Insiders ranked by realized 90-day signed return on their open-market trades at Silo Pharma, Inc.. Minimum 3 scored trades. Returns are signed - a sale followed by a rally counts against the insider.
Year-over-year tone shift - average net-tone change across Risk Factors and MD&A vs the prior 10-K. This filing is 0.30pp more bullish than last year's.
Why YoY instead of absolute: the LM lexicon has ~6.6× more negative words than positive (legal/risk-disclosure language is heavy on hedging), so every 10-K reads bearish on raw tone. Year-over-year change strips that bias and surfaces the actual shift in management's framing.
Tone shift by section
The two components the gauge averages: how Risk Factors and MD&A each shifted in net tone versus last year's 10-K. The headline above is their average, so a green needle over a soft section just means the other section carried it.
Risk Factors
+0.30pp
Lean +
Net-tone change vs last year's 10-K.
MD&A
+0.30pp
Flat
Net-tone change vs last year's 10-K.
Per-snippet highlights
Sentence-level sentiment highlighting with category and subcategory filters is coming once the snippet-scoring pipeline lands. For now, dig into the actual section text on the Sections tab.
Language change vs prior 10-K
Risk Factors (Item 1A) - words with the biggest YoY frequency increase
Negative rising
adversely+21
loss+7
decline+7
penalties+6
errors+6
Positive rising
able+8
gain+5
success+4
exclusive+4
opportunities+4
Risk Factors (Item 1A)
25,962 words
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
An investment in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the following risk factors and the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K before investing in our common stock. Our business and results of operations could be seriouslyharmed by any of the following risks. The risks set out below are not the only risks we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and/or operating results. If any of the following events occur, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. In such case, the value and trading price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment.
Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Capital
We have only a limited history upon which an evaluation of our prospects and future performance can be made and have no history of profitable operations.
Language change vs prior 10-K
MD&A (Item 7) - words with the biggest YoY frequency increase
Negative rising
loss+8
impairment+8
losses+5
termination+4
closing+2
Positive rising
rewards+11
gain+7
exclusive+4
gains+4
effective+3
MD&A (Item 7)
6,119 words
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and plan of operations together with and our consolidated financial statements and the related notes appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition to historical information, this discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Our actual results may differ materially from those discussed below. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those identified below, and those discussed in the section titled “Risk Factors” included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. All amounts in this report are in U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted.
Overview
We are a developmental stage biopharmaceutical company developing novel therapeutics that address underserved conditions including PTSD, stress-induced anxiety disorders, fibromyalgia, and central nervous system (CNS) diseases. We are focused on developing novel therapies that include conventional drugs and psychedelic formulations. The Company’s lead program, SPC-15, is an intranasal drug targeting PTSD and stress-induced anxiety disorders. SP-26 is a time-release ketamine-based loaded implant for fibromyalgia and chronic pain relief. Silo’s two preclinical programs are SPC-14, an intranasal compound for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, and SPU-16, a CNS-homing peptide targeting the central nervous system with initial research indication in multiple sclerosis (MS).
We were incorporated in 2010 but started operating under our current business plan in September 2020 and have a limited history upon which an evaluation of our prospects and future performance can be made and have no history of profitable operations. We may sustain losses in the future as we implement our business plan. We have not yet achievedpositive cash flow on a monthly basis during any fiscal year including the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, and there can be no assurance that we will ever generate revenues or operate profitably.
We will require additional financing in the future to fund our operations.
We will need additional capital in the future to continue to execute our business plan. Therefore, we will be dependent upon additional capital in the form of either debt or equity to continue our operations. At the present time, we do not have arrangements to raise all of the needed additional capital, and we will need to identify potential investors and negotiate appropriate arrangements with them. Our ability to obtain additional financing will be subject to a number of factors, including market conditions, our operating performance and investor sentiment. If we are unable to raise additional capital when required or on acceptable terms, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue our operations.
Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish certain rights.
We may seek additional capital through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, strategic collaborations and alliances or licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity, convertible debt securities or other equity-based derivative securities, your ownership interest will be diluted and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. Any indebtedness we incur could involve restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, acquire or license intellectual property rights, declare dividends, make capital expenditures and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. Furthermore, the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our common stock to decline. If we raise additional funds through strategic collaborations and alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquishvaluable rights including to future therapeutic candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market our future therapeutic candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.
Risks Related to Therapeutics Businesses
Clinical drug development is a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain timelines and uncertain outcomes. If clinical trials of any future therapeutic candidates are prolonged or delayed, we or our current or future collaborators may be unable to obtain required regulatory approvals, and therefore we will be unable to commercialize our future therapeutic candidates on a timely basis or at all, which will adversely affect our business.
Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process and our future clinical trial results may not be successful. We may experience delays in initiating or completing our clinical trials. We may also experience numerous unforeseen events during our clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize any future therapeutic candidates.
We cannot provide any assurance that any product candidates will successfully complete clinical trials or receive regulatory approval, which is necessary before they can be commercialized.
We currently have no therapies that are approved for commercial sale and may never be able to develop marketable therapies. We entered into license agreements with numerous companies and universities, including the University of Maryland, Baltimore and Columbia University. See “Item 1-Business---License Agreements between the Company and Vendor.” Accordingly, our business may depend on the successful regulatory approval of potential in-licensed product candidates. We cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval or that our therapies will be successfully commercialized even if we receive regulatory approval.
The research, testing, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, labeling, approval, sale, marketing, and distribution of any in-licensed product is, and will remain, subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA, the DEA, the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) and foreign regulatory authorities.
Any therapeutic candidates we may develop in the future may be subject to controlled substance laws and regulations in the territories where the product will be marketed, and failure to comply with these laws and regulations, or the cost of compliance with these laws and regulations, may adversely affect the results of our business operations and our financial condition.
In the United States, psilocybin and its active metabolite, psilocin, are listed by the DEA as a Schedule I substance and ketamine is listed by the DEA as a Schedule III substance, under the CSA. The DEA regulates chemical compounds as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances. Schedule I substances by definition have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use” in the United States, lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and may not be prescribed marketed or sold in the United States. Pharmaceutical products approved for use in the United States may be listed as Schedule II, III, IV or V, with Schedule II substances considered to present the highest potential for abuse or dependence and Schedule V substances the lowest relative risk of abuse among such substances. Schedule I and II substances are subject to the strictest controls under the CSA, including manufacturing and procurement quotas, security requirements and criteria for importation. In addition, dispensing of Schedule II substances is further restricted. For example, they may not be refilled without a new prescription and may have a black box warning. Further, most, if not all, state laws in the United States classify psilocybin and psilocin as Schedule I controlled substances. For any product containing psilocybin to be available for commercial marketing in the United States, psilocybin and psilocin must be rescheduled, or the product itself must be scheduled, by the DEA to Schedule II, III, IV or V. Commercial marketing in the United States will also require scheduling-related legislative or administrative action.
Scheduling determinations by the DEA are dependent on FDA approval of a substance or a specific formulation of a substance. Therefore, while psilocybin and psilocin are Schedule I controlled substances, products approved by the FDA for medical use in the United States that contain psilocybin or psilocin should be placed in Schedules II-V, since approval by the FDA satisfies the “accepted medical use” requirement. If one of our product candidates receives FDA approval, we anticipate that the DEA may make a scheduling determination and place it in a schedule other than Schedule I in order for it to be prescribed to patients in the United States. This scheduling determination will be dependent on FDA approval and the FDA’s recommendation as to the appropriate schedule. During the review process, and prior to approval, the FDA may determine that it requires additional data, either from non-clinical or clinical studies, including with respect to whether, or to what extent, the substance has abuse potential. This may introduce a delay into the approval and any potential rescheduling process. That delay would be dependent on the quantity of additional data required by the FDA. This scheduling determination will require DEA to conduct notice and comment rule making including issuing an interim final rule. Such action will be subject to public comment and requests for hearing which could affect the scheduling of the substance. There can be no assurance that the DEA will make a favorable scheduling decision. Even assuming categorization as a Schedule II or lower controlled substance (i.e., Schedule III, IV or V), at the federal level, such substance would also require scheduling determinations under state laws and regulations.
In addition, therapeutic candidates containing controlled substances are subject to DEA regulations relating to manufacturing, storage, distribution and physician prescription procedures, including:
DEA registration and inspection of facilities. Facilities conducting research, manufacturing, distributing, importing or exporting, or dispensing controlled substances must be registered (licensed) to perform these activities and have the security, control, recordkeeping, reporting and inventory mechanisms required by the DEA to prevent drug loss and diversion. All these facilities must renew their registrations annually, except dispensing facilities, which must renew every three years. The DEA conducts periodic inspections of certain registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Obtaining and maintaining the necessary registrations may result in delay of the importation, manufacturing or distribution of product candidates. Furthermore, failure to maintain compliance with the CSA, particularly non-compliance resulting in loss or diversion, can result in regulatory action that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations, or initiate proceedings to restrict, suspend or revoke those registrations. In certain circumstances, violations could lead to criminal proceedings.
State-controlled substances laws. Individual U.S. states have also established controlled substance laws and regulations. Though state-controlled substances laws often mirror federal law, because the states are separate jurisdictions, they may separately schedule product candidates. While some states automatically schedule a drug based on federal action, other states schedule drugs through rule making or a legislative action. State scheduling may delay commercial sale of any product for which we obtain federal regulatory approval and adverse scheduling could have a material adverse effect on the commercial attractiveness of such product. We or any partners must also obtain separate state registrations, permits or licenses in order to be able to obtain, handle, and distribute controlled substances for clinical trials or commercial sale, and failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements could lead to enforcement and sanctions by the states in addition to those from the DEA or otherwise arising under federal law.
Clinical trials. Because our product candidates may contain psilocybin, to conduct clinical trials in the United States prior to approval, each of our research sites must submit a research protocol to the DEA and obtain and maintain a DEA researcher registration that will allow those sites to handle and dispense such product candidates and to obtain the product from our importer. If the DEA delays or denies the grant of a researcher registration to one or more research sites, the clinical trial could be significantly delayed, and we could lose clinical trial sites.
Importation. If any of our product candidates is approved and classified as a Schedule II, III or IV substance, an importer can import it for commercial purposes if it obtains an importer registration and files an application for an import permit for each import. The DEA provides annual assessments/estimates to the International Narcotics Control Board, which guides the DEA in the amounts of controlled substances that the DEA authorizes to be imported. The failure to identify an importer or obtain the necessary import authority, including specific quantities, could affect the availability of our product candidates and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, an application for a Schedule II importer registration must be published in the Federal Register, and there is a waiting period for third-party comments to be submitted. It is always possible that adverse comments may delay the grant of an importer registration.
Manufacture. If, because of a Schedule II classification or voluntarily, we were to conduct manufacturing or repackaging/relabeling in the United States, our contract manufacturers would be subject to the DEA’s annual manufacturing and procurement quota requirements.
Distribution. If any of our product candidates is scheduled as Schedule II, III or IV, we would also need to identify wholesale distributors with the appropriate DEA registrations and authority to distribute any future therapeutic candidates. These distributors would need to obtain Schedule II, III or IV distribution registrations.
The potential reclassification of psilocybin and psilocin in the United States could create additional regulatory burdens on our operations and negatively affect our results of operations.
If psilocybin and/or psilocin, other than the FDA-approved formulation, is rescheduled under the CSA as a Schedule II or lower controlled substance (i.e., Schedule III, IV or V), the ability to conduct research on psilocybin and psilocin would most likely be improved. However, rescheduling psilocybin and psilocin may materially alter enforcement policies across many federal agencies, primarily the FDA and DEA. The FDA is responsible for ensuring public health and safety through regulation of food, drugs, supplements, and cosmetics, among other products, through its enforcement authority pursuant to the FDCA. The FDA’s responsibilities include but are not limited to regulating the ingredients as well as the marketing and labeling of drugs sold in interstate commerce. Because it is currently illegal under federal law to produce and sell psilocybin and psilocin, and because there are no federally recognized medical uses, the FDA has historically deferred enforcement related to psilocybin and psilocin to the DEA. If psilocybin and psilocin were to be rescheduled to a federally controlled, yet legal, substance, the FDA would likely play a more active regulatory role. The DEA would continue to be active in regulating manufacturing, distribution and dispensing of such substances. The potential for multi-agency enforcement post-rescheduling could threaten or have a materially adverse effect on our business.
Any significant breaches in our compliance with U.S. and foreign laws and regulations governing controlled substances, or changes in the laws and regulations may result in interruptions to our development activity or business continuity.
Psilocybin and psilocin are categorized as Schedule I controlled substances under the CSA, and are similarly categorized by most states and foreign governments. Even assuming any future therapeutic candidates containing psilocybin or psilocin are approved and scheduled by regulatory authorities to allow their commercial marketing, the ingredients in such therapeutic candidates would likely continue to be Schedule I, or the state or foreign equivalent.
Despite the current status of psilocybin and psilocin as Schedule I controlled substances in the United States, there may be changes in the status of psilocybin or psilocin under the laws of certain U.S. cities or states. In Oregon, psilocybin services are legal under a state licensing framework and in Colorado, state law authorizes regulated “natural medicine” services (including psilocybin/psilocyn) with licensed facilities and facilitators (rolling implementation) and also provides certain personal-use allowances under state law, but commercial sales outside the regulated framework remain illegal. In addition, some U.S. cities have decriminalized psilocybin since (including Oakland, California; Santa Cruz, California; Ann Arbor and Detroit, Michigan; Cambridge, Massachusetts; and Somerville, Massachusetts, Seattle and Port Townsend, Washington, and the state of Maine).
The legalization of psilocybin without regulatory oversight may lead to the setup of clinics without proper therapeutic infrastructure or adequate clinical research, which could put patients at risk and bring reputational and regulatory risk to the entire industry, making it harder for us to achieve regulatory approval.
Violations of any federal, state or foreign laws and regulations relating to controlled substances (including Psilocybin and psilocin which are categorized as Schedule I controlled substances under the CSA in the U.S.) could result in significant fines, penalties, administrative sanctions, convictions or settlements arising from civil proceedings conducted by either the federal government or private citizens, or criminal charges and penalties, including, but not limited to, disgorgement of profits, seizure of product, cessation of business activities, divestiture or prison time. This could have a material adverse effect on us, including on our reputation and ability to conduct business, our financial position, operating results, profitability or liquidity, the potential listing of our shares or the market price of our shares. In addition, it is difficult for us to estimate the time or resources that would be needed for the investigation or defense of any such matters or our final resolution because, in part, the time and resources that may be needed are dependent on the nature and extent of any information requested by the applicable authorities involved, and such time or resources could be substantial. It is also illegal to aid or abet such activities or to conspire or attempt to engage in such activities. An investor’s contribution to and involvement in such activities may result in federal civil and/or criminalprosecution, including, but not limited to, forfeiture of his, her or its entire investment, fines and/or imprisonment.
Various federal, state, provincial and local laws govern our business in any jurisdictions in which we may operate, and to which we may export our products, including laws relating to health and safety, the conduct of our operations, and the production, storage, sale and distribution of our products. Complying with these laws requires that we comply concurrently with complex federal, state, provincial and/or local laws. These laws change frequently and may be difficult to interpret and apply. To ensure our compliance with these laws, we will need to invest significant financial and managerial resources. It is impossible for us to predict the cost of complying with such laws or the effect they may have on our future operations. A failure to comply with these laws could negatively affect our business and harm our reputation. Changes to these laws could negatively affect our competitive position and the markets in which we operate, and there is no assurance that various levels of government in the jurisdictions in which we operate will not pass legislation or regulation that adversely impacts our business.
In addition, even if we or third parties were to conduct activities in compliance with U.S. state or local laws or the laws of other countries and regions in which we conduct activities, potential enforcement proceedings could involve significant restrictions being imposed upon us or third parties, while diverting the attention of key executives. Such proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our business, revenue, operating results and financial condition as well as on our reputation and prospects, even if such proceedings conclude successfully in our favor. In the extreme case, such proceedings could ultimately involve the criminalprosecution of our key executives, the seizure of corporate assets, and consequently, our inability to continue business operations. Strict compliance with state and local laws with respect to psilocybin and psilocin does not absolve us of potential liability under U.S. federal law or EU law, nor provide a defense to any proceeding which may be brought against us. Any such proceedings brought against us may adversely affect our operations and financial performance.
The psychedelics industry and market are relatively new, and the industry may not succeed in the long term.
We operate our business in a relatively new industry and market. The use of psychedelics for medicinal purposes has shown promise in various studies and we believe that both regulators and the public have an increasing awareness and acceptance of this promising field. Nevertheless, psychedelics remain a controlled substance in the United States and most other jurisdictions and their use for research and therapeutic purposes remains highly regulated and narrow in scope. There is no assurance that the industry and market will continue to grow as currently estimated or anticipated or function and evolve in the manner consistent with management’s expectations and assumptions. Any event or circumstance that adversely affects the psychedelic manufacturing and medicines industry and market could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We have committed and expect to continue committing significant resources and capital to the development of psychedelic products for therapeutic uses. As a category of products, medical-grade psychedelics raw materials and psychedelic-derived APIs, and research into such substances, represent relatively untested offerings in the marketplace, and we cannot provide assurance that psychedelics as a category, or that our prospective products, in particular, will achieve market acceptance. Moreover, as a relatively new industry, there are not many established players in the psychedelic-based medicines industry whose business model we can emulate.
Our product candidates may contain controlled substances, the use of which may generate public controversy. Adverse publicity or public perception regarding psilocybin or our current or future investigational therapies using psilocybin may negatively influence the success of these therapies.
Our ability to establish and grow our business is substantially dependent on the success of the emerging market for psychedelics-based medicines, which will depend upon, among other matters, pronounced and rapidly changing public preferences, factors which are difficult to predict and over which we have little, if any, control. We and our clients will be highly dependent upon consumer perception of psychedelic-based therapies and other products.
Therapies containing controlled substances may generate public controversy. Political and social pressures and adverse publicity could lead to delays in approval of, and increased expenses for any future therapeutic candidates we may develop. Opponents of these therapies may seek restrictions on marketing and withdrawal of any regulatory approvals. In addition, these opponents may seek to generate negative publicity in an effort to persuade the medical community to reject these therapies. For example, we may face media-communicated criticism directed at our clinical development program. Adverse publicity from psilocybin misuse may adversely affect the commercial success or market penetration achievable by our product candidates. Anti-psychedelic protests have historically occurred and may occur in the future and generate media coverage. Political pressures and adverse publicity could lead to delays in, and increased expenses for, and limit or restrict the introduction and marketing of any future therapeutic candidates.
Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate substantial evidence of the safety and effectiveness of future product candidates that we may identify and pursue, which would prevent, delay or limit the scope of regulatory approval and commercialization.
Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of future therapeutic candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive nonclinical studies, preclinical studies and clinical trials that the applicable therapeutic candidate is both safe and effective for use in each target indication. A therapeutic candidate must demonstrate an adequate risk versus benefit profile in its intended patient population and for its intended use.
Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization. We have limited experience in designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support marketing approval.
We cannot be certain that any clinical trials will be successful. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same therapeutic candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants.
Even if any of our future therapeutic candidates obtain regulatory approval, we will be subject to ongoing obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Additionally, any such therapeutic candidates, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions and market withdrawal, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipatedproblems with any of our future therapeutic candidates.
If the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves any of our future therapeutic candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for the therapy and underlying therapeutic substance will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with current good manufacturing practice (“cGMP”) and with good clinical practice (“GCP”) for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval, all of which may result in significant expense and limit our ability to commercialize such therapies. The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals, including the requirement for a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”), to assure the safe use of the drug. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with any approved therapeutic candidate, including adverse events of unanticipatedseverity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:
restrictions on the labeling, distribution, marketing or manufacturing of our future therapeutic candidates, withdrawal of the product from the market or product recalls;
untitled and warning letters or holds on clinical trials;
refusal by the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA or other foreign regulatory body to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications we filed or suspension or revocation of license approvals;
requirements to conduct post-marketing studies or clinical trials;
restrictions on coverage by third-party payors;
fines, restitution or disgorgement of profits or revenue;
suspension or withdrawal of marketing approvals;
product seizure or detention or refusal to permit the import or export of the product; and
injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminalpenalties.
In addition, any regulatory approvals that we receive for our future therapeutic candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the therapy may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase IV clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of such therapeutic candidates.
If there are changes in the application of legislation, regulations or regulatory policies or if we or one of our distributors, licensees or co-marketers fails to comply with regulatory requirements, the regulators could take various actions. These include imposing fines on us, imposing restrictions on the therapeutic or its manufacture and requiring us to recall or remove the therapeutic from the market. The regulators could also suspend or withdraw our marketing authorizations, requiring us to conduct additional clinical trials, change our therapeutic labeling or submit additional applications for marketing authorization. If any of these events occurs, our ability to sell such therapy may be impaired, and we may incur substantial additional expense to comply with regulatory requirements, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Research and development of drugs targeting the central nervous system is particularly difficult, which makes it difficult to predict and understand why the drug has a positive effect on some patients but not others.
Discovery and development of new drugs targeting central nervous system disorders are particularly difficult and time-consuming, evidenced by the higher failure rate for new drugs for central nervous system disorders compared with most other areas of drug discovery. For example, in 2019, both rapastinel and SAGE-217, two new drugs targeting major depressive disorder (“MDD”), failed to meet their primary endpoints in Phase III trials. ALKS 5461, another new drug targeting MDD, was rejected by FDA in 2019 after its Phase III trials as FDA required additional clinical data to provide substantial evidence of effectiveness. Any such setbacks in our clinical development could have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results. In addition, our later stage clinical trials may present challenges related to conducting adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, including designing an appropriate comparator arm in trials given the potential difficulties related to maintaining the blinding during the trial or placebo or nocebo effects. Due to the complexity of the human brain and the central nervous system, it can be difficult to predict and understand why a drug may have a positive effect on some patients but not others and why some individuals may react to the drug differently from others.
The results of preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials of our future therapeutic candidates may not be predictive of the results of later stage clinical trials. Initial success in our ongoing clinical trials may not be indicative of results obtained when these trials are completed or in later stage trials.
Therapeutic candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that any of our clinical trials will ultimately be successful or support further clinical development of any of our future therapeutic candidates. There is a high failure rate for drugs proceeding through clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in clinical development even after achieving promising results in earlier studies.
We will depend on enrollment of patients in our clinical trials for our future therapeutic candidates. If we are unable to enroll patients in our clinical trials, our research and development efforts and business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in our clinical trials will be critical to our success. Patient enrollment depends on many factors, including:
the size of the patient population required for analysis of the trial’s primary endpoints and the process for identifying patients;
identifying and enrolling eligible patients, including those willing to discontinue use of their existing medications;
the design of the clinical protocol and the patient eligibility and exclusion criteria for the trial;
safety profile, to date, of the therapeutic candidate under study;
the willingness or availability of patients to participate in our trials, including due to the perceived risks and benefits, stigma or other side effects of use of a controlled substance;
perceived risks and benefits of our approach to treatment of indication;
the proximity of patients to clinical sites;
our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience;
the availability of competing clinical trials;
the availability of new drugs approved for the indication the clinical trial is investigating;
clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions of the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new therapies that may be approved for the indications we are investigating; and
our ability to obtain and maintain patient informed consents.
Even once enrolled, we may be unable to retain a sufficient number of patients to complete any of our trials.
In addition, any negative results we may report in clinical trials may make it difficult or impossible to recruit and retain patients in other clinical trials of that same therapeutic candidate. Delays in the enrollment for any clinical trial will likely increase our costs, slow down the approval process and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to commence sales of our future therapeutic candidates and generate revenue. In addition, some of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of any future therapeutic candidates.
We have never commercialized a therapeutic candidate before and may lack the necessary expertise, personnel and resources to successfully commercialize our therapies on our own or with suitable collaborators.
We have limited organizational experience in the sale or marketing of therapeutic candidates. To achieve commercial success for any approved therapy, we must develop or acquire a sales and marketing organization, outsource these functions to third parties or enter into partnerships.
If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform market access and commercial services for any approved therapies, the revenue or the profitability of these revenues to us could be lower than if we were to commercialize any therapies that we develop ourselves. Such collaborative arrangements may place the commercialization of any approved therapies outside of our control and would make us subject to a number of risks including that we may not be able to control the amount or timing of resources that our collaborative partner devotes to our therapies or that our collaborator’s willingness or ability to complete its obligations, and our obligations under our arrangements may be adversely affected by business combinations or significant changes in our collaborator’s business strategy. We may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to commercialize our therapies or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. Acceptable third parties may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to commercialize our therapies effectively, to set up sufficient number of treatment centers in third-party therapy sites, or to recruit, train and retain adequate number of therapists to administer our therapies.
If we do not establish commercial capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing our therapies, which in turn would have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.
The future commercial success of our future therapeutic candidates will depend on the degree of market access and acceptance of our potential therapies among healthcare professionals, patients, healthcare payors, health technology assessment bodies and the medical community at large.
We may never have a therapy that is commercially successful. To date, we have no therapy authorized for marketing. Furthermore, if approved, our future therapies may not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by payors, health technology assessment bodies, healthcare professionals, patients and the medical community at large, and we may not become profitable. The level of acceptance we ultimately achieve may be affected by negative public perceptions and historic media coverage of psychedelic substances, including psilocybin. Because of this history, efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors and health technologies assessment bodies on the benefits of our future therapies may require significant resources and may never be successful, which would prevent us from generating significant revenue or becoming profitable. Market acceptance of our future therapies by healthcare professionals, patients, healthcare payors and health technology assessment bodies will depend on a number of factors, many of which are beyond our control, including, but not limited to, the following:
acceptance by healthcare professionals, patients and healthcare payors of each therapy as safe, effective and cost-effective;
changes in the standard of care for the targeted indications for any therapeutic candidate;
the strength of sales, marketing and distribution support;
potential product liability claims;
the therapeutic candidate’s relative convenience, ease of use, ease of administration and other perceived advantages over alternative therapies;
the prevalence and severity of adverse events or publicity;
limitations, precautions or warnings listed in the summary of therapeutic characteristics, patient information leaflet, package labeling or instructions for use;
the cost of treatment with our therapy in relation to alternative treatments;
the ability to manufacture our product in sufficient quantities and yields;
the steps that prescribers and dispensers must take, given that our therapeutic candidates include a controlled substance, as well as the perceived risks based upon their controlled substance status;
the availability and amount of coverage and reimbursement from healthcare payors, and the willingness of patients to pay out of pocket in the absence of healthcare payor coverage or adequate reimbursement;
the willingness of the target patient population to try, and of healthcare professionals to prescribe, the therapy;
any potential unfavorable publicity, including negative publicity associated with recreational use or abuse of psilocybin;
the extent to which therapies are approved for inclusion and reimbursed on formularies of hospitals and managed care organizations; and
whether our therapies are designated under physician treatment guidelines or under reimbursement guidelines as a first-line, second-line, third-line or last-line therapy.
If our future therapeutic candidates fail to gain market access and acceptance, this will have a material adverse impact on our ability to generate revenue to provide a satisfactory, or any, return on our investments. Even if some therapies achieve market access and acceptance, the market may prove not to be large enough to allow us to generate significant revenue.
Changes in methods of therapeutic candidate manufacturing or formulation may result in additional costs or delay.
As therapeutic candidates are developed through preclinical studies to late-stage clinical trials towards potential approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods and formulation, may be altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Any of these changes could cause any of our future therapeutic candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the materials manufactured using altered processes. Such changes may also require additional testing, FDA notification or FDA approval. This could delay completion of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of any of our future therapeutic candidates and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue.
We may become exposed to costly and damaging liability claims, either when testing our future therapeutic candidates in the clinic or at the commercial stage, and our product liability insurance may not cover all damages from such claims.
We will be exposed to potential product liability and professional indemnity risks that are inherent in the research, development, manufacturing, marketing and use of therapeutic substances. Currently, we have no therapies that have been approved for commercial sale; however, any future therapeutic candidates by us and our corporate collaborators in clinical trials, and the potential sale of any approved therapies in the future, may expose us to liability claims. These claims might be made by patients who use our therapies, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, our corporate collaborators or other third parties that sell our therapies. Any claimsagainst us, regardless of their merit, could be difficult and costly to defend and could materially adversely affect the market for our future therapeutic candidates or any prospects for commercialization of our future therapeutic candidates. Although the clinical trial process is designed to identify and assess potential side effects, it is always possible that a drug, even after regulatory approval, may exhibit unforeseen side effects. If any of our future therapeutic candidates causes adverse side effects during clinical trials or after regulatory approval, we may be exposed to substantial liabilities.
Physicians and patients may not comply with warnings that identify known potential adverse effects and describe which patients should not use any of our future therapeutic candidates. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may cause, among other things, the following:
decreased demand for our therapies due to negative public perception;
injury to our reputation;
withdrawal of clinical trial participants or difficulties in recruiting new trial participants;
initiation of investigations by regulators;
costs to defend or settle the related litigation;
a diversion of management’s time and our resources;
substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients;
recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions;
loss of revenue from therapeutic sales; and
our inability to commercialize any of our future therapeutic candidates, if approved.
In addition, we may not be able to obtain or maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or obtain insurance coverage that will be adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. If a successful product liability claim or series of claims is brought against us for uninsured liabilities or in excess of insured liabilities, our assets may not be sufficient to cover such claims and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. Liability claims resulting from any of the events described above could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Enacted and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize any of our future therapeutic candidates and could have a material adverse effect on our business.
In the United States, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system that could affect our future results of operations. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, “ACA”), substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the U.S. biopharmaceutical industry.
Among the provisions of the ACA of importance to our potential therapeutic candidates are the following:
an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs, although this fee would not apply to sales of certain products approved exclusively for orphan indications;
expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs, a Federal and state program which extends healthcare to low-income individuals and other groups, by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to certain individuals and adding new eligibility categories for certain individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability;
expansion of manufacturers’ rebate liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, which requires that drug manufacturers provide rebates to states in exchange for state Medicaid coverage for most of the manufacturers’ drugs by increasing the minimum rebate for both branded and generic drugs and revising the definition of “average manufacturer price,” for calculating and reporting Medicaid drug rebates on outpatient prescription drug prices and extending rebate liability to prescriptions for individuals enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans (i.e., a type of Medicare healthcare plan offered by private companies);
a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for products that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected;
expansion of the types of entities eligible for the 340B drug discount program, which requires drug manufacturers to provide outpatient drugs to eligible healthcare organizations and covered entities at significantly reduced prices;
establishment of the Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, which requires manufacturers to provide a 50% point-of-sale-discount (increased to 70% pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or BBA, effective as of January 1, 2019) off the negotiated price of applicable products to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period as a condition for the manufacturers’ outpatient products to be covered under Medicare Part D;
creation of a new non-profit, nongovernmental institute, called the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, to oversee, identify priorities in and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and
establishment of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation within Centers for Medicare & Medicaid to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription product spending.
Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. It is unclear whether the ACA will be overturned, repealed, replaced, or further amended. We cannot predict what affect further changes to the ACA would have on our business. This uncertainty is heightened by President Biden’s January 28, 2021 Executive Order on Strengthening Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act which indicated that the Biden Administration may significantly modify the ACA and potentially revoke any changes implemented by the Trump Administration. It is also possible that President Biden will further reform the ACA and other federal programs in manner that may impact our operations. The Biden Administration has indicated that a goal of its administration is to expand and support Medicaid and the ACA and to make high-quality healthcare accessible and affordable. The potential increase in patients covered by government funded insurance may impact our pricing. Further, it is possible that the Biden Administration may further increase the scrutiny on drug pricing. The ACA continues to be challenged in court and it is unclear how any future litigation and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA. In August 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which includes prescription drug provisions that have significant implications for pharmaceutical manufacturers and Medicare beneficiaries, including allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices for certain high-priced single source Medicare drugs, imposing penalties and excise tax for manufacturers that fail to comply with the drug price negotiation requirements, requiring drug companies to pay rebates for all Medicare Part B and Part D drugs, with limited exceptions, if their drug prices increase faster than inflation, capping out-of-pocket spending for Medicare Part D enrollees and making additional changes to Medicare Part D to further reduce out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for beneficiaries, among other changes. The Biden administration released an additional executive order on October 14, 2022, requiring the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) to submit a report within 90 days on how the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation can be further leveraged to test new models for lowering drug costs for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was signed into law in July 2025, includes provisions that will impact the U.S. healthcare system in various ways, including by cuts to Medicaid and introducing new participant work and eligibility requirements for Medicaid coverage, which are expected to significantly change the administration and applicability of Medicaid coverage. In November 2025, CMS announced a voluntary initiative called the GENEROUS Model (GENErating cost Reductions for U.S. Medicaid Model) to introduce the option of most-favored-nation pricing to the Medicaid program, whereby a drug manufacturer may voluntarily offer supplemental rebates to participating state Medicaid programs for a manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. Government agreements with pharmaceutical companies and other measures that use most-favored-nation pricing targets for prescription drugs, including the use of international pricing reference to set drug prices in the U.S., or that increase generic and biosimilar drug entry sooner than expected, can have a material adverse effect on our industry, ability to set adequate pricing for new drugs to recover R&D costs, ability to attract potential investors and potential buyers in the future. We cannot predict the full impact of the executive orders focused on reducing prescription drug prices or increasing domestic drug manufacturing capacity, or other measures that may be implemented by the current administration related to drug pricing, drug supply chain and manufacturing in the U.S. The impact of ongoing and future judicial challenges, as well as future legislative, executive, and administrative actions and any future healthcare measures and agency rules implemented by the current administration, including the Department of Government Efficiency, on our company and the pharmaceutical industry as a whole is unclear. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attainprofitability, or commercialize our products. At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control prescription drug pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. A number of states are considering or have recently enacted state drug price transparency and reporting laws that could substantially increase our compliance burdens and expose us to greater liability under such state laws. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our products or product candidates or additional pricing pressures. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. We expect that additional state and federal health care reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for health care products and services.
Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. To obtain coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for marketing, we may need to conduct expensive studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of any products, which would be in addition to the costs expended to obtain regulatory approvals. Third-party payors may not consider our product or product candidates to be medically necessary or cost-effective compared to other available therapies.
Additionally, the containment of healthcare costs (including drug prices) has become a priority of federal and state governments. The U.S. government, state legislatures, and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement, and requirements for substitution by generic products. For example, the Biden Administration, including his nominee for Secretary of DHHS, has indicated that lowering prescription drug prices is a priority, but we do not yet know what steps the administration will take or whether such steps will be successful. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could limit our net revenue and results. If these third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other therapies, they may not cover our products or product candidates if approved as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of reimbursement may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our products once approved or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover our products could reduce or eliminate utilization of our products and have an adverse effect on our sales, results of operations, and financial condition. In addition, state and federal healthcare reform measures have been and will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our products or product candidates once approved or additional pricing pressures.
In addition, new laws and additional health reform measures may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which may adversely affect customer demand and affordability for our future therapeutic candidates and, accordingly, the results of our financial operations.
Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in Europe, Canada and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of therapeutics such as our product candidates. In many countries, particularly the countries of the European Union, medical product prices are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after a product receives marketing approval. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to other available therapies. In general, product prices under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control company profits.
Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits.
Our business operations and current and future relationships with investigators, health care professionals, consultants, third-party payors and customers may be subject, directly or indirectly, to U.S. federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, falseclaims laws, health information privacy and security laws, other healthcare laws and regulations and other foreign privacy and security laws. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.
Although we do not currently have any therapies on the market, our current and future operations may be directly, or indirectly through our relationships with investigators, health care professionals, customers and third-party payors, subject to various U.S. federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute or the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Healthcare providers, physicians and others play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any therapies for which we obtain marketing approval. These laws impact, among other things, our research activities and proposed sales, marketing and education programs and constrain our business and financial arrangements and relationships with third-party payors, healthcare professionals who participate in our clinical research program, healthcare professionals and others who recommend, purchase, or provide our approved therapies, and other parties through which we market, sell and distribute our therapies for which we obtain marketing approval. In addition, we may be subject to patient data privacy and security regulation by both the U.S. federal government and the states in which we conduct our business, along with foreign regulators (including European data protection authorities). Finally, our current and future operations will be subject to additional healthcare-related statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by foreign regulatory authorities in jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. These laws include, but are not limited to, the following:
the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons or entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or paying any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or certain rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of, any good, facility, item or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under U.S. federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Violations are subject to significant civil and criminalfines and penalties for each violation, plus up to three times the remuneration involved, imprisonment, and exclusion from government healthcare programs. In addition, the government may assert that a claim that includes items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil FalseClaims Act (“FCA”). The definition of the “remuneration” under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to include anything of value. Further, courts have found that if “one purpose” of remuneration is to induce referrals, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is violated. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution; but the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and require strict compliance in order to offer protection;
the federal civil and criminalfalseclaims laws, such as the FCA, which prohibits individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false or fraudulentclaims for payment to, or approval by Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal healthcare programs, knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim or an obligation to pay or transmit money to the federal government, or knowinglyconcealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing or concealing an obligation to pay money to the U.S. federal government. Manufacturers can be held liable under the FCA even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulentclaims. The FCA also permits a private individual acting as a “whistleblower” to bring actions on behalf of the federal government allegingviolations of the FCA and to share in any monetary recovery. When an entity is determined to have violated the FCA, the government may impose civil fines and penalties for each false claim, plus treble damages, and exclude the entity from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs;
the federal civil monetary penalties laws, which impose civil fines for, among other things, the offering or transfer or remuneration to a Medicare or state healthcare program beneficiary if the person knows or should know it is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner, or supplier of services reimbursable by Medicare or a state health care program, unless an exception applies;
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH Act”) and their implementing regulations (collectively referred to as “HIPAA”) as well as numerous other federal and state laws and regulations, govern the collection, dissemination, use, privacy, security, confidentiality, integrity and availability of personally identifiable information (“PII”), including protected health information (“PHI”). HIPAA applies national privacy and security standards for PHI to covered entities, including certain types of health care entities and their service providers that access PHI, known as business associates. HIPAA requires covered entities and business associates to maintain policies and procedures governing PHI that is used or disclosed, and to implement administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect PHI, including PHI maintained, used and disclosed in electronic form. These safeguards include employee training, identifying business associates with whom covered entities need to enter into HIPAA-compliant contractual arrangements and various other measures. While we shall undertake substantial efforts to secure the PHI we maintain, use and disclose in electronic form, a cyber-attack or other intrusion that bypasses our information security systems causing an information security breach, loss of PHI, PII or other data subject to privacy laws or a material disruption of our operational systems could result in a material adverse impact on our business, along with potentially substantial fines and penalties. Ongoing implementation and oversight of these security measures involves significant time, effort and expense. HIPAA requires covered entities and their business associates to report breaches of unsecured PHI to affected individuals without unreasonabledelay and in no case later than 60 days after the discovery of the breach by the covered entity or its agents. Notification must also be made to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and, in certain situations involving large breaches, to the media. The HIPAA rules created a presumption that all non-permitted uses or disclosures of unsecured PHI are breaches unless the covered entity establishes that there is a low probability the information has been compromised. A data breach affecting sensitive personal information, including health information, also could result in significant legal and financial exposure and reputational damages that could potentially have an adverse effect on our business.
the FDCA, which governs the production, sale, distribution and promotion of drugs, biologics and medical devices and prohibits, among other things, the adulteration or misbranding of drugs, biologics and medical devices;
the U.S. federal legislation commonly referred to as Physician Payments Sunshine Act, and its implementing regulations, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies that are reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program to report annually to the CMS information related to certain payments and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations will extend to include transfers of value made during the previous year to certain non-physician providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners; and
analogous state laws and regulations, including the following: state anti-kickback and falseclaims laws, which may be broader in scope than their federal equivalents, and which may apply to our business practices, including research, distribution, sales and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including private insurers; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the U.S. federal government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; state laws and regulations that require drug manufacturers to file reports relating to pricing and marketing information, which require tracking gifts and other remuneration and items of value provided to healthcare professionals and entities; state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives; and state laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.
The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including licensing, extensive record-keeping, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products.
The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Even if precautions are taken, it is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion of drugs from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolveallegations of non-compliance with these laws, reputational harm and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, that person or entity may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future marketed products could materially affect business in an adverse way.
Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfullydefendagainst it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. The shifting compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and expandable systems to comply with multiple jurisdictions with different compliance or reporting requirements increases the possibility that a healthcare company may run afoul of one or more of the requirements.
Changes in funding for the FDA and other government agencies could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner, which could negatively impact our business.
The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, their ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.
Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Of note, in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA adopted a risk-based system for the conduct of inspections of manufacturing facilities and began conducting voluntary remote interactive evaluations of certain drug manufacturing facilities and clinical research sites where an in-person inspection would not be prioritized, deemed mission-critical, or where direct inspection is otherwise limited by travel restrictions, but where the FDA determines that remote evaluation would still be appropriate. Regulatory authorities inside and outside the United States may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to any future pandemic. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Failure to comply with health and data protection laws and regulations could lead to U.S. federal and state government enforcement actions, including civil or criminalpenalties, private litigation, and adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business.
We and any potential collaborators may be subject to U.S. federal and state data protection laws and regulations, such as laws and regulations that address privacy and data security. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws, govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information. In addition, we may obtain health information from third parties, including research institutions from which we obtain clinical trial data, which are subject to privacy and security requirements under HIPAA, as amended by HITECH. To the extent that we act as a business associate to a healthcare provider engaging in electronic transactions, we may also be subject to the privacy and security provisions of HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, which restricts the use and disclosure of patient-identifiable health information, mandates the adoption of standards relating to the privacy and security of patient-identifiable health information, and requires the reporting of certain security breaches to healthcare provider customers with respect to such information. Additionally, many states have enacted similar laws that may impose more stringent requirements on entities like ours. Depending on the facts and circumstances, we could be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative penalties if we obtain, use, or disclose individually identifiable health information maintained by a HIPAA-covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA.
Compliance with U.S. and foreign privacy and data protection laws and regulations could require us to take on more onerous obligations in our contracts, restrict our ability to collect, use and disclose data, or in some cases, impact our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in government enforcement actions (which could include civil, criminal and administrative penalties), private litigation, and/or adverse publicity and could negatively affect our operating results and business. Moreover, clinical trial subjects, employees and other individuals about whom we or our potential collaborators obtain personal information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may limit our ability to collect, use and disclose the information. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights, failed to comply with data protection laws, or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time-consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business.
The successful commercialization of any of our future therapeutic candidates will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities and health insurers establish adequate reimbursement levels and pricing policies. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for any of our future therapeutic candidates, if approved, could limit our ability to market those therapies and decrease our ability to generate revenue.
The availability and adequacy of coverage and reimbursement by governmental healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers and other third-party payors are essential for most patients to be able to afford therapies. As Schedule I substances under the CSA, psilocybin and psilocin are deemed to have no accepted medical use and therapies that use psilocybin or psilocin are precluded from reimbursement in the United States. Our products that include psilocybin or psilocin must be scheduled as a Schedule II or lower controlled substance (i.e., Schedule III, IV or V) before they can be commercially marketed. Our ability to achieve acceptable levels of coverage and reimbursement for therapies by governmental authorities, private health insurers and other organizations will have an effect on our ability to successfully commercialize, and attract additional collaboration partners to invest in the development of our future therapeutic candidates. Even if we obtain coverage for a given therapy by third-party payors, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require patient out-of-pocket costs that patients may find unacceptably high. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement in the United States or elsewhere will be available for any therapy that we may develop, and any reimbursement that may become available may be decreased or eliminated in the future.
Furthermore, third-party payors are increasingly challenging prices charged for therapeutic substances and services, and many third-party payors may refuse to provide coverage and reimbursement for particular drugs when an equivalent generic drug or a less expensive therapy is available. It is possible that a third-party payor may consider our future therapeutic candidates as substitutable and only offer to reimburse patients for the less expensive therapy. These payors may deny or revoke the reimbursement status of a given drug product or establish prices for new or existing marketed therapies at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our future therapeutic candidates, and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory financial return on therapeutic candidates that we may develop.
There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved therapies. In the United States, third-party payors, including private and governmental payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, play an important role in determining the extent to which new drugs will be covered. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs. Some third-party payors may require pre-approval of coverage for new or innovative devices or drug therapies before they will reimburse health care providers who use such therapies. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our future therapeutic candidates.
Furthermore, obtaining and maintaining reimbursement status is time-consuming and costly. No uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement for drug therapies exists among third-party payors in the United States. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug therapies can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our therapies to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Furthermore, rules and regulations regarding reimbursement change frequently, in some cases at short notice, and we believe that changes in these rules and regulations are likely.
Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations. Negotiating coverage and reimbursement with governmental authorities can delay commercialization. Coverage and reimbursement policies may adversely affect our ability to sell our products on a profitable basis. Some countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medical therapies, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our future therapeutic candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our therapies may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits.
We will be subject to environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, and we may become exposed to liability and substantial expenses in connection with environmental compliance or remediation activities which may adversely affect our business and financial condition.
Our operations, including our research, development, testing and manufacturing activities, will be subject to numerous foreign, federal, state and local environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These laws and regulations govern, among other things, the controlled use, manufacture, handling, release and disposal of and the maintenance of a registry for, hazardous materials, such as chemical solvents, human cells, carcinogenic compounds, mutagenic compounds and compounds that have a toxic effect on reproduction, laboratory procedures and exposure to blood-borne pathogens.
We may incur significant costs to comply with these current or future environmental and health and safety laws and regulations. Furthermore, if we fail to comply with such laws and regulations, we could be subject to fines or other sanctions.
Risks Relating to Our Intellectual Property Rights
The failure to obtain or maintain patents, licensing agreements and other intellectual property could materially impact our ability to compete effectively.
In order for our business to be viable and to compete effectively, we need to develop and maintain, and we will heavily rely on, a proprietary position with respect to our intellectual property. However, there are significant risks associated with our actual or proposed intellectual property. The risks and uncertainties that we face with respect to our rights principally include the following:
pending patent applications we have filed or will file may not result in issued patents or may take longer than we expect to result in issued patents;
we may be involved in reexamination proceedings;
we may be subject to post grant review proceedings;
we may be subject to inter partes review proceedings;
we may be subject to derivation proceedings;
we may be subject to opposition proceedings in foreign countries;
any patents that are issued or licensed to us may not provide us with any competitive advantages or meaningful protection;
we may not be able to develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable;
other companies may challenge patents licensed or issued to us;
other companies may have independently developed and patented (or may in the future independently develop and patent) similar or alternative technologies, or duplicate our technologies;
other companies may design around technologies we have licensed or developed;
enforcement of patents is complex, uncertain and very expensive and we may not be able to secure, enforce and defend our patents;
in the event that we were to ever seek to enforce our patents in ligation, there is some risk that they could be deemed invalid, not infringed, or unenforceable; and
the patents of others may have an adverse effect on our business.
We cannot be certain that any patents will be issued as a result of any pending or future applications, or that any patents, once issued, will provide us with adequate protection from competing products. For example, issued patents may be circumvented or challenged, declared invalid or unenforceable, or narrowed in scope. In addition, since publication of discoveries in scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to invent or to file patent applications covering them.
It is also possible that others may have or may obtain issued patents that could prevent us from commercializing our products or require us to obtain licenses requiring the payment of significant fees or royalties in order to enable us to conduct our business. There is no guarantee that such licenses will be available, or available based on commercially reasonable terms. As to those patents that we have licensed, our rights depend on maintaining our obligations to the licensor under the applicable license agreement, and we may be unable to do so.
If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our products, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, competitors could develop and commercialize products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our products could be impaired.
The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost, in a timely manner, or in all jurisdictions. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection.
The patent position of life science companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in past years been the subject of much litigation. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States and we may fail to seek or obtain patent protection in all major markets. For example, unlike the U.S., European patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection, even post-grant. For example, the federal courts of the United States have taken an increasingly negative view of the patent eligibility of certain subject matter, such as naturally occurring nucleic acid sequences, amino acid sequences and certain uses of such subject matter, which include their detection in a biological sample and diagnostic conclusions arising from their detection. Such subject matter, which had been considered important for the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industry to protect their discoveries, is now many times considered ineligible in the first instance for protection under the patent laws of the United States. We cannot definitively predict the types or breadth of claims that may be allowable or enforceable in our patent rights (whether licensed or otherwise held).
Patent reform legislation has increased the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. Under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to United States patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. These include allowing third party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO-administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review and derivation proceedings. the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review challenging our patent rights (whether licensed or otherwise held). An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights (whether licensed or otherwise held), allow third parties to commercialize our products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications (whether licensed or otherwise held) is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.
Even if our patent applications (whether licensed or otherwise held) result in the issuance of patents, they may not be in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.
The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our licensed or owned patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new life science product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our intellectual property rights portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.
We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our intellectual property rights, which could be expensive, time-consuming and ultimately unsuccessful.
Competitors may infringe our intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to sue a third party, or otherwise make a claim, alleginginfringement or other violation of patents, trademarks, trade dress, copyrights, trade secrets, domain names or other intellectual property rights that we either own or license from a third party. If we do not prevail in enforcing our intellectual property rights in this type of litigation, we may be subject to:
paying monetary damages related to the legal expenses of the third party;
facing additional competition that may have a significant adverse effect on our product pricing, market share, business operations, financial condition, and the commercial viability of our product; and
restructuring our Company or delaying or terminating select business opportunities, including, but not limited to, research and development, clinical trial, and commercialization activities, due to a potential deterioration of our financial condition or market competitiveness.
Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaimsagainst us alleging that we infringe their intellectual property or to assert that our intellectual property is invalid or unenforceable. The result of these challenges may narrow the scope or claims of or invalidate or find unenforceable patents that are integral to our product or product candidate. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a licensed or owned patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover that technology. Moreover, lawsuits to protect or enforce our intellectual property rights could be expensive, time-consuming and ultimately unsuccessful.
Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain.
Our commercial success depends upon our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our products without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. There is considerable intellectual property litigation in the life sciences industry. We cannot guarantee that our products and candidates will not infringe third-party patents or other proprietary rights. We may become party to, or threatened with, future adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our products and technology, including inter partes review, post-grant review, or derivation proceedings before the USPTO and similar proceeding before similar bodies in other countries. Third parties may assert infringementclaimsagainst us based on existing intellectual property rights and intellectual property rights that may be granted in the future.
If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing and marketing our products. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfullyinfringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our products or candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.
Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our own patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for noncompliance with these requirements.
Periodic maintenance fees and annuities on any issued patent or pending application may be due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent or pending application. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertentlapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter our markets, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
We may be subject to claims by third parties asserting that our employees or we have misappropriated their intellectual property or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.
We may retain employees and contractors that were previously employed at universities or other companies, including potential competitors. Although we will try to ensure that our employees and contractors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these employees or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defendagainst these claims, and any such litigation could have an unfavorable outcome.
In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our and their assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claimsagainst third parties, or defendclaims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.
If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may losevaluable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defendingagainst such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and adverse results, and be a distraction to management.
If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we may license intellectual property rights from third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose rights that are important to our business.
We have licensed and may enter into or may be required to enter into intellectual property license agreements that are important to our business. These license agreements may impose various diligence, milestone, payment, royalty and other obligations on us. For example, we may enter into exclusive license agreements with various universities and research institutions, we may be required to use commercially reasonable efforts to engage in various development and commercialization activities with respect to licensed products, and may need to satisfy specified milestone and royalty payment obligations. If we fail to comply with any obligations under our agreements with any of these licensors, we may be subject to termination of the license agreement in whole or in part, increased financial obligations to our licensors or loss of exclusivity in a particular field or territory, in which case our ability to develop or commercialize products covered by the license agreement will be impaired.
In addition, disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including:
the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;
the extent to which our processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;
our diligence obligations under the license agreement and what activities satisfy those obligations;
if a third-party expresses interest in an area under a license that we are not pursuing, under the terms of certain of our license agreements, we may be required to sublicense rights in that area to the third party, and that sublicense could harm our business; and
the ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us.
Disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed may prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, and we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize our product candidate.
Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.
Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have an adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace.
We may spend considerable resources developing and maintaining patents, license agreements and other intellectual property that may later be abandoned or may otherwise never result in products brought to market.
Not all technologies and product candidates that initially show potential as the basis for future products will ultimately meet the rigors of our development process and as a result may be abandoned and/or never otherwise result in products brought to market. In some cases, prior to abandonment we may be required to incur significant costs developing and maintaining intellectual property and/or maintaining license agreements and our business could be harmed by such costs.
If we are not able to adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information, the value of our technology and product could be significantly diminished.
We rely on trade secrets to protect our proprietary technologies, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We rely in part on confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to protect our trade secrets and other proprietary information. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information. For example, the FDA, as part of its transparency initiative, is currently considering whether to make additional information publicly available on a routine basis, including information that we may consider to be trade secrets or other proprietary information, and it is not clear at the present time how the FDA’s disclosure policies may change in the future, if at all. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position.
We rely on information technology, and if we are unable to protect against service interruptions, data corruption, cyber-based attacks or network security breaches, our operations could be disrupted, and our business could be negatively affected.
We rely on information technology networks and systems to process, transmit and store electronic and financial information; to coordinate our business; and to communicate within our Company and with customers, suppliers, partners and other third-parties. These information technology systems may be susceptible to damage, disruptions or shutdowns, hardware or software failures, power outages, computer viruses, cyber-attacks, telecommunication failures, user errors or catastrophic events. If our information technology systems sufferseveredamage, disruption or shutdown, and our business continuity plans do not effectively resolve the issues in a timely manner, our operations could be disrupted, and our business could be negatively affected. In addition, cyber-attacks could lead to potential unauthorized access and disclosure of confidential information, and data loss and corruption. There is no assurance that we will not experience these service interruptions or cyber-attacks in the future.
Other Risks Related to Our Business
We may not be successful in hiring and retaining key employees, including executive officers.
Our success materially depends upon the expertise, experience and continued service of our management and other key personnel, including, but not limited to, Eric Weisblum, our Chief Executive Officer. If we lose the services of Mr. Weisblum or any of other member of management, our business would be materially and adversely affected.
Our future success also depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified management personnel and other employees. There can be no assurance that these professionals will be available in the market, or that we will be able to retain existing professionals or to meet or to continue to meet their compensation requirements. Furthermore, the cost base in relation to such compensation, which may include equity compensation, may increase significantly, which could have a material adverse effect on us. Failure to establish and maintain an effective management team and work force could adversely affect our ability to operate, grow and manage our business.
Unfavorable global economic, business or political conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.
Our results of operations could be adversely affected by general conditions in the global economy and in the global financial markets, including conditions that are outside of our control, including the impact of health and safety concerns, such as those relating to the current COVID-19 outbreak. The most recent global financial crisis caused extreme volatility and disruptions in the capital and credit markets. A severe or prolonged economic downturn could result in a variety of risks to our business, including weakened demand for our products and our ability to raise additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all. A weak or declining economy could strain our domestic and international customers, possibly resulting in delays in customer payments. Any of the foregoing could harm our business and we cannot anticipate all the ways in which the current economic climate and financial market conditions could adversely impact our business.
Risks Relating to Investing in Digital Securities
The launch of central bank digital currencies (“CBDCs”) may adversely impact our business.
The introduction of a government-issued digital currency could eliminate or reduce the need or demand for private-sector issued crypto currencies, or significantly limit their utility. National governments around the world could introduce CBDCs, which could in turn limit the size of the market opportunity for cryptocurrencies, including Solana.
Absent federal regulations, there is a possibility that any digital asset we acquire may be classified as a “security.” Any classification of any digital asset we acquire as a “security” would subject us to additional regulation and could materially impact the operation of our business.
We intend to only acquire digital assets that we believe would not be considered a “security” by the SEC and other U.S. federal or state regulator publicly stated may not agree our assessment. Despite the Trump Administration’s Executive Order titled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology” which includes as an objective, “protecting and promoting the ability of individual citizens and private sector entities alike to access and to maintain self-custody of digital assets,” leading digital assets that we may acquire, may not be classified with respect to U.S. federal securities laws. Therefore, while (for the reasons discussed below) we intend to only invest in leading digital assets, that we conclude are not a “security” within the meaning of the U.S. federal securities laws, and registration of the Company under The Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”) is therefore not required under the applicable securities laws, we acknowledge that a regulatory body or federal court may determine otherwise. Our conclusion, even if reasonable under the circumstances, would not preclude legal or regulatory action based on such a finding that any leading digital asset we acquire is a “security” which would require us to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act.
We intend to adapt our process for analyzing the U.S. federal securities law status of any cryptocurrencies we acquire over time, as guidance and case law have evolved. As part of our U.S. federal securities law analytical process, we intend to take into account a number of factors, including the various definitions of “security” under U.S. federal securities laws and federal court decisions interpreting the elements of these definitions, such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in the Howey and Reves cases, as well as court rulings, reports, orders, press releases, public statements, and speeches by the SEC Commissioners and SEC Staff providing guidance on when a digital asset or a transaction to which a digital asset may relate may be a security for purposes of U.S. federal securities laws.
Application of securities laws to the specific facts and circumstances of digital assets is complex and subject to change. As such, we are at risk of enforcement proceedings against us, which could result in potential injunctions, cease-and-desist orders, fines, and penalties if any digital asset we acquires is determined to be a security by a regulatory body or a court. Such developments could subject us to fines, penalties, and other damages, and adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects.
If we were deemed to be an investment company under the 1940 Act, applicable restrictions likely would make it impractical for us to continue segments of our business as currently contemplated.
Under Sections 3(a)(1)(A) and (C) of the 1940 Act, a company generally will be deemed to be an “investment company” if (i) it is, or holds itself out as being, engaged primarily, or proposes to engage primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting, or trading in securities or (ii) it engages, or proposes to engage, in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities and it owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of its total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities, shares of registered money market funds under Rule 2a-7 of the 1940 Act, and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. Rule 3a-1 under the 1940 Act generally provides that notwithstanding the Section 3(a)(1)(C) test described in clause (ii) above, an entity will not be deemed to be an “investment company” for purposes of the 1940 Act if no more than 45% of the value of its assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities, shares of registered money market funds under Rule 2a-7 of the 1940 Act, and cash items) consists of, and no more than 45% of its net income after taxes (for the past four fiscal quarters combined) is derived from, securities other than U.S. government securities, shares of registered money market funds under Rule 2a-7 of the 1940 Act, securities issued by employees’ securities companies, securities issued by qualifying majority owned subsidiaries of such entity, and securities issued by qualifying companies that are controlled primarily by such entity. We do not believe that we are an “investment company” as such term is defined in either Section 3(a)(1)(A) or Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act.
Since our formation, we have been a biopharmaceutical industry with a focus is on developing novel therapeutics that address underserved conditions including PTSD, stress-induced anxiety disorders, fibromyalgia, and central nervous system (CNS) diseases. Recently, we have begun focusing on pursuing opportunities to expand our portfolio into digital assets. We only intend to acquire digital assets that we conclude are investment securities, and as such do not intend to hold ourselves out as being engaged primarily, or propose to engage primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting, or trading in securities within the meaning of Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the 1940 Act.
With respect to Section 3(a)(1)(C), we believe we satisfy the elements of Rule 3a-1 and therefore are deemed not to be an investment company under, and we intend to conduct our operations such that we will not be deemed an investment company under, Section 3(a)(1)(C). We believe that we are not an investment company pursuant to Rule 3a-1 under the 1940 Act because, on a consolidated basis with respect to wholly-owned subsidiaries but otherwise on an unconsolidated basis, no more than 45% of the value of the Company’s total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities, shares of registered money market funds under Rule 2a-7 of the 1940 Act, and cash items) consists of, and no more than 45% of the Company’s net income after taxes (for the last four fiscal quarters combined) is derived from, securities other than U.S. government securities, shares of registered money market funds under Rule 2a-7 of the 1940 Act, securities issued by employees’ securities companies, securities issued by qualifying majority owned subsidiaries of the Company, and securities issued by qualifying companies that are controlled primarily by the Company.
Digital assets, as well as new business models and transactions enabled by blockchain technologies, present novel interpretive questions under the 1940 Act. There is a risk that assets or arrangements that we conclude are not securities prior to acquisition could be deemed to be securities by the SEC or another authority for purposes of the 1940 Act, which would increase the percentage of securities held by us for 1940 Act purposes. The SEC has requested information from a number of participants in the digital assets ecosystem, regarding the potential application of the 1940 Act to their businesses. For example, in an action unrelated to the Company, in February 2022, the SEC issued a cease-and-desist order under the 1940 Act to BlockFi Lending LLC, in which the SEC alleged that BlockFi was operating as an unregistered investment company because it issued securities and also held more than 40% of its total assets, excluding cash, in investment securities, including the loans of digital assets made by BlockFi to institutional borrowers.
If we were deemed to be an investment company, Rule 3a-2 under the 1940 Act is a safe harbor that provides a one-year grace period for transient investment companies that have a bona fide intent to be engaged primarily, as soon as is reasonably possible (in any event by the termination of such one-year period), in a business other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities, with such intent evidenced by the company’s business activities and an appropriate resolution of its board of directors. The grace period is available not more than once every three years and runs from the earlier of (i) the date on which the issuer owns securities and/or cash having a value exceeding 50% of the issuer’s total assets on either a consolidated or unconsolidated basis or (ii) the date on which the issuer owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of such issuer’s total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. Accordingly, the grace period may not be available at the time that we seek to rely on Rule 3a-2; however, Rule 3a-2 is a safe harbor and we may rely on any exemption or exclusion from investment company status available to us under the 1940 Act at any given time. Furthermore, reliance on Rule 3a-2, Section 3(a)(1)(C), or Rule 3a-1 could require us to take actions to dispose of securities, limit our ability to make certain investments or enter into joint ventures, or otherwise limit or change our service offerings and operations. If we were to be deemed an investment company in the future, restrictions imposed by the 1940 Act—including limitations on our ability to issue different classes of stock and equity compensation to directors, officers, and employees and restrictions on management, operations, and transactions with affiliated persons—likely would make it impractical for us to continue our business as contemplated, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects.
We may be subject to regulatory developments related to crypto assets and crypto asset markets, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
As digital assets are relatively novel and the application of state and federal securities laws and other laws and regulations to digital assets is unclear in certain respects, it is possible that regulators in the United States or foreign countries may interpret or apply existing laws and regulations in a manner that adversely affects the price any digital assets we may hold in the future. The U.S. federal government, states, regulatory agencies, and foreign countries may also enact new laws and regulations, or pursue regulatory, legislative, enforcement or judicial actions, that could materially impact the price of any digital assets we acquire in the future or the ability of individuals or institutions to own or transfer digital assets.
If any digital asset we acquire is determined to constitute a security for purposes of the federal securities laws, the additional regulatory restrictions imposed by such a determination could adversely affect the market price of such digital security and in turn adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Moreover, the risks of us engaging in a cryptocurrency treasury strategy have created, and could continue to create complications due to the lack of experience that third parties have with companies engaging in such a strategy, such as increased costs of director and officer liability insurance or the potential inability to obtain such coverage on acceptable terms in the future.
Cryptocurrency assets are less liquid than our existing cash and cash equivalents and may not be able to serve as a source of liquidity for us to the same extent as cash and cash equivalents.
Historically, the crypto markets have been characterized by: significant volatility in price, limited liquidity and trading volumes compared to sovereign currencies markets; relative anonymity; a developing regulatory landscape; potential susceptibility to market abuse and manipulation; compliance and internal control failures at exchanges; and various other risks inherent in its entirely electronic, virtual form and decentralized network. During times of market instability, we may not be able to sell any digital assets we hold at favorable prices or at all. Further, any digital assets which we hold with our custodians will not enjoy the same protections as are available to cash or securities deposited with or transacted by institutions subject to regulation by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. If we are unable to sell any digital assets we hold, enter into additional capital raising transactions using any digital assets we hold as collateral, or otherwise generate funds using any digital assets we hold, or if we are forced to sell any digital assets we hold at a significant loss, in order to meet our working capital requirements, our business and financial condition could be negatively impacted.
We are not subject to legal and regulatory obligations that apply to investment companies such as mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, or to obligations applicable to investment advisers.
Mutual funds, exchange-traded funds and their directors and management are subject to extensive regulation as “investment companies” and “investment advisers” under U.S. federal and state law; this regulation is intended for the benefit and protection of investors. We are not subject to, and do not otherwise voluntarily comply with, these laws and regulations. This means, among other things, that the execution of or changes to our Treasury Reserve Policy or our cryptocurrency strategy, our use of leverage, the manner in which our cryptocurrency assets are custodied, our ability to engage in transactions with affiliated parties and our operating and investment activities generally are not subject to the extensive legal and regulatory requirements and prohibitions that apply to investment companies and investment advisers. Consequently, our board of directors has broad discretion over the investment, leverage and cash management policies it authorizes, in respect of any activities we may pursue, and has the power to change our current policies, including our strategy of acquiring and holding digital assets.
If we or our third-party service providers experience a security breach or cyberattack and unauthorized parties obtain access to any of our acquired digital assets, or if our private keys are lost or destroyed, or other similar circumstances or events occur, we may lose some or all of our Solana and our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
We expect that any digital asset we own will be held in custody accounts at U.S.-based institutional-grade digital asset custodians. Security breaches and cyberattacks are of particular concern with respect to digital assets. Cryptocurrencies and the entities that provide services to participants in such ecosystem have been, and may in the future be, subject to security breaches, cyberattacks, or other malicious activities. For example, in October 2021 it was reported that hackers exploited a flaw in the account recovery process and stole from the accounts of at least 6,000 customers of the Coinbase exchange, although the flaw was subsequently fixed and Coinbase reimbursed affected customers. Similarly, in November 2022, hackers exploitedweaknesses in the security architecture of the FTX Trading digital asset exchange and reportedly stole over $400 million in digital assets from customers. A successful security breach or cyberattack could result in:
a partial or total loss of our digital assets in a manner that may not be covered by insurance or the liability provisions of the custody agreements with the custodians who hold our Solana;
harm to our reputation and brand;
improper disclosure of data and violations of applicable data privacy and other laws; or
significant regulatory scrutiny, investigations, fines, penalties, and other legal, regulatory, contractual and financial exposure.
Further, any actual or perceived data security breach or cybersecurity attack directed at other companies with digital assets or companies that operate digital asset networks, regardless of whether we are directly impacted, could lead to a general loss of confidence in the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem, which could negatively impact us.
Attacks upon systems across a variety of industries, including cryptocurrency industries, are increasing in frequency, persistence, and sophistication, and, in many cases, are being conducted by sophisticated, well-funded and organized groups and individuals, including state actors. The techniques used to obtain unauthorized, improper or illegal access to systems and information (including personal data and digital assets), disable or degrade services, or sabotage systems are constantly evolving, may be difficult to detect quickly, and often are not recognized or detected until after they have been launched against a target. These attacks may occur on our systems or those of our third-party service providers or partners. We may experience breaches of our security measures due to human error, malfeasance, insider threats, system errors or vulnerabilities or other irregularities. In particular, we expect that unauthorized parties will attempt to gain access to our systems and facilities, as well as those of our partners and third-party service providers, through various means, such as hacking, social engineering, phishing and fraud. Threats can come from a variety of sources, including criminal hackers, hacktivists, state-sponsored intrusions, industrial espionage, and insiders. In addition, certain types of attacks could harm us even if our systems are left undisturbed. For example, certain threats are designed to remain dormant or undetectable, sometimes for extended periods of time, or until launched against a target and we may not be able to implement adequate preventative measures. Further, there has been an increase in such activities due to the increase in work-from-home arrangements. The risk of cyberattacks could also be increased by cyberwarfare in connection with the ongoing Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas conflicts, or other future conflicts, including potential proliferation of malware into systems unrelated to such conflicts. Any future breach of our operations or those of others in the cryptocurrency industry, including third-party services on which we rely, could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
Digital assets have historically experienced, and are expected to continue to experience, high price volatility which may influence our financial results and the market price of our common stock.
Digital assets like Bitcoin (BTC), and Ethereum (ETH) have historically experienced, and are expected to continue to experience, high price volatility. Such price fluctuations are likely to influence our financial results and the market price of our common stock. Our financial results and the market price of our common stock would be adversely affected, and our business and financial condition would be negatively impacted, if the price of digital assets we hold decrease substantially, including as a result of:
decreased user and investor confidence in digital assets, including due to the various factors described herein;
investment and trading activities, such as (i) trading activities of highly active retail and institutional users, speculators, miners and investors, (ii) actual or expected significant dispositions of digital assets by large holders, and (iii) actual or perceived manipulation of the spot or derivative markets for digital assets or spot digital asset ETPs;
negative publicity, media or social media coverage, or sentiment due to events in or relating to, or perception of, digital assets or the broader digital assets industry;
changes in consumer preferences and the perceived value or prospects of digital assets;
competition from other digital assets that exhibit better speed, security, scalability, or energy efficiency, that feature other more favored characteristics, that are backed by governments, including the U.S. government, or reserves of fiat currencies, or that represent ownership or security interests in physical assets;
a decrease in the price of other digital assets, including stablecoins, or the crash or unavailability of stablecoins that are used as a medium of exchange for digital assets purchase and sale transactions, such as the crash of the stablecoin Terra USD in 2022, to the extent the decrease in the price of such other digital assets or the unavailability of such stablecoins may cause a decrease in the price digital assets, a stablecoin governance token, and other digital assets like BTC or ETH, or adversely affect investor confidence in digital assets generally;
the identification of Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous person or persons who developed Bitcoin, or the transfer of substantial amounts of BTC from BTC wallets attributed to Mr. Nakamoto or other “whales” that hold significant amounts of BTC;
disruptions, failures, unavailability, or interruptions in service of trading venues for digital assets, such as, for example, the announcement by the digital asset exchange FTX Trading that it would freeze withdrawals and transfers from its accounts and subsequent filing for bankruptcy protection;
the filing for bankruptcy protection by, liquidation of, or market concerns about the financial viability of digital asset custodians, trading venues, lending platforms, investment funds, or other Digital Asset industry participants;
regulatory, legislative, enforcement and judicial actions that adversely affect the price, ownership, transferability, trading volumes, legality or public perception of digital assets, or that adversely affect the operations of or otherwise prevent digital asset custodians, trading venues, lending platforms or other digital assets industry participants from operating in a manner that allows them to continue to deliver services to the digital assets industry;
further reductions in mining rewards of digital assets, including block reward halving events, which are events that occur after a specific period of time that reduce the block reward earned by “miners” who validate digital assets transactions, or increases in the costs associated with Bitcoin mining, including increases in electricity costs and hardware and software used in mining, that may cause a decline in support for the Digital Asset networks;
transaction congestion and fees associated with processing transactions on the cryptocurrency blockchain network;
macroeconomic changes, such as changes in the level of interest rates and inflation, fiscal and monetary policies of governments, trade restrictions, and fiat currency devaluations;
developments in mathematics or technology, including in digital computing, algebraic geometry and quantum computing, that could result in the cryptography used by the cryptocurrency blockchain becoming insecure or ineffective; and
changes in national and international economic and political conditions, including, without limitation, the adverse impact attributable to the economic and political instability caused by the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the economic sanctions adopted in response to the conflict, and the potential broadening of the Israel-Hamas conflict to other countries in the Middle East.
A decline in the market value of digital assets or in the demand for trading digital assets could lead to a corresponding decline in the value of our digital assets, the number of transactions on the relevant blockchain network and, as such, the opportunities to earn block rewards and transaction fees, and could adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition. Any decline in the volume of Digital Asset transactions, the price of digital assets, or market liquidity for digital assets generally may adversely affect our operating results. As part of our digital asset treasury strategy, we will have significant investments in BTC, ETH, Solana and other digital assets. Our operating results will be impacted by the revenues and profits we generate from the purchase, sale, and trading of digital asset, and financial contracts linked to thereto.
The price and trading volume of any digital asset is subject to significant uncertainty and volatility, and may significantly decline in the future, without recovery. Future fluctuations in trading prices of the digital assets that we hold may increase the price volatility or affect the value of digital assets we acquire or hold, which could materially and adversely affect our business operations, financial performance, and prospects. There is no assurance that any Digital Asset will maintain its value or that there will be meaningful levels of trading activities to support markets in any Digital Asset.
The availability of spot exchange traded products (ETPs) for Bitcoin and other digital assets may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.
Although BTC and other digital assets have experienced a surge of investor attention since Bitcoin was invented in 2008, until recently investors in the United States had limited means to gain direct exposure to BTC through traditional investment channels, and instead generally were only able to hold BTC through “hosted” wallets provided by digital asset service providers or through “unhosted” wallets that expose the investor to risks associated with loss or hacking of their private keys. Given the relative novelty of digital assets, general lack of familiarity with the processes needed to hold digital assets directly, as well as the potential reluctance of financial planners and advisers to recommend direct Digital Asset holdings to their retail customers because of the manner in which such holdings are custodied, some investors have sought exposure to BTC and other digital assets through investment vehicles that hold BTC and other digital assets and issue shares representing fractional undivided interests in their underlying Digital Asset holdings. These vehicles, which were previously offered only to “accredited investors” on a private placement basis, have in the past traded at substantial premiums to net asset value, or NAV, possibly due to the relative scarcity of traditional investment vehicles providing investment exposure to digital assets.
On January 10, 2024, the SEC approved the listing and trading of spot Bitcoin ETPs, the shares of which can be sold in public offerings and are traded on U.S. national securities exchanges. The approved ETPs commenced trading directly to the public on January 11, 2024, with a trading volume of approximately $4.6 billion on the first trading day. Additionally, on May 23, 2024, the SEC approved rule changes permitting the listing and trading of spot ETPs that invest in ether, the main crypto asset supporting the Ethereum blockchain. The approved spot ETPs commenced trading directly to the public on July 23, 2024. To the extent investors view our common stock as providing exposure to digital assets, it is possible that the value of our common stock may also have included a premium over the value of our digital assets due to the prior scarcity of traditional investment vehicles providing investment exposure to digital assets or may be subject to declined due to investors now having a greater range of options to gain exposure to digital assets and investors choosing to gain such exposure through spot ETPs rather than our common stock. The possible listing and subsequent trading of spot ETPs for other digital assets offers investors another alternative to gain exposure to digital assets, which could result in a decline in the trading price of digital assets as well as a decline in the value of our common stock relative to the value of our digital assets.
Although we are developmental-stage biopharmaceutical company, and we believe we offer a different value proposition than a passive digital asset investment vehicle such as a spot Bitcoin ETP or a spot ETH ETP, investors may nevertheless view our common stock as an alternative to an investment in an ETP, and choose to purchase shares of a spot BTC ETP instead of our common stock. They may do so for a variety of reasons, including if they believe that ETPs offer a “pure play” exposure to digital assets that is generally not subject to federal income tax at the entity level as we are, or the other risk factors applicable to an operating business, such as ours. Additionally, unlike spot ETPs, we (i) do not seek for our shares to track the value of the underlying digital assets we hold before payment of expenses and liabilities, (ii) do not benefit from various exemptions and relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, including Regulation M, and other securities laws, which enable spot ETPs to continuously align the value of their shares to the price of the underlying digital assets they hold through share creation and redemption, and (iii) are not required to provide daily transparency as to our digital asset holdings or our daily net asset value (NAV). Furthermore, recommendations by broker-dealers to buy, hold, or sell complex products and non-traditional ETPs, or an investment strategy involving such products, may be subject to additional or heightened scrutiny that would not be applicable to broker-dealers making recommendations with respect to our common stock. Based on how we are viewed in the market relative to ETPs, and other vehicles that offer economic exposure to digital assets, such as Bitcoin futures ETFs and leveraged BTC futures ETFs, any premium or discount in our common stock relative to the value of our digital asset holdings may increase or decrease in different market conditions.
As a result of the foregoing factors, availability of spot ETPs for digital assets on U.S. national securities exchanges could have a material adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.
A temporary or permanent blockchain “fork” to a Digital Asset blockchain network could adversely affect our business.
Blockchain protocols, including Bitcoin and Ethereum, are open source. Any user can propose modifications to the protocol software. If a substantial majority of participants—such as miners in proof-of-work systems or validators in proof-of-stake systems—agree to adopt a proposed change, the modification may be implemented, allowing the protocol to evolve without disrupting network functionality. However, if less than a substantial majority of users and miners consent to the proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the software prior to its modification, the consequence would be what is known as a “fork”, i.e. , “split” of the impacted blockchain protocol network and respective blockchain, with one prong running the pre-modified software and the other running the modified software. The effect of such a fork would be the existence of two parallel versions of the Bitcoin or other blockchain protocol network, as applicable, running simultaneously, but with each split network’s Digital Asset lacking interchangeability. A “hard fork” – where there is disagreement among the users about the rules of the network – can have a significant negative impact on value of the Digital Asset.
Bitcoin has been subject to “forks” that resulted in the creation of new networks, including Bitcoin Cash ABC, Bitcoin Cash SV, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Gold, and others. Some of these forks have caused fragmentation among platforms as to the correct naming convention for forked digital assets. Due to the lack of a central registry or rulemaking body, no single entity has the ability to dictate the nomenclature of forked digital assets, causing disagreements and a lack of uniformity among platforms on the nomenclature of forked digital assets, and which results in further confusion to customers as to the nature of assets they hold on platforms, and which can negatively impact the value of the digital assets. In addition, several of these forks were contentious and as a result, participants in certain communities may harbor ill will towards other communities. As a result, certain community members may take actions that adversely impact the use, adoption, and price of Bitcoin, or any of their forked alternatives.
Furthermore, when the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks split in July 2016, replay attacks, in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast on the other network to achieve “double-spending,” plagued platforms that traded Ethereum through at least October 2016, resulting in significant losses to some crypto asset platforms. Similar replay attacks occurred in connection with the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Cash SV network split in November 2018. Another possible result of a hard fork is an inherent decrease in the level of security due to the splitting of some mining power across networks, making it easier for a malicious actor to exceed 50% of the mining power of that network, thereby making digital assets that rely on proof-of-work more susceptible to attack, as has occurred with Ethereum Classic.
We intend to recognize forked and airdropped assets consistent with our custodians. We may not immediately or ever have the ability to withdraw a forked or airdropped BTC and/or ETH by virtue of BTC and/or ETH that we hold with our custodians. Future forks may occur at any time. A fork can lead to a disruption of networks and our information technology systems, cybersecurity attacks, replay attacks, or security weaknesses, any of which can further lead to temporary or even permanent loss of our and our assets.
Staking introduces a risk of loss of digital assets we stake, which could adversely affect the value of our common stock.
As part of our digital asset treasury strategy, we may participate in process referred to as “staking” which involves deploying our digital assets that are intrinsically linked to the programmatic functioning of a public, permissionless network, for which we may earn compensation in consideration for securing the underlying blockchain network (“Staking”). Staking introduces risk of loss of the digital assets we stake. None of the Company’s digital assets, including potentially staked assets, are subject to the protections enjoyed by depositors or customers of institutions with FDIC or SIPC membership. However, many digital asset networks, including the Ethereum network, imposes three types of sanctions for validator misbehavior or inactivity, which would result in a portion of staked digital assets ( e.g. , ETH) being destroyed or “burned”: penalties, slashing and inactivity leaks.
A validator may face penalties if it fails to take certain actions, such as providing a timely attestation to a block proposed by another validator. Under this scenario, a validator’s staked digital assets could be burned in an amount equal to the reward to which it would have been entitled for performing the actions.
A more severe sanction ( i.e. , “slashing”) is imposed if a validator commits malicious acts related to the proposal or attestation of blocks with invalid transactions. Slashing can result in the validator having a portion of its staked digital assets immediately burned. After this initial slashing, the validator is queued for forceful removal from the blockchain network’s validator “pool,” and more of the validator’s stake is burned over a period of approximately 36 days (as is the case for the Ethereum network), with the exact amount of digital assets burned and time period determined by the protocol regardless of whether the validator makes any further slashable errors, at which point the validator is automatically removed from the validator pool.
In the case of the Ethereum network, staked ETH may also be burned through a process known as an “inactivity leak,” which is triggered if the Ethereum protocol has gone too long without finalizing a new block. For a new block to be successfully added to the blockchain, validators that account for at least two-thirds of all staked ETH must agree on the validity of a proposed block. This means that if validators representing more than one-third of the total staked ETH are offline, no new blocks can be finalized. To prevent this, an inactivity leak causes the ETH staked by the inactive validators to gradually “bleed away” until these inactive validators represent less than one-third of the total stake, thereby allowing the remaining active validators to finalize proposed blocks. This provides a further incentive for validators to remain online and continue performing validation activities.
There can be no guarantee that penalties, slashing or inactivity leaks and resulting losses will not occur as a result of the activities of a Staking provider. Furthermore, a Staking provider’s liability to the Company is expected to be limited, and a Staking provider may lack the assets or insurance in order to support the recovery of any losses incurred. While the Staking arrangements may provide for indemnification up to a specified cap, slashing insurance or other reimbursement programs, there can be no guarantee that the Company would recover any of its staked assets, or the value thereof, if it is subject to sanctions imposed by the applicable blockchain network.
Staked digital assets may be inaccessible for a variable period of time, determined by a range of factors, which could result in certain liquidity risk to the Company.
Staking digital assets are subject to the applicable protocol’s network rules and requirements. For example, under current Ethereum network protocols, staked ETH tokens are permitted to be un-staked by the holder of such ETH tokens. However, as part of the “activating” and “exiting” processes of staking, staked ETH tokens will be inaccessible for a variable period of time determined by a range of factors, including network congestion, resulting in certain liquidity risks. “Activation” is the funding of a validator to be included in the active set, thereby allowing the validator to participate in the Ethereum network’s proof-of-stake consensus protocol. “Exit” is the request to exit from the active set and no longer participate in the Ethereum network’s proof-of-stake consensus protocol. As part of these “activating” and “exiting” processes of staking on the Ethereum network, any staked ETH will be inaccessible for a period of time. The duration of activating and exiting periods are dependent on a range of factors, including network conditions. However, depending on demand, un-staking can take between hours, days or weeks to complete. This can result in certain liquidity risk, which the Company will seek to manage through a range of risk management methods.
We have limited history in generating staking revenues from digital assets, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.
Until recently, our business focus was in the biopharmaceutical industry with a focus is on developing novel therapeutics that address underserved conditions including PTSD, stress-induced anxiety disorders, fibromyalgia, and central nervous system (CNS) diseases.
We have recently shifted the focus of our operations to include a treasury policy under which our resources will be allocated to digital assets.
We have a limited operating history with the current scale of our business, which makes it difficult to forecast our prospects and future results of operations. You should take into account the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in rapidly evolving markets. If our assumptions regarding the risks and uncertainties of the cryptocurrency market, which we use to plan our business, are incorrect or change, or if we do not address these risks successfully, our business would be harmed.
Competition from other companies staking and utilizing digital assets in their treasury plans.
We expect to contend with other companies also focused on developing digital asset staking operations. Market participants with sufficient knowledge and capital has the ability acquire tokens on the open market and start staking, which would increase competition.
We may fail to develop and execute successful investment or trading strategies.
The success of our investment and trading activities will depend on the ability of our investment team to identify overvalued and undervalued investment opportunities and to exploit price discrepancies. This process involves a high degree of uncertainty. No assurance can be given that we will be able to identify suitable or profitable investment opportunities in which to deploy our capital. The success of any trading activities will depend on our ability to remain competitive with other over-the-counter traders and liquidity providers. Competition in trading is based on price, offerings, level of service, technology, relationships and market intelligence. The success of investment activities depends on our ability to source deals and obtain favorable terms. Competition in investment activities is based on relationships. The barrier to entry in each of these businesses is very low and competitors can easily and will likely provide similar services in the near future. The success of our venture investments and trading business could suffer if we are not able to remain competitive.
We may make, or otherwise be subject to, trade errors.
Errors may occur with respect to any trades executed on our behalf. Trade errors can result from a variety of situations, including, for example, when the wrong investment is purchased or sold or when the wrong quantity is purchased or sold. Trade errors frequently result in losses, which could be material. To the extent that an error is caused by a third party, we may seek to recover any losses associated with the error, although there may be contractual limitations on any third party’s liability with respect to such error.
Risks Relating to Our Securities
We are currently listed on The Nasdaq Capital Market. If we are unable to maintain listing of our securities on Nasdaq or any stock exchange, our stock price could be adversely affected and the liquidity of our stock and our ability to obtain financing could be impaired and it may be more difficult for our shareholders to sell their securities.
We are currently listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market, a national securities exchange. Nasdaq requires companies desiring to list their common stock to meet certain listing criteria including total number of shareholders: minimum stock price, total value of public float, and in some cases total shareholders’ equity and market capitalization. Our failure to meet such applicable listing criteria could prevent us from listing our common stock on Nasdaq. In the event we are unable to have our shares traded on Nasdaq, our common stock could potentially trade on the OTCQX or the OTCQB, each of which is generally considered less liquid and more volatile than Nasdaq. Our failure to have our shares traded on the Nasdaq could make it more difficult for you to trade our shares, could prevent our common stock trading on a frequent and liquid basis and could result in the value of our common stock being less than it would be if we were able to list our shares on Nasdaq.
As previously disclosed on a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by us on July 3, 2025, we received a notification from The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC (“Nasdaq”) notifying us that we were not in compliance with the minimum bid price requirement set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) for continued listing on The Nasdaq Capital Market. Specifically, Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) requires listed securities to maintain a minimum bid price of $1.00 per share, and Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A) provides that a failure to meet the minimum bid price requirement exists if the deficiency continues for a period of 30 consecutive business days. Therefore, in accordance with Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), we were provided 180 calendar days, or until December 24, 2025, to regain compliance with the Rule. Subsequently, on December 24, 2025, Nasdaq determined the Company was eligible for an additional 180 calendar days, or until June 22, 2026, to regain compliance with the Rule. If we fail to regain compliance during the second 180-day period, then Nasdaq will notify us of its determination to delist our common stock, at which as will have an opportunity to appeal the delisting determination to a Hearings Panel.
If we are unable to regain compliance with the Nasdaq minimum bid price requirement and Nasdaq delists our common stock and warrants and we are unable to obtain listing on another national securities exchange, a reduction in some or all of the following may occur, each of which could have a material adverse effect on our shareholders:
the liquidity of our common stock;
the market price of our common stock;
our ability to obtain financing for the continuation of our operations;
the number of investors that will consider investing in our common stock;
the number of market makers in our common stock;
the availability of information concerning the trading prices and volume of our common stock; and
the number of broker-dealers willing to execute trades in shares of our common stock.
Our Certificate of Incorporation grants our board of directors, without any action or approval by our stockholders, the power to designate and issue preferred stock with rights, preferences and privileges that may be adverse to the rights of the holders of our common stock.
The total number of preferred stock that we are authorized to issue is 5,000,000 shares, none of which are issued and outstanding as of March 27, 2026. Pursuant to authority granted by our Certificate of Incorporation, our board of directors, without any action or approval by our stockholders, may issue preferred stock in one or more series, the terms of which may be determined at the time of issuance by our board of directors without further action by stockholders. The terms of any series of preferred stock may include voting rights (including the right to vote as a series on particular matters), preferences as to dividend, liquidation, conversion and redemption rights and sinking fund provisions. The rights of holders of other classes or series of capital stock, including preferred stock that may be issued could be superior to the rights of the holders of shares of our common stock. The designation and issuance of shares of capital stock having preferential rights could materially adversely affect the rights of the holders of our common stock. In addition, any issuances of additional capital stock (common or preferred) will dilute the percentage of ownership interest of our stockholders.
We have never paid cash dividends and have no plans to pay cash dividends in the future.
Holders of shares of our common stock are entitled to receive such dividends as may be declared by our board of directors. To date, we have paid no cash dividends on our capital stock and we do not expect to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future. We intend to retain future earnings, if any, to provide funds for operations of our business. Therefore, any return investors in our capital stock may have will be in the form of appreciation, if any, in the market value of their shares of common stock.
We have issued options and warrants and may continue to issue additional securities in the future. The exercise of these securities and the sale of the common stock issuable thereunder may dilute your percentage ownership interest and may also result in downward pressure on the price of our common shares.
As of March 27, 2026, we have issued and outstanding options to purchase 522,850 common stock with a weighted average exercise price of $0.84 per share and warrants to purchase 10,239,831 shares of common stock with a weighted average exercise price of $1.41 per share. In addition, we have 1,543,063 shares of common stock available for future issuance under our Amended and Restated 2020 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan, as amended. Because the market for our common stock may be thinly traded, the sales and/or the perception that those sales may occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Furthermore, the mere existence of a significant number of shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of our outstanding securities may be perceived by the market as having a potential dilutive effect, which could lead to a decrease in the price of our common stock.
Our compliance with complicated U.S. regulations concerning corporate governance and public disclosure is expensive and diverts management’s attention from our core business, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
As a publicly reporting company, we are faced with expensive, complicated and evolving disclosure, governance and compliance laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, and Nasdaq rules. As a result of the complexity involved in complying with the applicable rules and regulations, our management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. We may need to hire more personnel in the future or engage outside consultants, which will increase our operating expenses, to assist us in complying with these requirements.
In addition, changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure are creating uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs, and making some activities more time-consuming. These laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We intend to invest substantial resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management’s time and attention from business operations to compliance activities. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to their application and practice, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us, and our business may be harmed.
Our common stock could be subject to extreme volatility.
The trading price of our common stock may be affected by a number of factors, including events described in the risk factors set forth herein and in our other reports filed with the SEC from time to time, as well as our operating results, financial condition and other events or factors. In addition to the uncertainties relating to future operating performance and the profitability of operations, factors such as variations in interim financial results or various, and unpredictable, factors, many of which are beyond our control, may have a negative effect on the market price of our common stock. In recent years, broad stock market indices, in general, and smaller capitalization companies, in particular, have experienced substantial price fluctuations. In a volatile market, we may experience wide fluctuations in the market price of our common stock and wide bid-ask spreads. These fluctuations may have a negative effect on the market price of our common stock. In addition, the securities market has, from time to time, experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that are not related to the operating performance of particular companies. These market fluctuations may have a material adverse effect the market price of our common stock.
Market and economic conditions may negatively impact our business, financial condition and share price.
Concerns over inflation, energy costs, geopolitical issues, the U.S. mortgage market and a declining real estate market, unstable global credit markets and financial conditions, and volatile oil prices have led to periods of significant economic instability, diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence and discretionary spending, diminished expectations for the global economy and expectations of slower global economic growth going forward, increased unemployment rates, and increased credit defaults in recent years. Our general business strategy may be adversely affected by any such economic downturns, volatile business environments and continued unstable or unpredictable economic and market conditions. If these conditions continue to deteriorate or do not improve, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult to complete, more costly, and more dilutive. Failure to secure any necessary financing in a timely manner and on favorable terms could have a material adverse effect on our growth strategy, financial performance, and share price and could require us to delay or abandon development or commercialization plans.
Future sales and issuances of our securities could result in additional dilution of the percentage ownership of our stockholders and could cause our share price to fall.
We expect that significant additional capital will be needed in the future to continue our planned operations, including research and development, increased marketing, hiring new personnel, commercializing our products, and continuing activities as an operating public company. To the extent we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, our stockholders may experience substantial dilution. We may sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we determine from time to time. If we sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in more than one transaction, investors may be materially diluted by subsequent sales. Such sales may also result in material dilution to our existing stockholders, and new investors could gain rights superior to our existing stockholders.
We may be at risk of securities class action litigation.
We may be at risk of securities class action litigation. In the past, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies have experienced significant stock price volatility, particularly when associated with binary events such as clinical trials and product approvals. If we face such litigation, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could harm our business and results in a decline in the market price of our common stock.
Financial reporting obligations of being a public company in the United States are expensive and time-consuming, and our management will be required to devote substantial time to compliance matters.
As a publicly traded company we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. The obligations of being a public company in the United States require significant expenditures and places significant demands on our management and other personnel, including costs resulting from public company reporting obligations under the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations regarding corporate governance practices, including those under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended (“Sarbanes-Oxley”) and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. These rules require the establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and procedures, internal control over financial reporting and changes in corporate governance practices, among many other complex rules that are often difficult to implement, monitor and maintain compliance with. Our management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to ensure that we comply with all of these requirements and to keep pace with new regulations, otherwise we may fall out of compliance and risk becoming subject to litigation among other potential problems.
Failure to maintain effective internal control over our financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act could cause our financial reports to be inaccurate.
We are required pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or Section 404, to maintain internal control over financial reporting and to assess and report on the effectiveness of those controls. This assessment includes disclosure of any material weaknesses identified by our management in our internal control over financial reporting. Although we prepare our financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, our internal accounting controls may not meet all standards applicable to companies with publicly traded securities. If we fail to implement any required improvements to our disclosure controls and procedures, we may be obligated to report control deficiencies and our independent registered public accounting firm may not be able to certify the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting. In either case, we could become subject to regulatory sanction or investigation. Further, these outcomes could damage investor confidence in the accuracy and reliability of our financial statements.
Our management has concluded that our internal controls over financial reporting are effective as of December 31, 2025. If we are not able to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, our financial statements, including related disclosures, may be inaccurate, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Nasdaq Capital Market may subsequently delist our common stock if we fail to comply with ongoing listing standards.
Nasdaq Capital Market will require us to meet certain financial, public float, bid price and liquidity standards on an ongoing basis in order to continue the listing of our common stock. If we fail to meet these continued listing requirements, our common stock may be subject to delisting. If our common stock are delisted and we are not able to list such common stock or warrants on another national securities exchange, we expect our securities would be quoted on an over-the-counter market; However, if this were to occur, our stockholders could face significant material adverse consequences, including limited availability of market quotations for our common stock and reduced liquidity for the trading of our securities. In addition, in the event of such delisting, we could experience a decreased ability to issue additional securities and obtain additional financing in the future. Even if our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market, there can be no assurance that an active trading market for our common stock will develop or be sustained after our initial listing.
Therapeutics
We seek to acquire and/or develop intellectual property or technology rights from leading universities and researchers to treat rare diseases, including the use of psychedelic drugs, such as psilocybin, ketamine, and the potential benefits they may have in certain cases involving depression, mental health issues and neurological disorders. We are focused on developing traditional therapeutics and psychedelic medicine. The company concentrates on the development and commercialization of therapies for unmet needs from indications such as depression, post-traumaticstress disorder (“PTSD”), and other rare neurological disorders. Our mission is to identify assets to license and fund the research which we believe will be transformative to the well-being of patients and the health care industry.
Psilocybin is considered a serotonergic hallucinogen and is an active ingredient in some species of mushrooms. Recent industry studies using psychedelics, such as psilocybin, have been promising, and we believe there is a large unmet need with many people suffering from depression, mental health issues and neurological disorders. While classified as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), there is an accumulating body of evidence that psilocybin may have beneficial effects on depression and other mental health conditions. Therefore, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) have permitted the use of psilocybin in clinical studies for the treatment of a range of psychiatric conditions.
The potential of psilocybin therapy in mental health conditions has been demonstrated in a number of academic-sponsored studies over the last decade. In these early studies, it was observed that psilocybin therapy provided rapid reductions in depression symptoms after a single high dose, with antidepressant effects lasting for up to at least six months for a number of patients. These studies assessed symptoms related to depression and anxiety through a number of widely used and validated scales. The data generated by these studies suggest that psilocybin is generally well-tolerated and may have the potential to treat depression when administered with psychological support.
We have engaged in discussions with a number of world-renowned educational institutions and advisors regarding potential opportunities and have formed a scientific advisory board that is intended to help advise management regarding potential acquisition and development of products.
In addition, as more fully described below, we have entered into a license agreement with the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and developing a Ketamine polymer implant. In addition, we into a sponsored research agreement Columbia University for the study of ketamine in combination with other drugs for treatment of Alzheimer’s and depression disorders and we have also entered into an exclusive license agreement with Columbia under which we have rights to certain patents and inventions relating to the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease and stress-induced affective disorders using Ketamine in combination with certain other compounds.
We plan to actively pursue the acquisition and/or development of intellectual property or technology rights to treat rare diseases, and to ultimately expand our business to focus on this new line of business.
Product Candidates
We are currently focusing on four product candidates:
SPC-15 for stress-indued psychiatric disorders, including PTSD and anxiety.
SP-26 for treatments of fibromyalgia and chronic pain.
SPC-14 for treatment of Alzheimer’s disease.
SPU-16 for CNS disorders, initially targeting multiple sclerosis.
SPC-15: Intranasal Treatment for PTSD and Anxiety Disorders
Our lead product candidate, SPC-15, is designed as a novel serotonin 4 (5-HT4) receptor agonist that utilizes biomarkers for treatment of stress-induced psychiatric disorders such as PTSD and anxiety disorders. This innovative treatment is administered via an intranasal formulation, potentially qualifying for the FDA's streamlined 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which could expedite its approval process. We are actively collaborating with Columbia University, holding exclusive global rights to develop and commercialize SPC-15, pursuant to and that certain exclusive license agreement entered into with Columbia on July 1, 2024. See “----License Agreements between the Company and Vendor—Exclusive License Agreement with Columbia University.”
On November 15, 2023, we entered an exclusive license agreement with Medspray Pharma BV for its proprietary patented soft mist nasal spray technology, as the delivery mechanism for SPC-15, which agreement has an effective date of October 31, 2023. Preclinical and formulation studies were completed in the first half of 2024 and on June 4, 2024 the Company submitted a pre-Investigational New Drug (pre-IND) briefing package and meeting request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for SPC-15, Silo’s intranasal prophylactic treatment for post-traumaticstress disorder (PTSD) and stress-induced anxiety disorder. In September 2024, we had a pre-IND meeting with the FDA to align on the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for approval of SPC-15 and review our proposed plan to support opening an IND.
Currently, we are conducting GLP-compliant pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies and in March 2025 we completed first dosing in an IND-enabling GLP-compliant toxicology and toxicokinetics, and we are aiming for an IND submission in 2026. The preclinical data suggests additional applications for eating disorders and anorexia, as well as enhanced efficacy when combined with an NMDA receptor antagonist for major depressive disorder and other severestress-related conditions.
We believe our patented intranasal nose-to-brain drug dispersion technology provides a competitive advantage by increasing brain drug concentration, ensuring a faster onset of therapeutic effects with optimized safety.
SP-26: Ketamine Implant for Fibromyalgia
SP-26 represents a novel approach to treating chronic pain and fibromyalgia through a ketamine-based injectable dissolvable polymer implant. Designed for subcutaneous insertion, SP-26 focuses on regulating dosage and time release to provide sustained relief from chronic pain, offering a potentially safer alternative to opioids. Presently, our SP-26 product is in preclinical research. Initial animal studies, which began in early 2025, are evaluating the implant's dosage, time release, and absorption.
In March 2023, we filed a provisional patent application with the USPTO to use SP-26 for treatment of chronic pain, including fibromyalgia We intend to develop SP-26 following the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway of the FDA rules. Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA was enacted to enable sponsors to seek NDA approval for novel repurposed drugs without the need for such sponsors to undertake time consuming and expensive pre-clinical safety studies and Phase 1 safety studies. Proceeding under this regulatory pathway, we will be able to rely upon publicly available data with respect to our active ingredient in our NDA submission to the FDA for marketing approval.
Fibromyalgia affects approximately 4 million U.S. adults (2% of the population). We believe SP-26’s implant design provides a compelling non-opioid alternative to traditional pain management, improving dosage control compared to intravenous delivery.
SPC-14: Treatment for Alzheimer’s Disease
SPC-14 targets glutamate receptor NDMAR and serotonin 5-HT4 to address cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer’s disease. Given the global Alzheimer’s therapeutics market is projected to exceed $30.8 billion by 2033, SPC-14 presents a promising opportunity. SPC-14 was developed under a sponsored research agreement with Columbia University See “Investigator-Sponsored Study Agreements between the Company and Vendors---Sponsored Research Agreement with Columbia University for the Study of Ketamine in Combination with Other Drugs for Treatment of Alzheimer’s and Depression Disorders,” and we have exclusive global rights to develop and commercialize SPC-14, pursuant to and that certain exclusive license agreement entered into with Columbia on July 1, 2024. See “----License Agreements between the Company and Vendor—Exclusive License Agreement with Columbia University.”. On October 13, 2022, we extended the term of the sponsored research agreement with Columbia to conduct further research studies into the mechanism of action of SPC-14 in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. In addition, we have been granted an option to license certain assets currently under development, including SPC-14 for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease.
We believe our SPC-14 product has shown efficacy against luteinizing hormone (LH) in attenuating learned helplessness, preservative behavior and hyponeophagia (a measure of anxiety).
SPU-16: Treatment for CNS Disorders, Initial Indication for Multiple Sclerosis
SPU-16 is a promising candidate targeting central nervous system (CNS) disorders, with an initial indication for multiple sclerosis. On February 12, 2021, we entered into a Master License Agreement (the “UMB License Agreement”) with the University of Maryland, Baltimore (“UMB”) pursuant to which UMB granted us an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable, royalty-bearing license to certain intellectual property (i) to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, and import certain licensed products and (ii) to use the invention titled “Central nervous system-homing peptides in vivo and their use for the investigation and treatment of multiple sclerosis and other neuroinflammatory pathology,” or SPU-16. See “License Agreements between the Company and Vendors--Vendor License Agreement with the University of Maryland, Baltimore for CNS Homing Peptide” for additional details.
On April 11, 2023 certain intellectual property under the UMB License Agreement described above were issued a patent from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) for “Peptide-Targeted Liposomal Delivery For Treatment, Diagnosis, and Imaging of Diseases and Disorders” (US 11,766,403, B2).
On July 8, 2025, we entered into July 2025 Termination and Option Agreement with UMB which terminates the UMB License Agreement, previously in effect between us and UMB, and provides us with an exclusive, non-transferable evaluation license, as well as an exclusive option to negotiate a new exclusive commercial license, with respect to certain intellectual property related to central nervous system-homing peptides (the “Invention” and related “Patent Rights”) that were previously licensed under the UMB License Agreement.
Pursuant to the July 2025 Termination and Option Agreement, we were granted Option, exercisable during the term of the July 2025 Termination and Option Agreement, to negotiate and obtain an exclusive, sublicensable, royalty-bearing license to the Invention and Patent Rights for the therapeutic treatment of neuroinflammatory disease worldwide. The Option may be exercised by (i) providing written notice and submitting an acceptable commercialization plan to UMB, and (ii) paying a $1,000 option fee, which is creditable against certain future expenses if a commercial license is executed. The July 2025 Termination and Option Agreement was effective as of July 8, 2025, and will expire on March 31, 2026, unless earlier terminated or superseded by a new definitive license agreement upon exercise of the Option.
We believe SPU-16 provides a competitive advantage by using homing peptides to reduce toxicity while enhancing therapeutic payload delivery.
Stock Repurchase Plan
On January 26, 2023, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized a stock repurchase plan to repurchase up to $1 million of the Company’s issued and outstanding common stock, from time to time, with such plan to be in place until December 31, 2023. On January 9, 2024, the Board of Directors of the Company approved an extension of the previously announced stock repurchase program authorizing the purchase of up to $1 million of the Company’s common stock until March 31, 2024 and on April 4, 2024, the Stock Repurchase Plan was extended to April 30. During the year ended December 31, 2023, the Company purchased 252,855 shares of common stock for a cost of $471,121, which is reflected in treasury stock on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. During the year ended December 31, 2024, the Company purchased 102,855 shares of common stock for a cost of $173,113. In aggregate, during the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, the Company repurchased a total of 355,710 shares of its common stock for a total cost of $644,234 pursuant to its Stock Repurchase Program. During the year ended December 31, 2024, all 355,710 shares treasury shares with a cost of $644,234 were cancelled. As of December 31, 2025 and 2024, there were no treasury shares outstanding.
On February 20, 2026, the Company’s Board of Directors approved a stock repurchase program authorizing the purchase of up to $1 million of the Company’s issued and outstanding common stock, from time to time, with such plan to be in place until December 31, 2026. As of the date of this report, no shares have been repurchased under this plan.
Results of Operations
Comparison of Our Results of Operations for the Years Ended December 31, 2025 and 2024
The following table summarizes the results of operations for the years ending December 31, 2025 and 2024 and were based primarily on the comparative audited financial statements, footnotes and related information for the periods identified and should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and the notes to those consolidated financial statements that are included elsewhere in this report.
Years Ended
December 31,
Revenues
Cost of revenues
Gross profit
Operating expenses
Operating loss from continuing operations
Other income, net
Provision for income taxes
Net loss
Revenues
During the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, we generated minimal revenues from operations. For the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, revenues amounted to $72,102 and $72,102, respectively. Such revenues are related to the Aikido License and Sublicense Agreement and are recognized over the estimated 15-year term of the related UMB license agreement.
Cost of Revenues
During the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, cost of revenues amounted to $44,295 and $5,838, respectively. Cost of revenues consisted of license fees related to the UMB License and Sublicense Agreement, which are being amortized into cost of revenues. Effective July 8, 2025, the estimated useful lives of the unamortized license and sublicense fees were changed to reflect the termination of the Master License Agreement and the expiration of the subsequent Option Agreement on March 31, 2026, resulting in accelerated amortization expense during the year ended December 31, 2025.
Operating Expenses
For the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, total operating expenses consisted of the following:
For the Years Ended
December 31,
Compensation expense
Professional fees
Research and development
Other selling, general and administrative expenses
Total
Compensation Expense :
For the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, compensation expense was $830,322 and $906,773, respectively, a decrease of $76,451, or 8.4%. This decrease primarily resulted from a decrease in executive bonus of $225,000, offset by an increase in stock-based compensation of $117,021 related to the accretion of stock option expense, and an increase in employee benefit expenses of $31,528.
Professional Fees :
For the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, professional fees were $1,058,609 and $1,198,745, respectively, a decrease of $140,136, or 11.7%. The decrease was primarily attributable to a decrease in consulting fees of $32,757, and a decrease in investor relation fees of $131,571, offset by an increase in legal fees of $4,200 and an increase in accounting and auditing fees of $19,992.
Research and Development:
For the year ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, we incurred research and development expense of $2,160,829 and $2,368,156, respectively, a decrease of $207,327, or 8.7%. This decrease was attributable to a decrease research and development expense associated with our various studies of $456,009 and a decrease in research related consulting fees of $269,568, offset by an increase in acquired software applications of $518,250. On July 29, 2025, we entered into an asset purchase agreement (the “Agreement”) with MAVS Holdings LLC (the “Seller”). Pursuant to the Agreement, the Seller agreed to sell, and we agreed to purchase, certain software of the web-based application currently marketed as “r2crypto.com” and the domain names socialscan.info, coinfeel.net, and r2crypto.com (the “Purchased Assets”). In consideration for the Purchased Assets, we issued to the Seller 750,000 shares of our common stock, which were valued at $518,250 or $0.69 per share, based on the quoted closing stock price on July 29, 2025. Due to the nature of the Purchased Assets and their lack of an established alternative future use, the fair value of the common stock issued was recorded as research and development expense of $518,250 during the year ended December 31, 2025.
We expect our research and development activities to increase as we develop our existing product candidates and potentially acquire new product candidates, reflecting increasing costs associated with the following:
fees related to in-licensed products and technology;
expenses incurred under agreements with CROs, investigative sites and consultants that conduct our clinical trials and a substantial portion of our pre-clinical activities;
the cost of acquiring and manufacturing clinical trial materials; and
costs associated with non-clinical activities and regulatory approvals.
Other Selling, General and Administrative Expenses :
Other selling, general and administrative expenses include advertising and promotion, insurance expenses, patent related expenses, public company expenses, custodian fees, bank service charges, travel, and other office expenses.
For the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, selling, general and administrative expenses were $258,709 and $298,284, respectively, a decrease of $39,575, or 13.3%. The decrease was primarily attributed to a decrease in proxy meeting fees of $18,377, a decrease in transfer agent fees of $13,395, and a decrease in other selling, general and administrative fees of $7,803.
Loss from Operations
For the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, loss from operations amounted to $4,280,662 and $4,705,694 respectively, a decrease of $425,032 or 9.0%. The decrease was primarily a result of the changes in operating expenses discussed above.
Other Income (Expenses), net
For the year ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, other income, net amounted to $52,964 and $312,814, respectively, a decrease of $259,850, or 83.1%. The decrease in other income, net was primarily due to a decrease in interest and dividend income of $139,253, an increase in unrealized loss on crypto assets of $64,608, increase in impairmentloss on crypto assets of $39,916, and an increase in interest expense of $32,218, offset by a decrease in foreign currency transaction loss of $14,242 and an increase in other income of $5,143.
Net Loss
For the year ended December 31, 2025, net loss amounted to $4,227,698, or $0.50 per common share (basic and diluted), as compared to net loss amounted to $4,392,880 or $1.19 per common share (basic and diluted) for the year ended December 31, 2024, a decrease of $165,182, or 3.8%. The change was primarily a result of the changes discussed above.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Liquidity is the ability of an enterprise to generate adequate amounts of cash to meet its needs for cash requirements. We had working capital of $6,737,542, short-term investments of $2,110,065, crypto assets, at fair value of $221,817, crypto assets, at cost of $98,584, and $4,748,700 in cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2025. We had a working capital of $5,455,483, $3,174,724 in short-term investments, and $3,905,799 in cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2024.
December 31,
December 31,
Working
Capital
Change
Percentage
Change
Working capital:
Total current assets
Total current liabilities
Working capital
The increase in working capital of $1,282,059 was primarily attributable to an increase in current assets of $276,425 primarily due to an increase in cash and cash equivalents of approximately $842,901, an increase in crypto assets, at fair value of $221,817, an increase in crypto assets, at cost of $98,584, an increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets of $177,602, and a decrease in accounts payable and accrued expenses of $1,005,814, offset by a decrease in short-term investments of approximately $1,064,659.
Cash Flows
A summary of cash flow activities is summarized as follows:
Year Ended
December 31,
Net cash used in operating activities
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
Net Cash Used in Operating Activities
Net cash used in operating activities for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024 were $4,661,339 and $3,833,914, respectively, an increase of $827,425, or 21.6%.
Net cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2025 primarily reflected a net loss of $4,227,698, adjusted for the add-back of non-cash items such as amortization expense of $11,440, net realized gain on short-term investments of $3,911, unrealized loss on short-term investments of $3,240, staking income on crypto assets of $207, unrealized loss on crypto assets of $64,608, impairmentloss on crypto assets of $39,916, stock-based compensation of $117,021 and non-cash in process research and development expense of $518,225, and changes in operating asset and liabilities primarily consisting of an increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets of $118,457, a decrease in accounts payable and accrued expenses of $993,414, and a decrease in deferred revenue of $72,102.
Net cash used in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2024 primarily reflected a net loss of $4,392,880, adjusted for the add-back of non-cash items such as amortization expense of $6,185 and net realized loss on short-term investments of $1,025, and changes in operating asset and liabilities primarily consisting of an increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets of $9,149, an increase in accounts payable and accrued expenses of $633,007, and a decrease in deferred revenue of $72,102.
Net Cash Provided by Investing Activities
Net cash provided by investing activities for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024 were $644,021 and $973,777, respectively, a decrease of $329,756, or 33.9%.
Net cash provided by investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2025 was $644,021 which consisted of proceeds from the sale of short-term investments of $1,315,653, offset by aggregate payments for the purchase of short-term investments of $246,914 and the purchase of crypto assets of $424,718.
Net cash provided by investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2024 was $973,777 which consisted of proceeds from the sale of short-term investments of $1,149,320, offset by aggregate payments for the purchase of short-term investments of $175,543.
Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Financing Activities
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024 were $4,860,219 and $3,241,628, respectively, an increase of $1,618,591, or 49.9%.
Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2025 was $4,860,219 which consisted of net proceeds from sale of common stock and pre-funded warrants of $3,725,236 and proceeds from the exercise of warrants and pre-funded warrants of $1,134,983.
Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2024 was $3,241,628 which consisted of net proceeds from sale of common stock and pre-funded warrants of $1,673,216, net proceeds from sale of common stock and warrants of $1,741,522 and proceeds from the exercise of pre-funded warrants of $3, offset by the purchase of treasury stock of $173,113.
Cash Requirements
We believe that our current cash and cash equivalent amount and short-term investment amount will provide sufficient cash required to meet our obligations for a minimum of twelve months from the date of this filing.
Other than cash requirements pursuant to research and development agreements, we currently have no other material commitments for any capital expenditures.
Liquidity
As reflected in the accompanying consolidated financial statements, we generated a net loss of $4,227,698 and used cash in operations of $4,661,339 during the year ended December 31, 2025. Additionally, we have an accumulated deficit of $19,492,389 on December 31, 2025. As of December 31, 2025, we had working capital of $6,737,542.
On September 29, 2025, pursuant to the October 2025 Offering, we received net proceeds of $2,146,000, net of placement agent fees and offering costs of $303,450 and legal and other fees of $50,550.
The positive working capital serves to mitigate the conditions that historically raised substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. We believe that the Company has sufficient cash to meet its obligations for a minimum of twelve months from the date of this filing.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
None.
Critical Accounting Estimates
Crypto Assets
The Company’s crypto assets primarily include Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH) and Solana (SOL), and liquid staked tokens consisting of Liquid Staked ETH (LsETH) and Marinade Solana (mSOL), tokens received when ETH and SOL was staked through a third-party protocol. The Company has ownership of and control over its crypto assets which are held through custodial arrangements with qualified third-party custodians. These custodians provide secure storage and safeguarding of the Company’s crypto assets.
The Company distinguishes between crypto assets which fall within the scope of ASC 350-60, Accounting for and Disclosure of Crypto Assets , and those which do not. The Company refers to crypto assets which fall within the scope of ASC 350-60 (BTC, ETH, USDC, SOL, XRP and RSC) as “crypto assets, at fair value.” Crypto assets which do not fall within the scope of ASC 350-60 (LsETH and mSOL) are referred to as “crypto assets, at cost.”
Crypto Assets, at Fair Value
Crypto assets that fall within the scope of ASC 350-60, such as BTC, ETH, SOL, native staked SOL, RSC and XRP, which are actively traded on public exchanges, are initially recorded at cost, which represents the cash, cash equivalents, or other financial assets paid to acquire the asset, including transaction fees.
Crypto assets are subsequently measured in accordance with ASC 350-60, at fair value in the statement of operations with unrealized gains and losses resulting from changes in fair value recognized in net income or loss. The Company determines and records at each reporting period the fair value of its crypto assets in accordance with ASC 820, Fair Value Measurement , based on quoted (unadjusted) prices on the coinmarketcap.com or Coinbase exchange, the active exchange that the Company has determined is its principal market (Level 1 inputs). Changes in the fair value are recognized in net income (loss) within “Unrealized gain (loss) on crypto assets”, while realized gains and losses from the derecognition of crypto assets are included in “Realized gain (loss) on crypto assets, net” in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations. The Company applies a weighted average cost methodology to assign costs for purposes of determining crypto assets held and realized gains and losses.
Purchases and sales of crypto assets are reflected as cash flows from investing activities in the consolidated statements of cash flows. Contributions of crypto assets received in connection with deposits of ETH and SOL into a liquid staking protocol are presented as non-cash investing and financing activities.
Crypto Assets, at Cost
Crypto assets, at cost are recognized at fair value on the date received, which becomes their cost basis. Crypto assets at cost, such as LsETH and mSOL, do not fall in the scope of ASC 350-60 for subsequent measurement. LsETH and mSOL represent receipt tokens, which in general and by design, grants the holder an enforceable right to redeem ETH or SOL for which it was exchanged. Therefore, it fails the ‘other goods and services criterion’ in ASC 350-60-15-1(b) and is outside the scope of ASC 350-60. Crypto assets, at cost are therefore subsequently measured at cost, net of any impairmentlosses incurred since acquisition, in accordance with ASC 350-30, Intangibles — Goodwill and Other — General Intangibles Other Than Goodwill .
The Company performs an analysis each quarter to identify whether events or changes in circumstances, principally decreases in the quoted (unadjusted) prices in the Company’s principal market, indicate that it is more likely than not that any of the assets are impaired. The quoted (unadjusted) prices on the coinmarketcap.com or the Coinbase exchange, the active exchange that the Company has determined as its principal market, are used in the analysis. If the carrying value of LsETH and mSOL exceeds that end of period quoted price, an impairmentloss has occurred in the amount equal to the difference between its carrying value and such period end closing price. Impairmentlosses are recognized in the period in which the impairment occurs and are reflected within “Impairmentloss on crypto assets, at cost” in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations. The impaired crypto assets are written down to their fair value at the time of impairment and this becomes the new cost basis for those assets. The cost basis of LsETH or mSOL will not be adjusted upward for any subsequent increase in fair value.
Staking Activities
The Company participates in both native and liquid staking of its digital assets to generate yield. The Company’s role is that of a Delegator (a staker who does not run a validation node).
Native Staking
The Company participates in native staking exclusively as a delegator through third-party validators. The Company delegates SOL to validators, either directly or through third party asset managers, who operate nodes on the Solana network to validate transactions and add blocks to the blockchain. In return for delegating SOL to validators, the Company is entitled to a portion of the protocol-level rewards, comprising both consensus- and execution layer components received by the validators, in the form of SOL tokens, calculated based on the Company’s proportion of the total SOL staked. When the Company stakes SOL natively, the SOL does not remain in the Company’s custodial wallet, but is instead deposited into Solana’s staking deposit smart contract, which is required for participation in SOL staking as a delegator. Native staked SOL are not derecognized because their deposit into the smart contract does not give any other entity the right or ability to direct their use (for example, sell, lend, pledge or otherwise use those SOL) and the staked SOL may be withdrawn at any time by the delegator through the use of private withdrawal keys, subject only to protocol-defined withdrawal and exit queue mechanics. The withdrawal credentials in the smart contract are designated to the Company’s custodian who holds the Company’s SOL solely for the Company’s benefit and does not obtain control of the Company’s SOL via their custodial services. Native staked SOL are therefore not derecognized.
Rewards from native staking activities fall outside the scope of ASC 606, Revenue from Contracts as these activities do not represent an output of the Company’s ordinary activities. Therefore, we reflect any such rewards received as other income on the accompanying consolidated statements.. In this case the Company’s performance obligation is the provision of our validation rights to the validators, from which we earn variable consideration, in the form of SOL, which is non-cash consideration, measured at the fair value of SOL as of contract inception based on the quoted (unadjusted) prices on coinmarketcap.com or the Coinbase exchange, the active exchange that the Company has determined is its principal market. Revenue is recognized at the point in time when the Solana network confirms that the validation is complete. As a delegator, the Company has concluded it is not the principal to the block validation service provided to the Solana Network; it is the validators that control the service. Instead, the Company’s service is one of providing the use of its SOL by the validators to increase their validation opportunities. Consequently, the Company records staking revenue on a net basis, reflecting only the portion of protocol rewards to which it is entitled after validator commissions are paid to the custodians. During the year ended December 31, 2025, staking income from native staking activities amounted to $207, which has been reflected as other income.
Liquid Staking
The Company also participates in liquid staking through a liquid staking protocol. One key difference and intended benefit of liquid staking versus native staking is that it allows the Company to earn staking rewards, like native staking, but provides liquidity and the ability to enter into other transactions through the use of receipt token. Instead of directly locking ETH or SOL into the respective staking deposit contract, the Company deposits ETH or SOL through its custodian into the liquid staking protocol’s smart contract. The liquid staking protocol then controls the ETH or SOL for deposit into the respective staking deposit contract and further delegation to its chosen validators. In exchange for staking its ETH or SOL, the Company receives LsETH or mSOL, freely transferable liquid staking receipt tokens, which enables participation in decentralized finance (DeFi) and other crypto markets while the underlying ETH or SOL remains staked on Ethereum or SOL. Upon staking ETH or SOL through the liquid staking protocol, the ETH or SOL is derecognized because the liquid staking protocol obtains the ability to deploy and direct its use, and the LsETH token or mSOL token received concurrently is then recognized. Any gain or loss on the derecognition of ETH or SOL and the recognition of the LsETH or mSOL is recognized in accordance with ASC 610-20, Other Income - Gains and Losses from the Derecognition of Nonfinancial Assets ( “ ASC 610-20 ” ) based on the difference between the carrying amount of the ETH or SOL staked and the fair value of the LsETH received or mSOL; and shall be included in “Realized gain or loss on crypto assets” in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations.
Staking rewards in the form of ETH or SOL are only received upon redemption of LsETH or mSOL. During the year ended December 31, 2025, no liquid staking rewards were received.
Since LsETH and mSOL are accounted for under ASC 350-30, any increases in LsETH and mSOL fair value while the Company remains staked with the liquid staking protocols, are not recognized. There is no ongoing performance obligation following the staking of ETH or SOL through the liquid staking protocol. Additionally, LsETH and mSOL are non-rebasing tokens, meaning its quantity remains fixed over time. Staking rewards are not continuously reflected in token balances but are instead realized separately. Staking rewards are therefore recognized only when the LsETH or mSOL is redeemed, measured at the fair value of ETH or SOL at contract inception, which is when the ETH or SOL were staked. Staking rewards on LsETH or mSOL shall be included in “Staking income on crypto assets” in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations. Gain or loss resulting from the difference between the carrying amount of the LsETH or mSOL redeemed and the fair value of ETH or SOL received at redemption (i.e., excluding staking rewards), shall be included in “Realized gain or loss on crypto assets” in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In November 2024, the FASB issued ASU 2024-03, Income Statement—Reporting Comprehensive Income—Expense Disaggregation Disclosures (Subtopic 220-40), which requires entities to provide more detailed disaggregation of expenses in the income statement, focusing on the nature of the expenses rather than their function. The new disclosures will require entities to separately present expenses for significant line items, including but not limited to, depreciation, amortization, and employee compensation. Entities will also be required to provide a qualitative description of the amounts remaining in relevant expense captions that are not separately disaggregated quantitatively, disclose the total amount of selling expenses and, in annual reporting periods, provide a definition of what constitutes selling expenses. This pronouncement is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2026, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2027, with early adoption permitted. We do not expect the adoption of this new guidance to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.
Management does not believe that any other recently issued, but not yet effective accounting pronouncements, if adopted, would have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
