How Do ViaBTC Mining Statistics Help Analyze Mining Revenue?
ViaBTC mining statistics let miners separate coin production from the reasons behind payout changes. A useful review combines effective hashrate, valid shares, network difficulty, block rewards, transaction fees, pool luck, payment method, and electricity cost. ViaBTC currently supports PPS+ and PPLNS. Its PPS+ structure applies a 4% fee to the PPS-settled block-reward component and a 2% fee to transaction-fee distribution, while PPLNS applies a 2% fee to block rewards plus transaction fees. PPS+ block-reward payments are made hourly using current difficulty, while PPLNS distributions use the miner’s share from the previous 5 difficulty rounds after 6 block confirmations.
A miner running 1 PH/s should therefore compare BTC earned per PH/s, not only total BTC. If effective hashrate stays at 1 PH/s while daily output falls 5%, the next checks should include network difficulty, fee income, payout method, and machine uptime. ViaBTC’s published BTC PPS+ reference is 0.00000048 BTC per TH/s per day, based on the previous 7 days, but it states that actual earnings can differ.
Hashrate is the first measurement because revenue depends on how much work reaches the pool. A farm may own 1 PH/s of installed capacity but report 920 TH/s of effective hashrate. The 80 TH/s gap represents 8% of installed capacity and can come from offline miners, thermal limits, unstable connections, firmware problems, or other operating issues.
That distinction matters when reading daily income. If BTC production falls 8% while pool-side hashrate also falls 8%, the change may be operational rather than market-related. If hashrate stays within 1% of its normal level but BTC per TH/s drops 6%, network conditions or the payout structure deserve more attention.
Shares provide the second measurement layer. A valid share records work accepted by the pool, so share activity can be compared with the hashrate reported by individual miners. When an ASIC reports 200 TH/s locally but its pool-side result is consistently 170 TH/s, the 15% gap deserves inspection before blaming Bitcoin difficulty.
A stable machine should normally produce a stable stream of accepted work; repeated gaps between local output and pool-side output are more useful for troubleshooting than a single hourly payout.
Revenue per unit of hashrate makes different fleet sizes easier to compare. Consider two 24-hour periods:
| Period | Hashrate | BTC mined | BTC per TH/s |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day A | 500 TH/s | 0.000240 BTC | 0.000000480 |
| Day B | 600 TH/s | 0.000276 BTC | 0.000000460 |
Total BTC rose 15%, but hashrate rose 20%, so BTC produced per TH/s fell about 4.17%. Without normalizing for hashrate, the increase in total coins could be mistaken for better machine performance.
Network difficulty helps explain that movement. Bitcoin’s fourth halving occurred on April 20, 2024, reducing the block subsidy from 6.25 BTC to 3.125 BTC. Bitcoin.org currently lists 3.125 BTC as the block reward and shows 1.5625 BTC for the next halving level.
At the same time, difficulty changes as network mining power changes. If a miner keeps 1 PH/s online but network difficulty rises 10%, expected BTC produced per unit of hashrate generally falls, assuming other conditions stay similar. A lower BTC/TH/s figure therefore does not automatically indicate weaker ASIC performance.
The payment method changes how these numbers should be read. ViaBTC lists PPS+ as the default method. Under PPS+, the block-reward portion uses PPS settlement and carries a 4% fee, while transaction fees use PPLNS distribution with a 2% fee. Under PPLNS, block rewards and transaction fees are combined under a 2% fee structure.
That 4% and 2% should not be added as a simple 6% charge. They apply to different payout components. For a payout containing 0.0100 BTC from the block-reward portion and 0.0010 BTC from transaction fees, the listed percentages affect separate bases rather than both being deducted from all 0.0110 BTC.
PPS+ can make the block-reward portion more regular because ViaBTC assumes pool-luck and orphaned-block exposure for that component; PPLNS leaves more of the payout tied to actual block production.
Transaction fees deserve their own line because they can change the result even when hashrate is unchanged. Suppose a miner produces 0.0100 BTC in block-reward income on two days. If transaction-fee income is 0.0004 BTC on Day 1 and 0.0012 BTC on Day 2, total gross coin income rises from 0.0104 BTC to 0.0112 BTC, an increase of about 7.69%.
PPLNS requires a longer observation period because payouts depend on actual blocks found by the pool. ViaBTC states that PPLNS calculations use the miner’s share over the previous 5 difficulty rounds, with distribution after a block reaches 6 confirmations. This means a one-day sample can be noisy even when the miner has maintained 100% of planned uptime.
Pool luck should therefore be recorded beside PPLNS income. Imagine a pool statistically expects 100 blocks during a measurement period but finds 92. A miner using PPLNS may see lower-than-expected payouts even though personal hashrate remained unchanged. If the next comparable period produces 108 blocks, the payout picture can reverse.
Profit records also need a consistent clock. ViaBTC states that Profit Detail statistics use UTC+8. An operator using UTC for electricity records can otherwise compare one 24-hour income window with a different 24-hour power window. A simple 8-hour offset can distort revenue-per-kWh calculations, especially around month-end.
Electricity cost turns pool statistics into operating results. A 200 TH/s miner consuming 3.5 kW uses 84 kWh per day. At $0.06/kWh, electricity costs $5.04 daily. If pool income is $8.20, the amount left after electricity is $3.16; if income falls 20% to $6.56, the remainder falls to $1.52, a 51.9% reduction.
This is why BTC/TH/s and dollars/TH/s should both be tracked. Coin output measures production, while fiat revenue reflects both production and market price. For example, if daily output remains 0.050 BTC but BTC falls from $70,000 to $60,000, gross market revenue declines 14.29% even though the mining output is unchanged.
A useful weekly sheet can contain the following fields:
| Metric | Example | Use |
|---|---|---|
| Effective hashrate | 980 TH/s | Check operating output |
| Uptime | 99.2% | Measure machine availability |
| BTC/TH/s/day | 0.00000047 | Compare mining productivity |
| Network difficulty | Current period | Explain production changes |
| Pool method | PPS+ | Interpret payout rules |
| Block-reward fee | 4% | Estimate payout basis |
| Transaction-fee rate | 2% | Separate fee income |
| Electricity | $0.06/kWh | Calculate operating margin |
| BTC price | $65,000 | Convert coin output to fiat |
A 7-day rolling average is useful for short-term monitoring because ViaBTC itself says its published average daily earnings reference the previous 7 days. A 30-day series is better for comparing machine cohorts, electricity contracts, and sustained changes in BTC/TH/s. One unusual day should carry much less weight than 30 consecutive days showing the same direction.
The ViaBTC Pool Fees page should be checked when building a revenue model because fee schedules and supported payment methods can change. As of September 2026, ViaBTC lists PPS+ and PPLNS, with PPS+ showing a 4% PPS block-reward fee and 2% transaction-fee distribution fee, while PPLNS lists 2% for the combined block-reward and transaction-fee payout.
Merged mining can also add assets to the accounting sheet. ViaBTC currently lists BTC mining with FB and NMC arrangements, and LTC mining with DOGE, BELLS, PEP, and DINGO arrangements under its published terms. A farm comparing total production should therefore record primary-coin income and eligible merged-mining income separately instead of placing every coin into one BTC-equivalent number.
At the machine level, the most useful comparison is often between similar ASICs operating under the same conditions. If 48 miners of the same model average 190 TH/s while 2 units average 145 TH/s, those two machines are running about 23.7% below the 190 TH/s group level. Checking temperature, power draw, rejected shares, restarts, and network connectivity on those units is more informative than changing pool settings for the entire 50-machine group.
The final revenue review can be kept simple:
Pool data → hashrate → shares → BTC/TH/s → payout method → difficulty → transaction fees → electricity → fiat result.
Using this chain, a 5% fall in payout can be classified more precisely. A 5% hashrate decline points toward machine availability; stable hashrate with a 5% fall in BTC/TH/s points more toward network conditions or payout composition; stable BTC production with a 5% fiat decline points toward BTC price. Each result leads to a different operational check, while a long enough data sample prevents a single 24-hour payout from being treated as a trend.