$GLXY earnings were exceedingly insightful for current Texas datacenter dynamics (relevant for $IREN, $CIFR, etc.) - quotes below. Large scale 2028 power is exceedingly valuable - what does that make large scale 2027 power? Helios II at 800 MW for 2028 is a gold mine - what does that make IREN's Sweetwater 1 (1.4 GW, already energized, clusters coming online by Q4'27)? 1. "The market for large scale power via data centers has become increasingly constrained, while demand for capacity beginning in 2028 and beyond has strengthened. With more than 800 MW of secured power and supporting infrastructure, we believe Helios II is an even more valuable asset today than it was just a few months ago. With delivery plan for 2028, we have the flexibility to evaluate our opportunities and get the right deal. We have built Galaxy by adapting to changing markets and being disciplined about where we commit capital. These are large, long-term agreements, and we are not going to compromise on terms just to meet an announcement date. We continue to have productive and active discussions with prospective customers with a focus on maximizing long-term value for shareholders." 2. "We saw several important shifts in market dynamics beginning in late summer that we believe have meaningfully strengthened our competitive position. Forward power availability has become increasingly constrained, with new power approvals more difficult to secure and delays in competing developments limiting the amount of large-scale compute capacity that can realistically be delivered between 2028 and 2030. At the same time, we're seeing a meaningful increase in demand from hyperscalers, frontier labs, and neoclouds now looking to secure capacity for 2028 and beyond to support existing backlogs and future growth. Underlying demand for compute remains as strong as we've ever seen it. Financing markets have also become more selective, and we believe access to capital will increasingly favor developers with proven execution capabilities, high-quality counterparties, and financing structures that appropriately allocate risk. Having successfully delivered Helios phase I, with phase II fully funded and progressing on schedule, we are building a track record that we believe will differentiate Galaxy in this environment. Meanwhile, the evolving regulatory and political landscape in Texas has created additional uncertainty around future data center development. Based on our current understanding of the applicable requirements, we do not believe Helios II is subject to the same uncertainties facing certain other projects, further strengthening its relative attractiveness. Taken together, these developments have changed how we evaluate the opportunity at Helios II. We're taking the time to engage with the right counterparties and evaluate structures that we believe can maximize long-term shareholder value for Galaxy. The focus of our active conversations is squarely on investment-grade hyperscalers or counterparties supported by investment-grade credit enhancements, considering not only headline economics and counterparty quality, but also critical lease terms, probability of execution, and future growth potential outside of the Helios campus. Beyond Helios II, we've made meaningful progress through ERCOT's Batch Zero process. As announced in September, five of our Texas data center projects received conditional Batch Zero classifications, representing approximately 4.2 GW of capacity. That includes more than 1.6 GW of previously approved base load capacity at Helios I and Helios II, which remains largely unaffected by the ongoing ERCOT process. Our three expansion projects, Caspian, Selene, and Helios III, received studied load classifications, representing an additional 2.6 GW of potential capacity. While we submitted Caspian for base load classification, ERCOT ultimately reclassified it as studied load, and our subsequent dispute for reconsideration was denied. Although that wasn't the outcome we had sought, Caspian remains part of the Batch Zero study, and we expect greater clarity on power allocation and anticipated energization timelines for these projects in April 2027, based on the timelines communicated to us by ERCOT. These classifications cover a substantial portion of our broader development pipeline of more than 5.7 GW, providing a foundation for potential growth well beyond the initial phases of Helios." 3. "We had been pursuing opportunities throughout the year at early stages, given that Helios II's energization timeline really isn't until the middle of 2028 at the earliest expected right now. Those conversations got pretty serious going into the summer, and then a lot of stuff happened. We saw actual projects around us getting delayed. We saw regulatory headwinds, not just in Texas, but across the country, tightening up, and therefore an expectation that available power on the forward was going to be tighter than I think we or the market really understood. At the same time, we saw a number of financing structures start to come into the market. Think like investment grade wraps around non-investment grade potential counterparties that we thought were interesting, and that we were evaluating. The issue there is the devils are in the details, and so an investment grade wrap that doesn't actually achieve investment grade protection for both our debt and our equity isn't really an investment grade wrap. You don't really know those things until you get into the details and you get to the finer points. Finally, to sort of back that up, the financing markets, obviously, around that time also started backing up and the focus on structure counterparty really came into light for us and for the whole market. With all that as the backdrop, we decided to take a pause, take a breath, reignite conversations more broadly. That sort of happened at exactly the same time that a number of the big hyperscalers started turning their attention to 2028 available power. That's what led us to decide to broaden out the process. That's why now we're in active conversations with a number of high-grade potential tenants who are now very focused on figuring out what their power strategy is for 2028." 4. "There is nothing today holding us back from executing on what would be a deal with an end tenant. The speculation around late summer and the timing and the conversation we are in, we could have signed a deal had we wanted to. A lot of that was in our control to make a decision to go forward. We proactively chose not to because of the change in market dynamics. That still sort of exists today. There is obviously Texas. There is a lot going on in Texas, from a regulatory perspective. There are some key dates coming up. In December, we expect to have clarity on audit results that we have submitted across the assets, including Helios II. All of those things. In April of 2027, we expect to get allocations of Batch Zero, Studied Load, power, et cetera. All of those things are on potential tenants' minds. What I would say quite clearly is, there are absolutely investment-grade tenants who, despite questions around the ERCOT process, want to contract and lock up power. When they do the work on our portfolio, in particular on Helios I and Helios II, we think they generally come to the same conclusion we have, which is Helios II is a pretty unique asset in terms of when its studies were approved prior to the batch process and the likelihood that Helios II is going to be unimpacted generally by any of the uncertainty. Nonetheless, those dates are key, and for some of the tenant base looking at it, they're looking for us to pass through those unscathed as we expect to, in order to sort of finally contract. Again, that's not the entire base. There are absolutely deals we expect we could do. The entire universe, clarity on the regulatory front, in Texas in particular, would help the process along." 5. "For Helios I, II, and III under development, we have all the permits in hand needed to begin and continue construction. There are still a handful of permits that the TCEQ primarily would issue and or approve that are not permits that would prevent us either from continuing construction or ultimately delivering and energizing data halls for the client. They are unrelated to cooling. They primarily relate around the potential to operate diesel gen backups and some other potable water and things on site. They are not limiters. All the permits we need for those things are in hand already. For future developments that will require sort of those level of permits, they are months to years out from when we would actually need them to begin construction. We are just very confident that while today there is a permitting freeze, while ERCOT and all the stakeholders are attempting to comply with Governor Abbott's announcement, we are not of the belief that those timelines are going to intersect anywhere close to one another, that we have concerns that permitting is going to be an issue for us at Helios." 6. "From a counterparty perspective, as you pointed out, we are not seeing broadly really any pushback to, "Hey, let us just not engage until we see clarity in Texas." People know power exists in Texas. People know power is affordable and getting cheaper in Texas. People know that that is going to be a Tier 1 market, we believe and they believe for a lot of time to come for these kinds of assets. So, the conversations we are having really, they want to understand the dynamics at play with our assets, but they are certainly willing to move past that pretty quickly. On the lender side, first and foremost, the existing facilities we have in place, are not impacted at all by any potential perceived uncertainty around the Texas regulations. So there is no covenant breaches. There is no risk to capital availability, in those facilities. Those are fine. On a go-forward basis, I do believe the risk on investing capital in advance of knowing for sure whether you have the right to energize is a risk that we, in theory, would be taking should we choose to do that, and therefore, what lenders would be choosing to take along with us. Lenders generally are a lot more conservative than we would be, as a developer in the equity. The good news for us is, as Tony pointed out, our potential financing needs outside of our own capital start to get highlighted as we turn the corner into Q1 and to Q2 of 2027. From a timing perspective, we, for better or for worse, have the luxury of being able to assess the regulatory environment, see how December goes with respect to the RFI audit results, choose to deploy our own capital at risk based on that landscape. We really don't have to go to the markets to have conversations or will want to go to the markets to have conversations until there's a lot more clarity in 2027. Not all of our competitors are in that situation. We happen to have the luxury of being able to do that, and we're happy with that."