- Trending
- Comments
- Latest
A Bitcoin mining facility in Inner Mongolia reportedly suffered significant operational disruptions in late 2025 after more than 200 stray cats entered the premises and nested on GPU racks, blocking cooling systems.
According to unverified social media reports, the facility experienced sharp drops in hash rate over one week before staff discovered the animals using the warm equipment as beds.
While the mining operator has not publicly confirmed the incident, the account has circulated widely in crypto forums as an unusual example of physical infrastructure vulnerabilities.
How the cat intrusion hit the mining farmAccording to reports, the mining facility’s cooling and hash-rate dropped sharply “in one week” before staff discovered dozens of cats curled on the GPU racks, using the machines as heated “beds”. One worker told an online forum:
“Luckily the man who owns these machines is a cat-guy. He’s bought over 200 heating mats, and we’ve been instructed to put them in a separate room for the cats.”
While the account originates in social threads rather than official press releases, the narrative points to a serious disruption: the Bitcoin mining farm lost hash-power and incurred unexpected downtime and repair costs.
The loss highlights that even advanced tech operations like Bitcoin mining farms are vulnerable to physical and environmental risks beyond cyber-threats or regulatory crackdown.
For operators of bitcoin mining farms, this episode underscores key vulnerabilities: infrastructure can be compromised not just by hacking or regulation, but by mundane physical intrusions or environmental factors.
A bitcoin mining farm’s profitability depends heavily on uninterrupted operations, efficient cooling, and high uptime; when dozens of animals take up residence in the racks, the risk to machines and the bottom line becomes real.
The incident also prompts questions about facility security, site management and contingency planning: how many bitcoin mining farms have robust measures to prevent non-human intrusions? Moreover, for crypto-investors evaluating exposure to mining operations, the event serves as a reminder that hardware-based crypto-infrastructure carries risks akin to real-world industrial plants.
While the formal mining operator has not publicly verified the feline intrusion, the anecdote is circulating within crypto-community forums and highlights a seldom-acknowledged class of risk.
In related coverage of crypto scams and operations, experts emphasise that “cryptocurrency and NFTs are highly speculative virtual assets. Caution must be heeded when conducting relevant transactions and investment.”
Similarly, research reports on the crypto-sector highlight the broad range of vulnerabilities—from software exploits to physical shutdowns.
For the bitcoin mining farm in question, the cost of lost hash-rate, repairs, and perhaps machine replacements likely ran into the millions — underscoring that operators must plan for even the unexpected: whether stray cats, rodents, or weather-related disruptions.
For those investing in or running bitcoin mining farms, the key lesson is that the term “bitcoin mining farm” implies not just IT-infrastructure, but physical-infrastructure.
Investors should ask: Does the operation include adequate protections against environmental, animal and human-intrusions? Are cooling and ventilation systems accessible or isolated? Has contingency planning considered small events—such as animals or debris—that could degrade performance?
Operators should review maintenance logs, physical security and animal-control protocols; even a seemingly benign intrusion of 200 cats can translate into millions in losses when machines are offline or under-performing. For the crypto-investor community, the story acts as an unusual but sobering reminder: even niche vulnerabilities can ripple into major financial exposure.
