Choosing the optimal Bitcoin mining pool is critical for profitability and operational stability post-2024 halving. With reduced block rewards and heightened competition, strategic pool selection directly impacts revenue consistency, risk exposure, and network contribution. This analysis compares 2025’s leading pools using real-time metrics and operational frameworks.
Leading Mining Pools: Comparative Overview
The table below synthesizes key metrics for the top five pools by hashrate dominance:
| Pool | Hashrate Share | Payout Model | Fees | Min. Payout | Regions Supported |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foundry USA | 30.5% | FPPS | 1.5–2% | 0.001 BTC | Global (US-focused) |
| AntPool | 18.2% | PPS/PPLNS | 0–4% | 0.0005 BTC | Global (China-focused) |
| ViaBTC | 13.9% | PPS+/PPLNS | 2–4% | 0.001 BTC | Global |
| F2Pool | 9.3% | PPS/PPLNS | 2.5% | 0.001 BTC | Global |
| Luxor | ~3.5% | FPPS | 1.75% | 0.001 BTC | North America/EU |
Notes: Hashrate shares fluctuate; data reflects mid-2025 averages.
Payout Models: Financial Implications
FPPS (Foundry, Luxor): Combines fixed block rewards with transaction fees. Offers predictable income, ideal for miners prioritizing stability. Higher fees (1.5–2%) offset pool risk.
PPLNS (AntPool, ViaBTC, F2Pool): Rewards based on shares submitted during block discovery. Lower fees (2–4%) but higher variance; profitable during bull markets.
PPS (AntPool option): Fixed pay per share, independent of block luck. Balances consistency with moderate fees (2–3%).
Critical Insight: FPPS suits risk-averse miners; PPLNS benefits high-hashrate operations during volatile fee markets.
Pool Suitability by Miner Type
Solo/Hobbyist Miners: Prioritize low minimum payouts (e.g., AntPool’s 0.0005 BTC) and low-fee PPLNS pools. ViaBTC’s global servers reduce latency for decentralized setups.
Industrial Farms: Foundry’s FPPS ensures cash flow stability for scaling operations. Its SOC compliance and analytics tools support institutional needs.
Energy-Constrained Operators: Luxor’s North American/EU presence minimizes latency for localized farms. F2Pool’s PPS option offers consistency in unstable power regions.
Decentralization and Network Health
Foundry’s 30.5% dominance raises centralization concerns. Smaller pools like Luxor (~3.5%) enhance geographic distribution but lack enterprise features. Mitigation Strategy: Diversifying hashpower across 2–3 mid-sized pools reduces systemic risk while maintaining profitability.
Strategic Operational Factors
MEV Support: Foundry and Luxor integrate MEV-boost for enhanced fee extraction.
Firmware Partnerships: AntPool and F2Pool offer optimized firmware for Antminer/Whatsminer hardware, boosting efficiency.
Regulatory Positioning: Foundry’s KYC/SOC compliance appeals to regulated entities; AntPool’s flexibility suits less restrictive jurisdictions.
Conclusion: Optimized Pool Selection
Maximizing Stability: Foundry USA’s FPPS model excels for farms requiring predictable revenue and compliance.
Flexibility for Diversification: AntPool and ViaBTC offer multiple payout models, catering to variable market conditions.
Hobbyist Entry Points: ViaBTC and F2Pool balance low thresholds and global accessibility.
Actionable Insights: Monitor real-time hashrate distribution. Test PPLNS pools during high-fee periods to capture upside. Diversify 20–40% of hashpower to sub-10% pools to support decentralization.
Pool selection remains a dynamic optimization problem—align payout models, fees, and infrastructure with operational scale and risk tolerance. Regularly recalibrate based on network metrics and market shifts.
