jain.com

Annual HPC capacity development target

Company: TeraWulf

Subject kind
guidance
Statement date
2026-04-15
Current status
stated

The claim, verbatim

TeraWulf's development model targets construction of approximately 250 to 500 MW of new critical IT HPC capacity annually, aligned with customer demand, power availability, and regional grid conditions.

Source (primary)

TeraWulf 424B5 filed 2026-04-16 (SEC EDGAR, sec_filing)
View cached copy (2026-08-31)Live source ↗

Quote: “Our development model targets the contraction of approximately 250 MW to 500 MW of new critical IT HPC capacity annually, aligned with customer demand, power availability, and regional grid conditions.”

How we checked this

Checked on September 15, 2026. The cited source supports part of this claim, but not all of it.

The filing gives a 250–500 MW annual target with those alignment factors. It describes the target as contracting new capacity, elsewhere calling it an 'objective of contracting 250 MW to 500 MW', not constructing it.

Confirmed in the source:

We could not confirm this from the cited source:

That does not mean it is false — only that this source does not establish it, as of the date above. If we find a source that settles it, we will re-check and update this page.

What we did: Read our cached copy of SEC EDGAR (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1083301/000110465926044031/tm2611661-8_424b5.htm) in full (226,161 characters, retrieved August 31, 2026) and checked each assertion in the claim against it.

Additional evidence

confirms TeraWulf 424B5 filed 2026-04-16

Quote: “Our development model targets the contraction of approximately 250 MW to 500 MW of new critical IT HPC capacity annually, aligned with customer demand, power availability, and regional grid conditions.”

View cached copy (2026-08-31)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 uses the word 'contraction' but the jain.com claim uses 'construction'—these are materially different words.
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).