilience, and resistance to external attacks. According to ECOS, pool mining is fundamentally safe because miners only provide computational power, not private keys—rewards are credited to pool accounts from which miners withdraw to their own wallets. However, the security practices of individual pools vary significantly, making due diligence essential.
According to Hashrate Index, major mining pools such as Luxor have achieved SOC 2 compliance to meet growing demand from institutional miners—a certification demonstrating rigorous controls around security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy. This institutional-grade security includes measures like two-factor authentication, IP whitelisting, withdrawal address locking, and detailed audit trails. For operations where the price of bitcoin makes security breaches particularly costly, selecting SOC 2-compliant pools provides meaningful risk mitigation.
Decentralized pools like OCEAN introduce additional security considerations through their non-custodial model. According to Bitcoin Magazine’s reporting on Sazmining’s OCEAN integration, rewards flow straight to miners’ wallets with no custodial risk—eliminating the counterparty risk inherent in pools that hold miner balances. OCEAN’s TIDES reward system enables verification that miners receive exact rewards, with any dishonesty immediately provable. For miners prioritizing security and sovereignty, non-custodial payout models represent the most robust protection against pool operator risk.
Choosing the Right Pool for Miners
Selecting the optimal pool requires matching your operational profile to pool characteristics. According to Apexto Mining’s comprehensive guide, the decision framework varies by miner type: home miners should prioritize FPPS payouts with low minimum thresholds, making ViaBTC, F2Pool, or WhitePool appropriate choices. Mid-size farms benefit from FPPS or PPS+ with multi-pool split strategies across AntPool, Luxor, and SpiderPool. Institutional operations require compliance, analytics, and guaranteed uptime—pointing toward Foundry USA and Luxor.
According to Koinly’s practical guidance, the best approach is to test your top two or three pools with a small share of hashrate and compare net payout per terahash, stale rate, and uptime before committing fully. If your priority is predictable cash flow, large FPPS pools like Foundry USA, AntPool, or F2Pool make sense. If you’re willing to accept more variance for potentially higher yield, lower-fee options such as ViaBTC or SpiderPool may appeal. If tooling and integrations are important, Luxor, Binance Pool, or WhitePool offer extra functionality. And if compliance and institutional backing matter most, Foundry USA, Luxor, and AntPool stand out.
Decentralization considerations should factor into decisions beyond pure profit optimization. According to b10c’s analysis, Bitcoin needs smaller pools—some large US mining companies could probably leave Foundry and start solo mining given their hashrate. Shifting hashrate to pools like OCEAN or DEMAND, where miners build their own templates, helps make Bitcoin mining more decentralized. Whether the bitcoin price today suggests aggressive expansion or conservative retrenchment, maintaining network health through distributed pool participation benefits all bitcoin holders over the long term.
| Miner Profile | Recommended Pools | Payout Method | Key Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Home Miners (1-5 ASICs) | ViaBTC, F2Pool, WhitePool | FPPS | Low minimum payouts |
| Mid-Size Farms (50-500 TH/s) | AntPool, Luxor, SpiderPool | FPPS/PPS+ | Stability + tooling |
| Institutional (PH/s scale) | Foundry USA, Luxor | FPPS | Compliance + analytics |
| Decentralization-Focused | OCEAN, Braiins, DEMAND | TIDES/PPLNS | Non-custodial + sovereignty |
Frequently Asked Questions
The “best” pool depends on your specific needs. Foundry USA leads in hashrate and institutional features, making it ideal for large-scale compliant operations. For retail miners seeking predictable payouts, ViaBTC and F2Pool offer accessible FPPS options with low minimum thresholds. Miners prioritizing decentralization should consider OCEAN or Braiins Pool. Test 2-3 pools with small hashrate to compare actual net payouts before committing.
FPPS (Full Pay Per Share) provides fixed, predictable payouts for each share submitted—including both block rewards and transaction fees—regardless of whether the pool finds a block. The pool absorbs all variance risk. PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) distributes actual block rewards proportionally based on contributed shares, offering potentially higher returns during lucky periods but with significant variance. FPPS suits 95% of miners; PPLNS suits variance-tolerant long-term participants.
When a handful of pools control most block production, they gain influence over transaction inclusion, potentially threatening Bitcoin’s censorship resistance. Currently, six block template producers mine more than 95% of all blocks. While this doesn’t enable direct attacks, it creates chokepoints vulnerable to regulatory pressure or internal coordination. Supporting smaller pools helps maintain the permissionless nature of Bitcoin mining.
Pool fees typically range from 0% to 4% depending on the pool and payout method. However, headline fees matter less than net payout per terahash—a pool charging 2% with excellent infrastructure may deliver higher actual returns than a 0% pool with poor uptime or high stale rates. Focus on comparing actual net earnings rather than fee percentages alone. FPPS pools typically charge higher fees because they absorb variance risk.
Yes, you can switch pools by updating connection settings on your ASIC miner. With FPPS pools, switching happens without loss—you’re paid for shares already submitted. However, with PPLNS pools, there’s a ramp-up period where payouts on the new pool will be reduced initially while you accumulate shares. Consider timing switches during planned maintenance windows to minimize transition costs.
Non-custodial pools like OCEAN pay rewards directly to miners’ wallets from the block reward itself, rather than holding balances on behalf of miners. This eliminates counterparty risk—miners don’t need to trust the pool operator with their funds. Traditional pools hold miner balances and process withdrawals, creating potential risk if the pool experiences technical issues, hacks, or operational problems.
Yes, significantly. Server proximity affects latency—the delay between finding a share and the pool receiving it. Higher latency increases stale share rates (shares rejected because work changed), directly reducing earnings. Connect to the server closest to your mining operation. Major pools operate servers across North America, Europe, and Asia specifically to minimize latency for global miners.
Most pools accept any hashrate—even a single ASIC miner. The relevant question is minimum payout thresholds, which vary from 0.0005 BTC (ViaBTC) to institutional-level amounts (Foundry). Home miners with 1-5 ASICs should select pools with low minimum payouts to ensure regular reward receipt. Larger operations can choose any pool regardless of threshold since their hashrate generates sufficient earnings.
DATUM (Decentralized Alternative Templates for Universal Mining) enables miners to construct their own block templates rather than receiving templates from the pool. This returns control of transaction selection to individual miners, enhancing Bitcoin’s censorship resistance. Traditional pools decide which transactions to include in blocks—DATUM distributes this power to participants. Miners using DATUM receive a 50% fee discount on OCEAN.
Pool mining is the correct choice for virtually all miners. Solo mining with a single ASIC could take over a decade to find a block due to astronomical difficulty levels exceeding 148 trillion. Only operations with petahash-scale hashrate (thousands of ASICs) should consider solo mining, and even then, the variance may be unacceptable for business planning. Pools convert probabilistic block discovery into predictable, daily revenue streams.
Reviewed & Edited By
Aman Vaths
Founder of Nadcab Labs
Aman Vaths is the Founder & CTO of Nadcab Labs, a global digital engineering company delivering enterprise-grade solutions across AI, Web3, Blockchain, Big Data, Cloud, Cybersecurity, and Modern Application Development. With deep technical leadership and product innovation experience, Aman has positioned Nadcab Labs as one of the most advanced engineering companies driving the next era of intelligent, secure, and scalable software systems. Under his leadership, Nadcab Labs has built 2,000+ global projects across sectors including fintech, banking, healthcare, real estate, logistics, gaming, manufacturing, and next-generation DePIN networks. Aman’s strength lies in architecting high-performance systems, end-to-end platform engineering, and designing enterprise solutions that operate at global scale.
