CoreWeave contract

Subject kind: customer
Statement date: 2026-08-31
Promised amount: 8.7 USD billion
Current status: stated

The claim, verbatim

Earlier CoreWeave contract worth up to $8.7 billion over 12 years

Source (primary)

Can Core Scientific Stock Gain Ground Amid Polaris DS Acquisition And Power Expansion? - TIKR.com (-, news_article)
View cached copy (2026-09-01)Live source ↗

Quote: “the company's earlier CoreWeave contract, worth up to $8.7 billion over 12 years”

How we checked this

Checked on September 15, 2026. The cited source supports every part of this claim.

The article describes the earlier CoreWeave contract as worth up to $8.7 billion over 12 years, though it mentions this while summarizing a community view that the stock is undervalued.

Confirmed in the source:

Core Scientific had an earlier contract with CoreWeave
The CoreWeave contract is worth up to $8.7 billion
The CoreWeave contract runs over 12 years

What we did: Read our cached copy of the publisher (https://www.tikr.com/blog/core-scientific-corz-stock-polaris-ds-acquisition-power-expansion) in full (8,734 characters, retrieved September 1, 2026) and checked each assertion in the claim against it.

Additional evidence

confirms Can Core Scientific Stock Gain Ground Amid Polaris DS Acquisition And Power Expansion? - TIKR.com

Quote: “the company's earlier CoreWeave contract, worth up to $8.7 billion over 12 years”

View cached copy (2026-09-01)Live source ↗

Record of changes

September 1, 2026 — statedlater found incorrect

Automated extraction from the cited source. ~~Recorded automatically from the cited source when it was published, then queued for evidence review.~~

September 2, 2026 — withdrawnlater found incorrect

Evidence review against the cited source. ~~The source mentions CoreWeave only in terms of capacity growth (16 MW to 590 MW) but contains no financial terms, valuation, or contract duration for the CoreWeave deal.~~

September 2, 2026 — stated

Correction after re-verification. Re-verification found the cited source does support this claim. The earlier withdrawal was made in error and has been reversed. The attributed quote appears verbatim in the cited source (deterministic check).