ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below and the other information in this Annual Report before making an investment in our Common Stock or Warrants. Our business, financial condition, results of operations, or prospects could be materially and adversely affected if any of these risks occurs, and as a result, the market price of our Common Stock and Warrants could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment. This Annual Report also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. See “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” Our actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including those set forth below.
Throughout this section, unless otherwise indicated or the context otherwise requires, references to “ProCap,” “we,” “us,” “our” and other similar terms refer to the Company and its subsidiaries, prior to and/or after giving effect to the Business Combination, as the context may require.
Risks Related to Our Business and AI
Prior to 2026, our primary business focus was on advertising and media operations, along with our Bitcoin treasury strategy. Recently we announced that our corporate strategy is going to focus on AI operations, and de-emphasizing our advertising and media operations, while maintaining our Bitcoin treasury strategy. This expansion to AI operations involves several risks.
Abandonment of Established Revenue Streams: By expanding to AI, while de-emphasizing our advertising and media operations, we are moving away from industry-specific revenue streams that provided a degree of predictability. Our future financial performance will now primarily depend on our ability to develop, commercialize, and scale AI products and services, the availability and cost of compute and data, customer adoption, and evolving regulations, which are factors that are rapidly changing and are in many cases outside of our control.
Legacy Liabilities: Despite our expansion to AI operations, we remain subject to potential “tail” liabilities related to our former advertising and media operations, including alleged intellectual property infringement, defamation or right-of-publicity claims, privacy and consumer protection investigations or actions, advertising standards and disclosure issues, contractual disputes, and employment-related matters. The costs associated with defending or settling these legacy claims could diminish the cash reserves we intend to allocate toward our AI operations strategy.
Investor Base Misalignment: Investors who purchased our stock for exposure to the advertising and media sector may sell their shares as a result of our AI strategy leading to increased downward pressure on our stock price and heightened volatility during the expansion period.
Execution Risk: We may be unable to successfully develop, commercialize or scale our AI products and services, which could impair or delay our AI strategy.
If we are unable to successfully manage this expansion, our financial condition and the market price of our Common Stock could decline significantly.
As the regulatory framework for AI and machine learning technology evolves, our business, financial condition and results of AI operations may be adversely affected.
As discussed above, it is possible that new laws and regulations will be adopted in the United States, or existing laws and regulations may be interpreted in new ways, that would affect the operation of our marketplace and the way we use AI and machine learning technology, including with respect to fair lending laws. Further, the cost to comply with such laws or regulations could be significant and would increase our operating expenses, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Utilization of AI agents by our users, employees and competitors or our failure to incorporate AI technologies into our operations could adversely affect our business, reputation, or financial results.
AI agents have developed significantly in recent years and continue to advance. We believe our technology has the potential to impact the finance industry automating simple, repeatable tasks, and even streamlining some more sophisticated workflows. Certain of our users and competitors have begun experimenting with this technology. As this technology develops, demand for certain offerings could not materialize or decrease, which could have a negative impact on our ability to generate revenue in the future.
Additionally, although we have been using AI agents and believe the future of this technology is one of augmentation in addition to automation, there can be no assurance that we will successfully develop and employ AI-powered initiatives for users. A failure to realize our investments in AI may adversely impact our user engagement and have a material adverse impact on our business. Moreover, given that AI has advanced quicker than regulatory activity, other risks related to the use of AI include the possibility of new or enhanced governmental or regulatory scrutiny, litigation, or other legal liability, ethical concerns, negative user perceptions as to automation and AI, or other complications that could adversely affect our business, reputation, or financial results. Further, we face significant competition from other companies that are developing their own AI-powered products and technologies. Those other companies may develop AI-powered products and technologies that are similar or superior to our technologies or are more cost-effective to develop and deploy.
The AI models on which our business depends may produce inaccurate, biased, or harmful outputs, exposing us to reputational harm, regulatory action, and litigation.
Our AI-powered products and services rely on large language models, generative AI systems, and other machine learning technologies that are probabilistic in nature and may generate outputs that are factually incorrect, misleading, offensive, or otherwise harmful. These outputs, sometimes referred to as “hallucinations,” are an inherent limitation of current AI architectures, and we cannot guarantee that our mitigation efforts will be sufficient to prevent all such occurrences. If our AI systems produce inaccurate outputs that are relied upon by customers in high-stakes contexts such as healthcare, legal, financial, or safety-critical applications, it could lead us or our users to make decisions that could bias certain individuals or classes of individuals, and we could face significant liability exposure, regulatory enforcement actions, loss of customer trust, and material damage to our brand and reputation. The probabilistic nature of these systems means that similar inputs may produce vastly different outputs at different times, making comprehensive quality assurance and testing inherently difficult. There is no guarantee that improvements to our models will eliminate these risks, and as our products are deployed in increasingly consequential domains, the potential severity of harm from erroneous outputs increases accordingly.
Rapid technological change in the AI industry may render our products, services, or underlying technology obsolete or uncompetitive.
The AI industry is characterized by rapid and disruptive technological change, evolving industry standards, frequent new product introductions, and short product life cycles. Our competitive position depends on our ability to anticipate and adapt to these changes, develop and introduce new and enhanced products on a timely basis, and maintain the performance and cost-efficiency of our AI systems relative to competitors. Breakthroughs in AI architectures, training methodologies, inference optimization, or entirely new computational paradigms could fundamentally alter the competitive landscape in ways that are difficult to predict. Competitors or new market entrants may develop technologies that are superior to or more cost-effective than ours, or that render our current approach technically obsolete. The transition from one generation of AI technology to the next may require substantial capital investment with no assurance of adequate returns. If we fail to keep pace with technological advances or misallocate resources toward technologies that do not gain market acceptance, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
We face significant risks related to the availability, cost, and performance of the computational infrastructure required to train and deploy AI models.
Training and operating large-scale AI models requires access to substantial and specialized computational resources, including high-performance Graphics Processing Units, custom accelerators, and large-scale data center capacity. The global supply of these resources is constrained, and we depend on a limited number of suppliers, most notably NVIDIA Corporation, for critical hardware components. Any disruption to the supply chain for AI-specialized chips, whether due to geopolitical tensions, export controls, manufacturing constraints, natural disasters, or supplier-specific issues, could materially impair our ability to train new models, scale our services, or meet customer demand. The cost of compute has risen substantially and may continue to increase as competition for scarce resources intensifies. We also rely on cloud infrastructure providers, including Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform, for a significant portion of our computing needs, and any disruption to these services, adverse changes to their pricing or terms, or their decision to prioritize their own competing AI offerings could adversely affect our operations. The capital expenditure required to build or secure proprietary compute infrastructure is substantial, and there can be no assurance that our investments in such infrastructure will yield adequate returns.
Our AI systems depend on access to large quantities of high-quality training data, and restrictions on data availability could materially harm our competitive position.
The performance of our AI models is fundamentally dependent on the quantity, quality, and diversity of the data used by us and/or our third-party service providers to train them. We face increasing legal, regulatory, and contractual restrictions on the data available for AI training purposes. Copyright holders, content publishers, and data providers have increasingly asserted that the use of their content for AI training constitutes infringement, and several jurisdictions are considering or have enacted legislation that may restrict or impose conditions on the use of certain data for model training. Ongoing litigation regarding the applicability of fair use and similar doctrines to AI training data remains unresolved and could result in outcomes that materially restrict the data available to us. Website operators and content platforms have increasingly implemented technical measures to prevent AI companies from accessing their content. If we are unable to obtain sufficient high-quality training data, or if legal developments require us to obtain licenses for data we have previously used without explicit authorization, our ability to develop competitive AI models could be significantly impaired, and we could face substantial retroactive licensing costs or litigation exposure.
We may not be able to adequately protect our proprietary technology and intellectual property, and we face risks of infringement claims from third parties.
Our success depends in part on our ability to protect our proprietary AI models, training methodologies, datasets, software, and other intellectual property. We rely on a combination of trade secret, copyright, patent, and trademark law, as well as contractual restrictions, to protect our intellectual property rights. However, the legal protections available for AI-related innovations, including the patentability of AI-generated inventions and the copyrightability of AI model outputs, remain uncertain and are evolving. Our trade secrets, including model weights, training recipes, and proprietary techniques, could be independently discovered, reverse-engineered, or misappropriated by competitors or former employees. Additionally, we face the risk that third parties, including competitors with extensive patent portfolios, will assert intellectual property claims against us. The AI industry has seen a significant increase in patent assertion activity, and we may be required to obtain licenses, modify our technology, or cease certain activities in response to infringement claims, any of which could be costly and disruptive.
The regulatory environment for AI is rapidly evolving and uncertain, and new laws and regulations could materially restrict our operations, increase our costs, or expose us to enforcement actions.
Governments worldwide are actively developing and implementing regulatory frameworks for AI, and the pace and scope of regulatory activity has accelerated significantly. The European Union’s AI Act imposes risk-based compliance obligations that may require substantial modifications to our products, development processes, and operational practices. In the United States, a patchwork of federal executive orders, agency guidance, and state-level legislation creates a complex and potentially inconsistent regulatory landscape. China, Canada, Brazil, and other jurisdictions are pursuing their own regulatory approaches. These regulations may impose requirements related to algorithmic transparency, bias testing, impact assessments, data governance, human oversight, and content labeling that are technically difficult or commercially impractical to satisfy. The cost of regulatory compliance across multiple jurisdictions is substantial and growing, and non-compliance could result in significant fines, operational restrictions, or reputational harm. We may also face regulatory actions under existing consumer protection, anti-discrimination, privacy, or sector-specific laws that are applied to AI technologies in novel or unexpected ways. The uncertainty surrounding future regulation makes it difficult for us to plan our business and could deter potential customers from adopting our products.
We are and may in the future become subject to litigation and regulatory proceedings that could result in significant liabilities and divert management attention.
We are currently, and expect in the future to be, subject to claims, lawsuits, investigations, and regulatory proceedings relating to our AI products and services. These include claims alleging copyright infringement in connection with the use of training data, product liability claims arising from AI-generated outputs, employment-related claims arising from the use of AI in hiring or workforce decisions, privacy and data protection claims, securities law claims, and antitrust inquiries. The AI industry is experiencing a wave of class action litigation, particularly regarding training data and intellectual property rights, and the outcomes of these cases could establish precedents that materially affect our business and the industry broadly. Litigation and regulatory proceedings are inherently unpredictable, can be protracted and expensive, and divert significant management time and attention. An unfavorable resolution of any material legal matter could result in monetary damages, injunctive relief, consent decrees, or changes to our business practices that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Even meritorious defenses can be costly to prosecute, and the mere pendency of significant litigation could harm our reputation and business relationships.
Data privacy and protection laws impose significant compliance obligations and create litigation risk that could adversely affect our business.
We collect, process, store, and use substantial amounts of data, including personal data, in connection with the operation of our AI systems and services. We are subject to a broad and evolving array of data privacy and protection laws and regulations, including the General Data Protection Regulation in the European Union, the California Consumer Privacy Act (as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act), and numerous other federal, state, and international privacy laws. These laws impose complex obligations regarding data collection, use, storage, transfer, and deletion, and provide individuals with various rights regarding their personal data. Several data protection authorities have initiated investigations into AI companies regarding the lawfulness of processing personal data for model training, and we could face enforcement actions, fines, or orders to cease processing that could materially disrupt our operations. The interaction between AI-specific regulations and general privacy frameworks remains uncertain and could create compliance gaps or conflicting requirements. Cross-border data transfer restrictions, including uncertainty surrounding EU-U.S. data transfer mechanisms, add further complexity to our global operations.
Export controls, trade restrictions, and national security regulations may limit our ability to operate in certain markets and access critical technologies.
Our business is subject to export controls and trade restrictions imposed by the United States and other governments that may limit our ability to deploy AI products and services in certain jurisdictions, collaborate with foreign researchers, or access critical technologies and components. The U.S. government has imposed and may further expand export controls on advanced AI chips, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and AI model weights, particularly with respect to China and other countries of concern. These restrictions are evolving rapidly and may be expanded to cover additional technologies, end users, or jurisdictions. Compliance with export controls across multiple jurisdictions is complex and resource-intensive, and violations could result in significant civil and criminal penalties, loss of export privileges, and reputational harm. Retaliatory trade measures by foreign governments could also restrict our market access or supply chains. Additionally, emerging national security reviews of AI technologies, including reviews by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, may impose restrictions on our ability to accept foreign investment, form partnerships, or serve certain customers.
We face intense competition from well-resourced technology companies and new market entrants, and we may not be able to compete effectively.
The AI industry is intensely competitive and includes participants with substantially greater financial, technical, and other resources than we possess. Major technology companies, including Microsoft, Google (Alphabet), Amazon, Apple, and Meta Platforms, have invested billions of dollars in AI research, infrastructure, and product development, and have significant advantages in terms of distribution, existing customer relationships, access to proprietary data, and the ability to integrate AI capabilities into established platforms with massive user bases. These companies can afford to offer AI products at a loss or as bundled features of existing products, potentially making it difficult for us to compete on price or distribution. In addition, the open-source AI community has made significant advances in developing freely available models that approximate the capabilities of proprietary commercial offerings, which could erode the willingness of customers to pay for our products. New market entrants, including well-funded startups and sovereign AI initiatives, continue to emerge at a rapid pace. If we are unable to differentiate our products, achieve sufficient scale, and maintain our competitive position, our revenue growth and market share could be materially and adversely affected.
We have a limited operating history, have incurred significant losses, and may never achieve or sustain profitability.
We have a limited operating history upon which investors can evaluate our business and prospects. We have incurred significant net losses in each period since our inception, and we expect to continue to incur substantial losses for the foreseeable future as we invest heavily in research and development, computational infrastructure, talent acquisition, and go-to-market activities. The AI industry requires exceptionally high levels of capital investment, particularly for model training and inference infrastructure, and there can be no assurance that these investments will generate sufficient revenue to offset their costs. Our ability to achieve profitability depends on numerous factors, including our ability to increase revenue faster than operating expenses, achieve favorable unit economics on our AI services, manage the escalating cost of compute, and retain and expand our customer base. The pricing environment for AI products and services remains highly uncertain and subject to competitive pressure, and we may be compelled to reduce prices or offer more generous terms to attract or retain customers. If we are unable to achieve profitability or generate positive cash flow, we may require additional financing on terms that may be dilutive to existing stockholders or that may not be available at all.
Customer adoption of AI technology may be slower than we expect, and market demand may not develop as anticipated.
Our financial projections and growth strategy are based in part on expectations about the rate and extent of enterprise and consumer adoption of AI technology. However, the AI market is still nascent, and prospective customers may be reluctant to adopt AI products due to concerns about accuracy, reliability, data security, privacy, regulatory compliance, workforce displacement, integration complexity, or a general lack of trust in AI-generated outputs. High-profile incidents involving AI failures, including factual errors, biased outputs, or security breaches involving AI systems, whether involving our products or those of competitors, could reduce overall market confidence and slow adoption rates. Some potential customers may adopt a wait-and-see approach, delaying purchasing decisions until the technology is more proven or regulatory frameworks are more settled. Enterprise customers may face internal resistance from employees concerned about job displacement or from stakeholders skeptical of AI’s reliability for mission-critical applications. If the AI market does not grow at the rate we anticipate, or if potential customers delay or forgo adoption, our revenue, growth rate, and business prospects could be materially and adversely affected.
Our success depends on our ability to attract and retain highly skilled AI researchers and engineers in an exceptionally competitive labor market.
Our business is fundamentally dependent on the contributions of a relatively small number of highly specialized AI researchers, machine learning engineers, and technical leaders. The global talent pool for individuals with deep expertise in AI research and development is extremely limited, and competition for these individuals is intense among technology companies, academic institutions, government agencies, and well-funded startups worldwide. We compete for talent against organizations that may offer significantly higher compensation, more substantial equity packages, greater research autonomy, or other benefits that we may be unable to match. Key employees may leave to join competitors, establish their own ventures, or pursue academic careers, and we may be unable to find suitable replacements. Our research and product development capabilities could be materially impaired by the departure of even a small number of key personnel. Additionally, immigration policies and restrictions in the jurisdictions where we operate could limit our ability to recruit and retain foreign nationals who constitute a significant portion of the available talent pool. Any inability to attract, motivate, and retain the technical talent we need could materially harm our ability to compete and achieve our strategic objectives.
The concentration of our business in a rapidly evolving and potentially volatile industry exposes us to the risk of rapid and severe downturns.
Our business is concentrated entirely in the AI industry, and we do not have significant revenue diversification across other sectors or product categories. This concentration exposes us to the full impact of any downturn, disruption, or adverse development affecting the AI market specifically. Factors that could contribute to a market downturn include a sustained failure of AI products to deliver on enterprise value propositions, a significant AI-related safety incident that triggers widespread public or regulatory backlash, the bursting of speculative investment activity in the AI sector, a broad reduction in enterprise technology spending, or a fundamental reassessment of the near-term commercial viability of generative AI. A prolonged economic downturn could cause customers to reduce or defer AI spending, which is often categorized as discretionary or experimental within enterprise budgets. If the AI industry experiences a significant downturn for any reason, our business, financial condition, and results of operations would be disproportionately affected relative to more diversified technology companies.
AI safety and alignment risks could result in catastrophic harm and expose us to existential legal and regulatory liability.
As AI systems become more capable and autonomous, the risks associated with unintended, unsafe, or misaligned AI behavior increase. Despite significant investment in AI safety research and alignment techniques, there is no guarantee that we or the industry will successfully solve the alignment problem, which refers to the challenge of ensuring that advanced AI systems reliably pursue intended objectives without causing unintended harm. A significant AI safety incident, whether involving our systems or those of a competitor, could trigger an extreme regulatory response, including mandated moratoriums on AI development, mandatory capability limitations, or operational shutdowns. Such an incident could also trigger massive liability exposure, including potentially novel theories of liability for autonomous AI behavior. Governments may impose licensing requirements, safety testing mandates, or deployment restrictions that could be extremely costly to comply with or that could prevent us from deploying our most advanced models. The dual-use nature of advanced AI technology also means that our products could be misused for purposes including disinformation, cyberattacks, biological weapons development, or other harmful applications, which could subject us to legal liability and reputational damage irrespective of our own safety practices. The societal and political discourse around AI safety is highly dynamic and uncertain, and a shift in public sentiment or policy priorities could fundamentally alter the operating environment for our industry.
The capital requirements for AI development are substantial and increasing, and we may be unable to secure adequate financing on acceptable terms.
Developing, training, and deploying state-of-the-art AI models requires enormous and growing capital investment. Training runs for frontier AI models can cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in compute alone, and these costs are expected to increase as models grow in scale and complexity. In addition to training costs, we must invest heavily in inference infrastructure, data acquisition, talent compensation, and research and development to remain competitive. Our future capital needs will depend on many factors, including the pace of technological change, competitive dynamics, customer growth, and the regulatory environment. We may need to raise additional capital through equity offerings, debt financing, or strategic partnerships, and there can be no assurance that such financing will be available on acceptable terms or at all. Market conditions, investor sentiment toward AI companies, and our financial performance could all adversely affect our ability to raise capital. If adequate financing is not available, we may be forced to delay or scale back our research and development efforts, reduce our infrastructure investments, or otherwise limit our growth, any of which could materially and adversely affect our competitive position and long-term prospects.
Our revenue model is evolving, and we may not be able to establish pricing structures that adequately reflect the value we deliver or the costs we incur.
The commercial models for AI products and services are still developing, and there is no established consensus on optimal pricing approaches. We have experimented with and may continue to experiment with various pricing structures, including subscription-based models, usage-based pricing, freemium offerings, and enterprise licensing arrangements. Each of these models carries risks, including the risk that usage-based pricing may produce volatile and unpredictable revenue streams, that subscription pricing may not adequately capture the value delivered to heavy users, or that competitive pressure may force us to offer pricing that does not cover our marginal cost of inference. The cost of serving AI inference requests is significant and varies substantially depending on model size, query complexity, and computational requirements. If our pricing does not adequately account for these costs, or if competitive dynamics force us to reduce prices below sustainable levels, our gross margins could deteriorate and our path to profitability could be materially delayed. Additionally, the rapid commoditization of AI capabilities, particularly through open-source alternatives, may create persistent downward pressure on pricing across the industry.
Risks Related to Our Bitcoin Treasury Strategy
Our principal asset is Bitcoin. The concentration of our Bitcoin holdings enhances the risks inherent in our Bitcoin strategy.
Our Bitcoin strategy exposes us to various risks, including the following:
Bitcoin is a highly volatile asset. Bitcoin is a highly volatile asset that has traded below $75,000 per Bitcoin and above $125,000 per Bitcoin on the Coinbase exchange (a major U.S.-based crypto exchange) in the 12 months preceding the date of this Annual Report. The trading price of Bitcoin significantly decreased during prior periods, and such declines may occur again in the future. For example, the price of Bitcoin declined by approximately 77%, from a high of about $69,000 in November 2021 to approximately $16,000 in November 2022, before increasing by more than 300% to over $65,000 in March 2024. As of February 12, 2026, the price of Bitcoin was approximately $65,000. These price swings illustrate the substantial fluctuations Bitcoin may experience over short and long time periods, and future performance may differ materially from past results.
Bitcoin is a relatively new asset class with a limited history. Bitcoin is a digital asset that was introduced in 2009 and remains in the early stages of adoption compared to traditional currencies and assets. It lacks a long track record of performance and is subject to rapidly evolving regulatory, technological, and economic conditions. Unlike fiat currencies such as the U.S. Dollar or Euro, Bitcoin is not formally recognized legal tender in most jurisdictions and is not supported by any sovereign authority or central bank. This lack of governmental backing could diminish confidence in Bitcoin’s long-term viability and increase volatility and speculative risk.
Bitcoin is reliant on relatively new computer technology. Bitcoin operates through a decentralized, peer-to-peer network of computers using open-source software to verify and record transactions on a public ledger known as the Bitcoin blockchain. The absence of a central governing authority means that Bitcoin is reliant on the continued operation and integrity of this decentralized network. Bitcoin may be subject to changes in our underlying blockchain protocol, including “hard forks,” which result in divergent versions of the blockchain and potentially new digital assets. There is no assurance that we will be able to claim, access, or benefit from such forks or other developments, and there may be legal, technical, or operational uncertainties associated with them.
Bitcoin does not pay interest or dividends. Bitcoin does not pay interest or other returns, and we can only generate cash from our Bitcoin holdings if it sells our Bitcoin or implements strategies to create income streams or otherwise generate cash by using our Bitcoin holdings. Even if we pursue any such strategies, it may be unable to create income streams or otherwise generate cash from our Bitcoin holdings, and any such strategies may subject it to additional risks.
Our Bitcoin holdings may significantly impact our financial results and the market price of our listed securities. Our Bitcoin holdings may significantly affect our financial results and if we increase our overall holdings of Bitcoin in the future, it may have an even greater impact on our financial results and the market price of our listed securities.
Our assets are concentrated in Bitcoin. The vast majority of our assets will be concentrated in our Bitcoin holdings. The concentration of our assets in Bitcoin may limit our ability to mitigate risk that could otherwise be achieved by holding a more diversified portfolio of treasury assets.
We intend to purchase Bitcoin using primarily proceeds from equity and debt financings. Our ability to achieve the objectives of our Bitcoin strategy depends in significant part on our ability to obtain equity and debt financing. If we are unable to obtain equity or debt financing on favorable terms or at all, it may not be able to successfully execute on our Bitcoin strategy.
We will likely need to purchase Bitcoin from a limited number of exchanges or dealers . Bitcoin markets rely on a limited number of exchanges and dealers for liquidity. If these counterparties suspend withdrawals, become insolvent, or experience technical outages, we may not be able to sell Bitcoin when needed, regardless of market prices.
Our Bitcoin strategy has not been tested over an extended period of time or under different market conditions. We are continually examining the risks and rewards of our strategy to acquire and hold Bitcoin. This strategy has not been tested over an extended period of time or under different market conditions. For example, although we believe Bitcoin, due to our fixed supply, has the potential to serve as a hedge against inflation in the long term, the short-term price of Bitcoin has declined in recent periods during which the inflation rate increased. If Bitcoin prices were to decrease or our Bitcoin strategy otherwise proves unsuccessful, our financial condition, results of operations, and the market price of our listed securities would be materially adversely impacted.
We will be subject to counterparty risks, including in particular risks relating to our custodians. If one of the custodians or exchanges we use to store or transfer our Bitcoin experiences operational failure, insolvency, hacking, or fraud, we may not be able to recover our Bitcoin. Although we have implemented or intends to implement various measures that are designed to mitigate our counterparty risks, including by storing substantially all of the Bitcoin it will own in custody accounts at U.S.-based, institutional-grade, qualified custodians and negotiating contractual arrangements intended to establish that our property interest in custodially-held Bitcoin is not subject to claims of our custodians’ creditors. Custodial arrangements for digital assets are not as well-established as those for traditional assets. Digital asset services are concentrated among a small group of custodians and liquidity providers. Failure or instability at any one of these counterparties could have outsized effects on our treasury management. Our ability to enforce claims against custodians in bankruptcy or receivership is uncertain and applicable insolvency law is not fully developed with respect to the holding of digital assets in custodial accounts. If our custodially-held Bitcoin were nevertheless considered to be the property of our custodians’ estates in the event that any such custodians were to enter bankruptcy, receivership or similar insolvency proceedings, we could be treated as a general unsecured creditor of such custodians, inhibiting our ability to exercise ownership rights with respect to such Bitcoin, or delaying or hindering our access to our Bitcoin holdings, and this may ultimately result in the loss of the value related to some or all of such Bitcoin, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition as well as the market price of our listed securities.
The broader digital assets industry is subject to counterparty risks, which could adversely impact the adoption rate, price, and use of Bitcoin. A series of recent high-profile bankruptcies, closures, liquidations, regulatory enforcement actions and other events relating to companies operating in the digital asset industry have highlighted the counterparty risks applicable to owning and transacting in digital assets. Although these bankruptcies, closures, liquidations and other events have not resulted in any loss or misappropriation of our Bitcoin, nor have such events adversely impacted our access to our Bitcoin, they have, in the short-term, likely negatively impacted the adoption rate and use of Bitcoin. Additional bankruptcies, closures, liquidations, regulatory enforcement actions or other events involving participants in the digital assets industry in the future may further negatively impact the adoption rate, price, and use of Bitcoin, limit the availability to us of financing collateralized by Bitcoin, or create or expose additional counterparty risks.
Changes in the accounting treatment of our Bitcoin holdings could have significant accounting impacts, including increasing the volatility of our results. ASU 2023-08 requires us to measure our Bitcoin holdings at fair value in our statement of financial position, and to recognize gains and losses from changes in the fair value of our Bitcoin holdings in net income each reporting period. ASU 2023-08 requires us to provide certain interim and annual disclosures with respect to our Bitcoin holdings. Due in particular to the volatility in the price of Bitcoin, the adoption of ASU 2023-08 could have a material impact on our financial results, increase the volatility of our financial results, and affect the carrying value of our Bitcoin holdings on our balance sheet. As described in greater detail under the risk factor heading “ Unrealized fair value gains on our Bitcoin holdings could cause us to become subject to the corporate alternative minimum tax under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ,” ASU 2023-08 could also have adverse tax consequences. These impacts could in turn have a material adverse effect on our financial results and the market price of our listed securities.
The broader digital assets industry, including the technology associated with digital assets, the rate of adoption and development of, and use cases for, digital assets, market perception of digital assets, and the legal, regulatory, and accounting treatment of digital assets are constantly developing and changing, and there may be additional risks in the future that are not possible to predict.
Bitcoin is a highly volatile asset, and our operating results and market price may significantly fluctuate, including due to the highly volatile nature of the price of Bitcoin and erratic market movements.
Bitcoin is a highly volatile asset, and fluctuations in the price of Bitcoin are likely to influence our financial results and the market price of our listed securities, including having the potential to amplify our market price volatility relative to the price of Bitcoin. Our financial results and the market price of our listed securities would be adversely affected, and our business and financial condition would be negatively impacted, if the price of Bitcoin decreased substantially (as it has in the past), including as a result of:
decreased user and investor confidence in Bitcoin, 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 Bitcoin by large holders, including the expected liquidation of digital assets associated with entities that have filed for bankruptcy protection and the transfer and sale of Bitcoins associated with significant hacks, seizures, or forfeitures; and (iii) actual or perceived manipulation of the spot or derivative markets for Bitcoin or spot ETPs;
negative publicity, media or social media coverage, or sentiment due to events in or relating to, or perception of, Bitcoin or the broader digital assets industry, for example, (i) public perception that Bitcoin can be used as a vehicle to circumvent sanctions, including sanctions imposed on Russia or certain regions related to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, or to fund criminal or terrorist activities; (ii) expected or pending civil, criminal, regulatory enforcement or other high profile actions against major participants in the Bitcoin ecosystem; (iii) additional filings for bankruptcy protection or bankruptcy proceedings of major digital asset industry participants, such as the bankruptcy proceeding of FTX Trading Ltd. (“FTX Trading”) and our affiliates; and (iv) the actual or perceived environmental impact of Bitcoin and related activities, including environmental concerns raised by private individuals, governmental and non-governmental organizations, and other actors related to the energy resources consumed in the Bitcoin mining process;
changes in consumer preferences and the perceived value or prospects of Bitcoin;
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;
since stablecoins are often used as a medium of exchange for Bitcoin purchases, a stablecoin’s substantial deviation from our intended peg or unavailability of stablecoins may cause a decrease in the price of Bitcoin or adversely affect investor confidence in digital assets generally;
developments relating to the Bitcoin protocol, including (i) changes to the Bitcoin protocol that impact our security, speed, scalability, usability, or value, such as changes to the cryptographic security protocol underpinning the Bitcoin blockchain, changes to the maximum number of Bitcoin outstanding, changes to the mutability of transactions, changes relating to the size of blockchain blocks, and similar changes, (ii) failures to make upgrades to the Bitcoin protocol to adapt to security, technological, legal or other challenges, and (iii) changes to the Bitcoin protocol that introduce software bugs, security risks or other elements that adversely affect Bitcoin;
disruptions, failures, unavailability, or interruptions in service of trading venues for Bitcoin, such as, for example, the announcement by the digital asset exchange FTX Trading that it would freeze withdrawals and transfers from our accounts and subsequent filing for bankruptcy protection and the SEC enforcement action brought against Binance Holdings Ltd., which was subsequently dismissed by the district court judge upon a joint request filed by the SEC and Binance on May 29, 2025;
the filing for bankruptcy protection by, liquidation of, or market concerns about the financial viability of digital asset custodians, exchanges, trading venues, lending platforms, investment funds, or other digital asset industry participants, such as the filing for bankruptcy protection by digital asset trading venues FTX Trading and BlockFi and digital asset lending platforms Celsius Network and Voyager Digital Holdings in prior years, and the exit of Binance from the U.S. market as part of our settlement with the Department of Justice and other federal regulatory agencies;
regulatory, legislative, enforcement and judicial actions that adversely affect the price, ownership, transferability, trading volumes, legality or public perception of Bitcoin, or that adversely affect the operations of or otherwise prevent digital asset custodians, exchanges, 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 Bitcoin, including due to 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 Bitcoin transactions, or increases in the costs associated with Bitcoin mining, including increases in electricity costs and hardware and software used in mining, or new or enhanced regulation or taxation of Bitcoin mining, which could further increase the costs associated with Bitcoin mining, any of which may cause a decline in support for the Bitcoin network;
transaction congestion and fees associated with processing transactions on the Bitcoin 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 Bitcoin blockchain becoming insecure or ineffective; and
changes in national and international economic and political conditions, including, without limitation, federal government policies, trade tariffs and trade disputes, the adverse impacts attributable to the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the economic sanctions adopted in response to the conflict, and the broadening of conflict in the Middle East.
Due to our limited operating history and the concentration of our Bitcoin holdings, it will be difficult to evaluate our business and future prospects, and we may not be able to achieve or maintain profitability in any given period.
We have a limited operating history, particularly with respect to our current business model, which is highly concentrated in the acquisition and holding of Bitcoin. As a result, there is limited historical information available to evaluate our business, our management’s ability to execute our strategy, or our prospects for future growth and profitability. The lack of a diversified operating history increases the difficulty for investors and analysts to assess our performance, business model viability, and the likelihood of achieving or maintaining profitability. Furthermore, our financial results and prospects are highly dependent on the value and performance of our Bitcoin holdings, which are subject to significant volatility and risk. If we are unable to effectively manage our Bitcoin portfolio, respond to market changes, or adapt our business strategy as necessary, it may not be able to achieve or sustain profitability in any given period. This uncertainty may adversely affect the market price of our Common Stock and the value of an investment in our Company.
We operate in a highly competitive environment and compete against companies and other entities with similar strategies, including companies with significant Bitcoin holdings and spot ETFs and spot ETPs for Bitcoin and other digital assets, and our business, operating results, and financial condition may be adversely affected if we are unable to compete effectively.
The market for companies and investment vehicles focused on Bitcoin and other digital assets is intensely competitive and rapidly evolving. We face competition from a variety of sources, including other public companies with significant Bitcoin holdings and similar Bitcoin strategies, as well as spot ETFs and spot ETPs that provide investors with exposure to Bitcoin and other digital assets. Many of these competitors may have greater financial resources, more established operating histories, broader access to capital markets, and more extensive relationships with key market participants. In addition, the entry of new competitors, including large financial institutions and technology companies, could further intensify competition. Recent joint statements from the leadership of the SEC and CFTC explicitly invite new entrants (such as registered SEC/CFTC exchanges or dual-registered venues) to explore listing spot crypto-asset products. If we are unable to effectively differentiate our business model, attract and retain investors, or respond to competitive pressures, our business, operating results, and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected. Increased competition may also lead to downward pressure on the market price of our Common Stock and could impair our ability to achieve our strategic objectives.
Investing in Bitcoin exposes us to certain risks associated with the inherent nature of Bitcoin as a digital asset, such as price volatility, limited liquidity and trading volumes, relative anonymity, potential susceptibility to market abuse and manipulation, compliance and internal control failures at exchanges and other risks inherent in our entirely electronic, virtual form and decentralized network. Our risk management methods to address these risks might not be effective.
Our business model involves significant exposure to Bitcoin, which is subject to a number of unique and substantial risks inherent with many digital assets. The price of Bitcoin has historically been highly volatile and may continue to fluctuate dramatically in response to various factors, including market sentiment, regulatory developments, technological changes, macroeconomic trends, and the actions of large holders or market participants. Bitcoin markets rely on a limited number of exchanges and dealers for liquidity. If these counterparties suspend withdrawals, become insolvent, or experience technical outages, we may not be able to sell Bitcoin when needed, regardless of market prices. Bitcoin markets may also experience periods of limited liquidity and trading volumes, which could make it difficult for us to liquidate our holdings at favorable prices or at all. The relative anonymity of Bitcoin transactions and the decentralized nature of our network may make it susceptible to market abuse, manipulation, fraud, and other illicit activities. In addition, we are reliant on third-party exchanges and custodians for the purchase, sale, and safekeeping of our Bitcoin holdings, and failures in compliance, internal controls, or cybersecurity at these entities could result in significant losses. While we have implemented risk management policies and procedures to address these risks, there can be no assurance that such measures will be effective in preventing or mitigating losses. Any failure to adequately manage these risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Our quarterly operating results, revenues, and expenses may fluctuate significantly, which could have an adverse effect on the market price of our Common Stock.
We expect that our operating results, revenues, and expenses may vary significantly from quarter to quarter due to a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control. These factors include, but are not limited to, fluctuations in the market price of Bitcoin, changes in the fair value of our Bitcoin holdings, the timing and size of Bitcoin purchases or sales, changes in accounting standards or interpretations, and the impact of regulatory developments. In addition, our expenses may increase as it invests in infrastructure, personnel, and compliance measures to support our business. As a result, we may experience periods of losses or lower-than-expected profitability, which could cause the market price of our Common Stock to decline. The unpredictability of our financial performance may also make it difficult for investors to accurately forecast future results, increasing the risk associated with an investment in us.
The value of our Common Stock will depend to a great extent on market demand for our Bitcoin strategy. If market demand for that strategy were to diminish, the value of our Common Stock could decrease significantly.
The market value of our Common Stock is likely to be closely tied to investor perceptions of the attractiveness and viability of our Bitcoin-focused strategy. In recent years, corporate adoption of Bitcoin has been influenced by trends and market sentiment, with some companies acquiring Bitcoin to enhance their public profiles, attract investor attention, or pursue speculative strategies unrelated to their core businesses. If market enthusiasm for corporate Bitcoin adoption were to wane, or if investors were to view our strategy as less compelling or sustainable, demand for our Common Stock could decline significantly. Additionally, negative publicity, regulatory scrutiny, or adverse developments affecting other companies with similar strategies could further reduce investor interest in us. A decrease in market demand for our Bitcoin strategy could result in a significant decline in the value of our Common Stock, regardless of the underlying performance of our Bitcoin holdings.
A significant decrease in the market value of our Bitcoin holdings could adversely affect our ability to satisfy our financial obligations under our Convertible Notes Financing and any subsequent debt financings.
Our ability to meet our financial obligations, including those arising from our Convertible Notes Financing and any future debt financings, is dependent in large part on the value of our Bitcoin holdings. A significant decline in the market price of Bitcoin could materially reduce the value of our assets and impair our liquidity position. If the value of our Bitcoin holdings were to fall below certain thresholds, we may be unable to generate sufficient cash flows or access additional financing on favorable terms, or at all, to satisfy our debt obligations as they become due. In addition, a decline in the value of our Bitcoin holdings could trigger covenants or other provisions in our debt agreements, potentially resulting in defaults, acceleration of repayment obligations, or the need to post additional collateral. Any such events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations, and could result in a significant loss of value for holders of our Common Stock.
Future developments regarding the treatment of crypto assets for U.S. and foreign tax purposes could adversely impact our business.
The tax treatment of Bitcoin and other digital assets is subject to significant uncertainty and evolving guidance from U.S. federal, state, and local tax authorities, as well as foreign tax authorities. Changes in tax laws, regulations, or interpretations could have a material impact on our business, including our ability to acquire, hold, or dispose of Bitcoin in a tax-efficient manner. For example, future legislation or regulatory guidance could result in the imposition of new or increased taxes on the acquisition, holding, or transfer of Bitcoin, or could require us to report additional information to tax authorities. In addition, differences in the tax treatment of digital assets across jurisdictions could create compliance challenges and increase our administrative and operational costs. Any adverse developments in the tax treatment of digital assets could reduce the attractiveness of our business model, increase our tax liabilities, and negatively affect our financial results and the value of our Common Stock.
Bitcoin and other digital assets are novel assets, and are subject to significant legal, commercial, regulatory and technical uncertainty.
Bitcoin and other digital assets are relatively novel and are subject to significant uncertainty, which could adversely impact their price. The application of state and federal securities laws and other laws and regulations to Bitcoin and other digital assets is unclear in certain respects, and 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 of Bitcoin or the ability of individuals or institutions such as us to own or transfer Bitcoin.
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 Bitcoin or the ability of individuals or institutions such as us to own or transfer Bitcoin. For example, within the past several years:
President Trump signed an executive order instructing a working group comprised of representatives from key federal agencies to evaluate measures that can be taken to provide regulatory clarity and certainty built on technology-neutral regulations for individuals and firms involved in digital assets, including through well-defined jurisdictional regulatory boundaries;
the SEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 122, which rescinded Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121, directs certain entities to evaluate and account for potential losses from safeguarding crypto assets using existing U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) or International Financial Reporting Standards guidance. It also emphasizes the importance of continued disclosures related to these obligations;
the SEC has proposed changes to the SEC Custody Rule (Rule 206(4)-2), which may require, if adopted, that public companies store their Bitcoin with a “qualified custodian,” which are typically banks, trust companies, or regulated broker-dealers that meet strict asset segregation and safeguarding standards;
the European Union adopted Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation, a comprehensive digital asset regulatory framework for the issuance and use of digital assets, like Bitcoin;
in June 2023, the SEC filed a complaint against Coinbase, Inc. and Coinbase Global, Inc., alleging, among other claims, that Coinbase was operating as an unregistered securities exchange, broker, and clearing agency and that it failed to register the offer and sale of its crypto asset staking-as-a-service program. In March 2024, a federal court in the Southern District of New York ruled against Coinbase, finding that certain crypto asset transactions and the staking program might be considered securities and denying the company’s motion to dismiss. However, in February 2025, the SEC filed a joint stipulation with the Coinbase entities to dismiss its enforcement action against both entities exercising its discretion to do so, but not because the SEC conceded the merits of the claims alleged in the action;
in June 2023, the SEC filed a complaint against Binance Holdings Ltd., related Binance entities, and our founder Changpeng Zhao alleging, among other claims, that they were operating as an unregistered securities exchange, broker, dealer, and clearing agency and conducted an unregistered offer and sale of Binance’s own crypto assets. In June 2024, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order dismissing certain claims while allowing others to proceed. However, in May 2025, the SEC filed a joint stipulation with the Binance entities and Mr. Zhao to dismiss with prejudice its ongoing civil enforcement action against them in the exercise of its discretion;
in December 2020, the SEC filed a complaint against Ripple Labs, Inc., relating to, among other claims, that Ripple undertook the distribution of unregistered securities. In August 2024, the court found that Ripple’s sales of XRP constituted an unregistered offer and sale of investment contracts and ordered Ripple to pay a civil penalty of over $125 million. In June 2025, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York rejected a joint motion by Ripple Labs and the SEC that would have endorsed a $50 million fine to settle the civil lawsuit. In August 2025, the SEC dropped its appeal and Ripple dropped its cross-appeal, thus finalizing the $125 million judgment. Similar intervention by the U.S. courts may also materially impact the price of Bitcoin and our ability to own or transfer Bitcoin;
in November 2023, the SEC filed a complaint against Payward Inc. and Payward Ventures Inc., together known as Kraken, alleging, among other claims, that Kraken’s crypto trading platform was operating as an unregistered securities exchange, broker, dealer, and clearing agency. In March 2025, the SEC exercised its discretion and filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the SEC’s ongoing civil enforcement action against Kraken;
in June 2023, the United Kingdom adopted and implemented the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which regulates market activities in “cryptoassets;”
in November 2023, Binance Holdings Ltd. and its then chief executive officer reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, CFTC, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control, and the FinCEN to resolve a multi-year investigation by the agencies and a civil suit brought by the CFTC, pursuant to which Binance Holdings Ltd. agreed to, among other things, pay $4.3 billion in penalties across the four agencies and to discontinue its operations in the United States; and
in China, the People’s Bank of China and the National Development and Reform Commission have outlawed cryptocurrency mining and declared all cryptocurrency transactions illegal within the country. Other jurisdictions, including Egypt, Morocco and the Dominican Republic, have also made the use of Bitcoin illegal. If the use of Bitcoin is made illegal in other jurisdictions, particularly where Bitcoin is currently traded in heavy volumes, the available market for Bitcoin may contract. Additionally, if another government with considerable economic power were to ban digital assets or related activities, this could have further impact on the price of Bitcoin. As a result, the markets and opportunities discussed herein may not reflect the markets and opportunities available to us in the future.
Since 2018, the SEC has initiated a number of crypto and digital-asset-related enforcement actions. While the SEC has since requested the dismissal of several of these cases, the SEC or other regulatory agencies may initiate similar actions in the future, which could materially impact the price of Bitcoin and our ability to own or transfer Bitcoin. In January 2025, the SEC launched a crypto task force dedicated to developing a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework for crypto assets. Since then, the task force has sought written input and hosted roundtables with market participants to further task force goals of drawing clear regulatory lines, providing paths to registration, crafting disclosure frameworks, and deploying enforcement resources judiciously. We cannot predict the output of the new crypto task force or whether any recommendations will be adopted by the SEC or maintained under future administrations.
It is not possible to predict whether, or when, new laws will be enacted that change the legal framework governing digital assets or provide additional authorities to the SEC or other regulators, or whether, or when, any other federal, state or foreign legislative bodies will take any similar actions. It is also not possible to predict the nature of any such additional laws or authorities, how additional legislation or regulatory oversight might impact the ability of digital asset markets to function, the willingness of financial and other institutions to continue to provide services to the digital assets industry, or how any new laws or regulations, or changes to existing laws or regulations, might impact the value of digital assets generally and Bitcoin specifically. The consequences of any new law or regulation relating to digital assets and digital asset activities could adversely affect the market price of Bitcoin, as well as our ability to hold or transact in Bitcoin, and in turn adversely affect the market price of our listed securities.
Moreover, the risks of engaging in a Bitcoin treasury strategy are relatively novel and 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.
The growth of the digital assets industry in general, and the use and acceptance of Bitcoin in particular, may also impact the price of Bitcoin and is subject to a high degree of uncertainty. The pace of worldwide growth in the adoption and use of Bitcoin may depend, for instance, on public familiarity with digital assets, ease of buying, accessing or gaining exposure to Bitcoin, institutional demand for Bitcoin as an investment asset, the participation of traditional financial institutions in the digital assets industry, consumer demand for Bitcoin as a store of value or means of payment, and the availability and popularity of alternatives to Bitcoin. Even if growth in Bitcoin adoption occurs in the near or medium-term, there is no assurance that Bitcoin usage will continue to grow over the long-term.
Because Bitcoin has no physical existence beyond the record of transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain, a variety of technical factors related to the Bitcoin blockchain could also impact the price of Bitcoin. For example, malicious attacks by miners, inadequate mining fees to incentivize validating of Bitcoin transactions, hard “forks” of the Bitcoin blockchain into multiple blockchains, and advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry, and quantum computing could undercut the integrity of the Bitcoin blockchain and negatively affect the price of Bitcoin. The liquidity of Bitcoin may also be reduced and damage to the public perception of Bitcoin may occur, if financial institutions were to deny or limit banking services to businesses that hold Bitcoin, provide Bitcoin-related services or accept Bitcoin as payment, which could also decrease the price of Bitcoin. Actions by U.S. banking regulators, such as the issuance in February 2023 by Federal banking agencies of the “Interagency Liquidity Risk Statement,” which cautioned banks on contagion risks posed by providing services to digital assets customers, and similar actions, have in the past resulted in or contributed to reductions in access to banking services for Bitcoin-related customers and service providers, or the willingness of traditional financial institutions to participate in markets for digital assets. The liquidity of Bitcoin may also be impacted to the extent that changes in applicable laws and regulatory requirements negatively impact the ability of exchanges and trading venues to provide services for Bitcoin and other digital assets.
The concentration of Bitcoin ownership could increase the risk of malicious activity, including potential attacks on the Bitcoin network.
A significant portion of the overall supply of Bitcoin is held by a relatively small number of holders. This concentration of ownership may make the Bitcoin network more susceptible to manipulation or malicious activity by a large holder or group of holders. Malicious actors could theoretically structure an attack whereby such actors gain control of more than half of the Bitcoin network’s processing power, or “aggregate hashrate.” If a malicious actor or group of actors acquired a hashrate exceeding the rest of the Bitcoin network, it would be able to exert unilateral control over the addition of blocks to the Bitcoin blockchain. This would allow a malicious actor to engage in “double spending” (i.e., use the same Bitcoin for two or more transactions), prevent other transactions from being confirmed on the Bitcoin blockchain, or prevent other miners from mining any valid new blocks. Each of the events described above, among other things, could adversely affect the price of Bitcoin; reduce user confidence in Bitcoin, the Bitcoin network and the fairness of digital asset trading venues; and slow (or even reverse) the further adoption of Bitcoin. Any of these outcomes could materially and adversely affect the value of our Bitcoin holdings and, as a result, the market price of our securities.
Bitcoin could be subject to complex and costly regulatory requirements, and future regulatory developments are impossible to predict.
Depending on the regulatory characterization of Bitcoin, our business and our Bitcoin strategy may be subject to regulation by one or more regulators in the United States and globally. The CFTC takes the position that some digital assets, including Bitcoin, fall within the definition of a “commodity” under the CEA. Under the CEA, the CFTC has broad enforcement authority to police market manipulation and fraud in spot digital assets markets, including the Bitcoin markets in which we would transact. The CFTC does not currently have regulatory jurisdiction over the cash-market for commodities such as Bitcoin, but does comprehensively regulate the commodity derivatives markets. This includes the futures and swaps markets for Bitcoin through which we may engage in hedging activities. Among other things, such regulations may require us to post margin with a clearinghouse or counterparty, which would limit our ability to acquire additional Bitcoin. Additionally, any violation of CFTC regulations applicable to our hedging activities could have a significant financial and reputational impact on the company.
Senior SEC officials have stated their view that Bitcoin is not a “security” for purposes of the federal securities laws, but such statements are not official policy statements by the SEC and reflect only the speakers’ views, which are not binding on the SEC or any other agency or court and cannot be generalized to any other digital assets. Future regulatory developments with respect to Bitcoin from the CFTC, SEC, or any other federal or state regulator, are difficult to predict.
Bitcoin and other digital assets currently face an uncertain regulatory landscape in not only the United States but also in many foreign jurisdictions such as the European Union, China and Russia. Various foreign jurisdictions may, in the future, adopt laws, regulations or directives that affect digital asset networks and their users, particularly digital asset exchanges and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. Such laws, regulations or directives may conflict with those of the United States and may negatively impact the acceptance of Bitcoin and other digital assets by users, merchants and service providers outside of the United States and may therefore impede the growth of the Bitcoin and digital asset economy.
Future legislation and regulatory requirements could have an adverse impact on the Bitcoin market and/or our proposed business.
Various governmental and regulatory bodies in the United States - including the United States Congress - may adopt new laws or regulations that could affect the listing and clearing of crypto-related products. Several bills to address the digital asset regulatory landscape have been introduced in the first few months of the 119 th Congress (2025-2027), including:
a stablecoin bill (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (“GENIUS Act”) S.1582), which has passed the Senate and House of Representatives with bipartisan support and was signed into law on July 18, 2025;
one strategic Bitcoin reserve bill (Boosting Innovation, Technology, and Competitiveness through Optimized Investment Nationwide (“BITCOIN Act”) S.954), which is currently undergoing review in the Senate; and
a crypto-asset market structure bill (CLARITY Act H.R.3633), which was passed by the House of Representatives on July 17, 2025, with bipartisan support and will be delivered to the Senate;
The GENIUS Act introduces the first comprehensive federal framework for stablecoins, requiring full 1:1 backing, reserve, and anti-money-laundering compliance. Although the GENIUS Act focuses on stablecoins, our regulatory framework and enforcement mechanisms could influence broader digital asset oversight, indirectly affecting Bitcoin custody, trading infrastructure, and compliance costs. In addition, several legislative efforts to address the regulation of cryptocurrency, including Bitcoin, have been introduced and are currently pending congressional consideration. Emerging laws and proposals in the U.S. federal government may materially affect our operations, Bitcoin holdings, and investment outcomes.
The CLARITY Act, specifically, would clarify which digital assets are commodities versus securities. Additionally, the CLARITY Act would subject certain spot-market digital commodities to a comprehensive regulatory regime for the first time in the United States. While this legislation could have a positive impact on the price of Bitcoin if market participants believe that regulatory clarity and market structure is an advantage, it could also have a negative impact on the industry and the value of Bitcoin if legal and regulatory requirements arising from such legislation are deemed to be too onerous, or for several other reasons.
Separately, it is not currently possible to know what changes will be made to the CLARITY Act as it proceeds through the legislative phases, in the event that it is signed into law. Currently, the legislation only requires registration of entities acting as brokers, dealers, exchanges and custodians, rather than entities like ours. However, such entities may bear costs associated with registration that may be passed on to us and other entities transacting in Bitcoin. Additionally, the current legislation would amend the definition of “commodity interests” to include certain digital commodities, which would likely include Bitcoin. Such an amendment could cause certain collective investment vehicles that invest in Bitcoin or advise others as to investing in Bitcoin to be required to register with the CFTC as commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) or commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”). While we do not currently anticipate that we would be required to register as a CPO or CTA even under the current version of the CLARITY Act, if it were required to do so, we could face increased compliance costs and regulatory scrutiny, which could have a material and adverse impact on our business and performance.
If we elect to use derivative instruments to hedge the price risk of holding Bitcoin, such derivatives are highly volatile and subject to market and liquidity risks, which could negatively impact our Bitcoin strategy.
We may invest and trade in a variety of derivative instruments to hedge the price risk associated with Bitcoin. Derivatives, such as futures and swaps, are financial instruments or arrangements in which the risk and return are related to changes in the value of other assets, reference rates or indices. These instruments are highly volatile and expose investors to a high risk of loss. The low initial margin deposits normally required to establish a position in such instruments permit a high degree of leverage. As a result, depending on the type of instrument, a relatively small movement in the price of a contract may result in a profit or a loss which is high in proportion to the amount of funds actually placed as initial margin and may result in unquantifiable further loss exceeding any margin deposited. Our ability to profit or avoid risk through investment or trading in derivatives will depend on our ability to anticipate changes in the underlying assets, reference rates or indices. Engaging in hedging may result in poorer overall performance for us than we could have achieved had it not engaged in such hedging transactions. In addition, although we may utilize a variety of instruments, including options and other derivatives, for hedging and risk management purposes, it is not obligated to, and may not, hedge against certain risks. Furthermore, our portfolio may be exposed to risks that cannot be hedged. Use of hedging and risk management products may also increase our regulatory burden and costs of compliance.
We will be exposed to the default risk of our clearing broker if we hedge the price risk of Bitcoin through the purchase of futures contracts.
If we use a clearing broker to help manage financial transactions - such as buying or selling Bitcoin futures contracts to hedge against Bitcoin price swings - then we will be exposed to the clearing broker’s credit risk. Under the CEA and CFTC regulations, futures contracts must be cleared through a clearing broker known as a registered futures commission merchant (“FCM”). FCMs hold a certain amount of the customer collateral that customers deposit in connection with their futures trading and are responsible for posting that collateral to the clearinghouse on the customer’s behalf when the clearinghouse issues a margin call. FCMs are required to maintain such collateral and all customer assets in a segregated account. If the FCM fails to do so or is unable to satisfy a substantial deficit in a customer account, our customers (including us) may be subject to risk of loss of their funds in the event of the FCM’s insolvency. In such event, under the current U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the FCM’s customers (including us) are entitled to recover only a proportional share of all property available for distribution to all of that FCM’s customers. We may therefore be exposed to material losses in the event of an FCM’s or fellow FCM customer’s default or insolvency.
Qualified Financial Contract Stay rules may restrict our ability to liquidate our positions or exercise default rights in the event that a swap counterparty becomes insolvent.
Under regulations issued by certain U.S. banking regulators that are currently in effect, certain large U.S. financial institutions and their subsidiaries, as well as the U.S. branches or subsidiaries of certain large non-US financial institutions, are required to amend the default and transfer provisions of their “Qualified Financial Contracts” (“QFCs”), and to ensure that future QFCs comply with the relevant regulations.
QFCs include swaps and repurchase agreements (among other types of contracts) and guarantees and other forms of credit enhancement for such contracts, that receive certain favorable treatment under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code by permitting market participants (like us) to avoid the otherwise-applicable “automatic stay” provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, and terminate the contracts in the event of the financial institution’s or our guarantor’s bankruptcy. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that, in the event of a large financial institution’s bankruptcy, or the bankruptcy of a guarantor or covered affiliate, QFC counterparties do not simultaneously terminate their positions and cause a liquidity shortfall before the financial institution’s affiliates and/or federal regulators are able to resolve the defaulting entity in an orderly fashion.
As a result of these regulations, if we enter into QFCs with a covered financial institution, and that financial institution, our guarantor or a covered affiliate becomes bankrupt ( i.e. , it becomes subject to a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution or similar proceeding), we may be restricted from immediately terminating that agreement, which could lead to losses on our positions.
In addition, various foreign jurisdictions have adopted comparable rules, including France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland and U.K. If we enter into QFCs with a covered financial institution in any of those foreign jurisdictions, the restrictions on immediately terminating QFCs could lead to a negative effect on our business.
The emergence or growth of other digital assets, including those with significant private or public sector backing, including by governments, consortiums or financial institutions, could have a negative impact on the price of Bitcoin and adversely affect our business.
As a result of our Bitcoin strategy, our assets are concentrated in our Bitcoin holdings. Accordingly, the emergence or growth of digital assets other than Bitcoin may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. As of February 1, 2026, Bitcoin was the largest digital asset by market capitalization. However, there are numerous alternative digital assets and many entities, including consortiums and financial institutions, are researching and investing resources into private or permissioned blockchain platforms or digital assets that do not use proof-of-work mining like the Bitcoin network. For example, in late 2022, the Ethereum network transitioned to a “proof-of-stake” mechanism for validating transactions on the network that requires significantly less computing power than proof-of-work mining. As a result, validators now stake, or lock up, a certain amount of Ethereum’s native cryptocurrency, Ether, as collateral. The Ethereum network has completed another major upgrade since then and may undertake additional upgrades in the future. If the mechanisms for validating transactions on the Ethereum network and other alternative blockchain networks are perceived as superior to proof-of-work mining used for the Bitcoin network, those alternative blockchain networks and their associated digital assets could gain market share relative to Bitcoin.
Other alternative digital assets that may compete with Bitcoin in certain ways include “stablecoins,” which are designed to maintain a constant price because of, for instance, their issuers’ promise to hold high-quality liquid assets (such as U.S. dollar deposits and short-term U.S. treasury securities) equal to the total value of stablecoins in circulation. Stablecoins have grown rapidly as an alternative to Bitcoin and other digital assets as a medium of exchange and store of value, particularly on digital asset trading platforms. Stablecoins offer users the benefit of blockchain-based transactions without exposure to the price volatility historically associated with Bitcoin. As adoption of stablecoins grows, they may increasingly serve functions that might otherwise have been fulfilled by Bitcoin, particularly for payments, remittances, or short-term transactional use cases. If stablecoins gain broader acceptance by consumers, businesses, or regulators as a preferred form of digital currency, demand for Bitcoin could diminish. This competitive dynamic may adversely affect Bitcoin’s market price, reduce trading volumes, and negatively impact our Bitcoin-related holdings, financial performance, and strategic initiatives.
Additionally, central banks in some countries have started to introduce digital forms of legal tender often known as CBDCs. For example, China’s CBDC project was made available to consumers in January 2022, and governments including the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Israel have been discussing the potential creation of new CBDCs. Whether or not they incorporate blockchain or similar technology, CBDCs, as legal tender in the issuing jurisdiction, could also compete with, or replace, Bitcoin and other digital assets as a medium of exchange or store of value. As a result, the emergence or growth of these or other digital assets could cause the market price of Bitcoin to decrease, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.
The availability of spot Bitcoin ETPs for Bitcoin and other digital assets may adversely affect the market price of our listed securities and may make it more difficult for us to execute our Bitcoin strategy.
Although Bitcoin 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 Bitcoin through traditional investment channels, and instead generally were only able to hold Bitcoin 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 Bitcoin directly, as well as the potential reluctance of financial planners and advisers to recommend direct Bitcoin holdings to their retail customers because of the manner in which such holdings are custodied, some investors have sought exposure to Bitcoin through investment vehicles that hold Bitcoin and issue shares representing fractional undivided interests in their underlying Bitcoin 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, possibly due to the relative scarcity of traditional investment vehicles providing investment exposure to Bitcoin.
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 $4.6 billion on the first trading day. To the extent investors view our Common Stock as providing exposure to Bitcoin, it is possible that the value of our Common Stock may also have included a premium over the value of our Bitcoin due to the prior scarcity of traditional investment vehicles providing investment exposure to Bitcoin, and that the value of our Common Stock may decline due to investors now having a greater range of options to gain exposure to Bitcoin and investors choosing to gain such exposure through spot Bitcoin ETPs rather than our Common Stock. 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 digital asset supporting and underlying the Ethereum blockchain. The approved Ether spot ETPs commenced trading directly to the public on July 23, 2024. The listing and trading of spot ETPs for Ether offers investors another alternative to gain exposure to digital assets, which could result in a decline in the trading price of Bitcoin as well as a decline in the value of our Common Stock relative to the value of our Bitcoin.
Although we are an operating company and believe it offers a different value proposition than a Bitcoin investment vehicle such as a spot Bitcoin 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 Bitcoin 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 Bitcoin that is generally not subject to federal income tax at the entity level, or the other risk factors applicable to an operating business, such as ours. Additionally, unlike spot Bitcoin ETPs, we (i) do not seek for our shares of our Common Stock to track the value of the underlying Bitcoin it holds before payment of expenses and liabilities, (ii) do not benefit from various exemptions and relief under the Exchange Act, including Regulation M, and other securities laws, which enable ETPs to continuously align the value of their shares to the price of the underlying assets they hold through share creation and redemption, (iii) are a Delaware corporation rather than a statutory trust, and does not operate pursuant to a trust agreement that would require us to pursue one or more stated investment objectives, and (iv) are not required to provide daily transparency as to our Bitcoin holdings or our daily net asset value. 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 spot Bitcoin ETPs, and other vehicles which offer economic exposure to Bitcoin, such as Bitcoin futures ETFs, leveraged Bitcoin futures ETFs, and similar vehicles offered on international exchanges, any premium or discount in our Common Stock relative to the value of our Bitcoin holdings may increase or decrease in different market conditions.
As a result of the foregoing factors, availability of spot Bitcoin ETPs for Bitcoin and other digital assets could have a material adverse effect on the market price of our listed securities.
In the ordinary course of business managing our Bitcoin holding as a Bitcoin treasury company, we may purchase Bitcoin through spot markets which may be exposed to fraud and market manipulation, including through front running and wash trading, which may adversely affect the value of the shares of our Common Stock.
The blockchain infrastructure could be used by certain market participants to exploit arbitrage opportunities through schemes such as front-running, spoofing, pump-and-dump and fraud across different systems, platforms or geographic locations. As a result of reduced oversight, these schemes may be more prevalent in digital asset markets than in the general market for financial products.
The SEC has identified possible sources of fraud and manipulation in the Bitcoin market generally, including, among others (1) “wash trading”; (2) persons with a dominant position in Bitcoin manipulating Bitcoin pricing; (3) hacking of the Bitcoin network and trading platforms; (4) malicious control of the Bitcoin network; (5) trading based on material, non-public information (for example, plans of market participants to significantly increase or decrease their holdings in Bitcoin, new sources of demand for Bitcoin, etc.) or based on the dissemination of false and misleading information; (6) manipulative activity involving purported “stablecoins,” including Tether; and (7) fraud and manipulation at Bitcoin trading platforms.
In the ordinary course of business managing our Bitcoin holding as a Bitcoin treasury company, we may purchase Bitcoin through spot markets. Over the past several years, a number of Bitcoin spot markets have been closed or faced issues due to fraud. In many of these instances, the customers of such Bitcoin spot markets were not compensated or made whole for the partial or complete losses of their account balances in such Bitcoin exchanges.
In 2022, there were reports claiming that more than half of Bitcoin trading volume on digital asset exchanges was fake. Such reports alleged that certain overseas exchanges have displayed suspicious trading activity suggestive of a variety of manipulative or fraudulent practices. Other academics and market observers have put forth evidence to support claims that manipulative trading activity has occurred on certain Bitcoin exchanges. For example, in a 2017 paper titled “Price Manipulation in the Bitcoin Ecosystem” sponsored by the Interdisciplinary Cyber Research Center at Tel Aviv University, a group of researchers used publicly available trading data, as well as leaked transaction data from a 2014 Mt. Gox security breach, to identify and analyze the impact of “suspicious trading activity” on Mt. Gox between February and November 2013, which, according to the authors, caused the price of Bitcoin to increase from around $150 to more than $1,000 over a two-month period. In August 2017, it was reported that a trader or group of traders nicknamed “Spoofy” was placing large orders on Bitfinex without actually executing them, presumably in order to influence other investors into buying or selling by creating a false appearance that greater demand existed in the market. In December 2017, an anonymous blogger (publishing under the pseudonym Bitfinex’d) cited publicly available trading data to support his or her claim that a trading bot nicknamed “Picasso” was pursuing a paint-the-tape-style manipulation strategy by buying and selling Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash between affiliated accounts in order to create the appearance of substantial trading activity and thereby influence the price of such assets.
The potential consequences of a spot market’s failure or failure to prevent market manipulation could adversely affect the value of the shares of our Common Stock. Any market abuse, and a loss of investor confidence in Bitcoin, may adversely impact pricing trends in Bitcoin markets broadly, as well as an investment in shares of our Common Stock.
The price of Bitcoin on available spot markets may be exposed to wash trading.
Spot markets on which Bitcoin trades, through which we may purchase Bitcoin, may be susceptible to wash trading. Wash trading occurs when offsetting trades are entered into for other than bona fide reasons, such as the desire to inflate reported trading volumes. Wash trading may be motivated by non-economic reasons, such as a desire for increased visibility on popular websites that monitor markets for digital assets so as to improve their attractiveness to investors who look for maximum liquidity, or it may be motivated by the ability to attract listing fees from token issuers who seek the most liquid and high-volume exchanges on which to list their coins. Results of wash trading may include unexpected obstacles to trade and erroneous investment decisions based on false information.
Even in the United States, there have been allegations of wash trading even on regulated venues. Any actual or perceived false trading in the digital asset exchange market, and any other fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the value of Bitcoin and/or negatively affect the market perception of Bitcoin.
To the extent that wash trading either occurs or appears to occur in spot markets on which Bitcoin trades, investors may develop negative perceptions about Bitcoin and the digital assets industry more broadly, which could adversely impact the price of Bitcoin and, therefore, the price of shares of our Common Stock. Wash trading also may place more legitimate digital asset exchanges at a relative competitive disadvantage.
The price of Bitcoin on available spot markets may be exposed to front-running.
Spot markets on which Bitcoin trades, through which we may purchase Bitcoin, may be susceptible to “front-running,” which refers to the process when someone uses technology or market advantage to get prior knowledge of upcoming transactions. Front-running is a frequent activity on centralized as well as decentralized exchanges. By using bots functioning on a millisecond-scale timeframe, bad actors are able to take advantage of the forthcoming price movement and make economic gains at the cost of those who had introduced these transactions. The objective of a front runner is to buy a chunk of tokens at a low price and later sell them at a higher price while simultaneously exiting the position. Front-running happens via manipulations of gas prices or timestamps, also known as slow matching. To the extent that front-running occurs, it may result in investor frustrations and concerns as to the price integrity of digital asset exchanges and digital assets more generally.
Bitcoin is susceptible to various types of malicious attacks, including a “51% attack” and such an attack, even temporarily, could adversely impact the price of Bitcoin and the value of shares of our Common Stock.
Digital asset networks, including the Bitcoin network, are subject to control by entities that capture a majority of the network’s computational power. If a single attacker, or a group of attackers acting in concert, control (even temporarily) a majority of the network mining power (known as hash rate) of the Bitcoin network, known as a “51%” attack, they could engage in harmful acts that could threaten the integrity of the network. For example, such attackers could reverse completed transactions, approve or reject transactions solely for their own benefit, or modify the ordering of transactions. This might allow these malicious actors to “double-spend” their own Bitcoin (i.e., spend the same Bitcoin in more than one transaction) and prevent the confirmation of other users’ transactions for so long as it maintained control. To the extent that such malicious actors did not yield our control of the processing power on the Bitcoin network or the network community did not reject the fraudulent blocks as malicious, reversing any changes made to the Bitcoin network may not be possible.
Further, a malicious actor could create a flood of transactions in order to slow down confirmations of transactions on the Bitcoin network. For example, on June 2, 2018, the Horizen network was the target of a double-spend attack by an unknown actor that gained more than 50% of the processing power of the Horizen network. The attack was the result of delayed submission of blocks to the Horizen network. The core developers of Zen subsequently implemented mitigation procedures to significantly increase the difficulty of attacks of this nature by introducing a penalty for delayed block submissions.
Bitcoin mining pools, where miners combine their computational resources (hash power) to increase their chances of mining new blocks and earning rewards, have become a crucial part of the Bitcoin network. If large mining pools were to combine their resources and act maliciously, it could increase the risk of a 51% attack. Moreover, if a majority of miners used the same hardware to mine Bitcoin and such hardware contained malicious code, it is possible that the distributor of that code could launch a 51% attack. For example, in May 2019, the Bitcoin Cash network, a proof-of-work network, experienced a >50% attack when two large mining pools reversed a series of transactions to stop an unknown miner from taking advantage of a flaw in a recent Bitcoin Cash protocol upgrade. Although this particular attack was arguably benevolent, certain individuals believe it negatively impacted the Bitcoin Cash network.
A 51% attack is more likely to happen in the context of digital assets with smaller market capitalizations due to the reduced computing power threshold required to control a majority of a given network. Nevertheless, it is theoretically possible to mount a similar 51% attack on Bitcoin or other digital assets with large market capitalization. If the feasibility of a bad actor gaining control of the processing power on the Bitcoin network increases, there may be a negative effect on the value of Bitcoin and the value of the shares of our Common Stock.
There are only a few developers who have the authority to maintain the Bitcoin code. A malicious actor could obtain control over the Bitcoin network by influencing or exerting control over one more maintainers. The malicious actor could, for example, convince or pressure a maintainer to modify the code in a manner that benefits the malicious actor. If such amended code is then unknowingly incorporated by a majority of miners, the malicious actor might be able to manipulate the Bitcoin network to their benefit. To the extent the malicious actor is successful, and such amendments enable the malicious exploitation of the Bitcoin network, the risk that a malicious actor may be able to obtain control of the Bitcoin network in this manner exists, which may adversely affect the value of our Common Stock.
To the extent that the Bitcoin ecosystem, including the core developers and the administrators of mining pools, does not act to ensure greater decentralization of mining processing power, the feasibility of a malicious actor obtaining control of the processing power on the Bitcoin network will increase, which may adversely affect the value of the shares of our Common Stock.
If any of these exploitations or attacks occur, it could result in a loss of public confidence in Bitcoin and a decline in the value of Bitcoin and, as a result, adversely impact shares of our Common Stock.
There is legal and regulatory uncertainty around Bitcoin and other digital assets, and our Bitcoin strategy could subject it to enhanced regulatory oversight.
As noted above, several spot Bitcoin ETPs have received approval from the SEC to list their shares on a U.S. national securities exchange with continuous share creation and redemption at net asset value. Even though we are not, and do not function in the manner of, a spot Bitcoin ETP, it is possible that we nevertheless could face regulatory scrutiny from the SEC or other federal or state agencies due to our Bitcoin holdings.
In addition, there has been increasing focus on the extent to which digital assets can be used to launder the proceeds of illegal activities, fund criminal or terrorist activities, or circumvent sanctions regimes, including those sanctions imposed in response to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. While we have implemented or intends to implement and maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to promote compliance with applicable anti-money laundering, know-your-customer and sanctions laws and regulations and take care to only acquire our Bitcoin through entities subject to anti-money laundering/know-your-customer regulation and related compliance rules in the United States, if it is found to have purchased any of our Bitcoin from bad actors that have used Bitcoin to launder money or persons subject to sanctions, we may be subject to regulatory proceedings, investigations and any further transactions or dealings in Bitcoin by we may be restricted or prohibited.
At the Closing, Legacy ProCap contributed its Bitcoin to us, and we use a portion of the Bitcoin and/or cash and cash equivalents to secure the Convertible Notes. We may incur additional indebtedness or enter into other financial instruments in the future that may be collateralized by our Bitcoin holdings. We may also consider pursuing strategies to create income streams or otherwise generate funds using our Bitcoin holdings. These types of Bitcoin-related transactions may be the subject of enhanced regulatory oversight. These and any other Bitcoin-related transactions we may enter into, beyond simply acquiring and holding Bitcoin, may subject it to additional regulatory compliance requirements and scrutiny, including under Federal and state money services regulations, money transmitter licensing requirements and various commodity and securities laws and regulations.
Additional laws, guidance and policies may be issued by domestic and foreign regulators following the filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection by FTX, one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, in November 2022. While the financial and regulatory fallout from FTX’s collapse did not directly impact our business, financial condition or corporate assets, the FTX collapse may have increased regulatory focus on the digital assets industry. Increased enforcement activity and changes in the regulatory environment, including changing interpretations and the implementation of new or varying regulatory requirements by the government or any new legislation affecting Bitcoin, as well as enforcement actions involving or impacting our trading venues, counterparties and custodians, may impose significant costs or significantly limit our ability to hold and transact in Bitcoin.
Bitcoin trading venues may experience greater fraud, security failures or regulatory or operational problems than trading venues for more established asset classes.
Bitcoin trading venues are relatively new and, in many cases, unregulated. Furthermore, there are many Bitcoin trading venues which do not provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management teams, corporate practices and regulatory compliance. As a result, the marketplace may lose confidence in Bitcoin trading venues, including prominent exchanges that handle a significant volume of Bitcoin trading and/or are subject to regulatory oversight, in the event one or more Bitcoin trading venues cease or pause for a prolonged period the trading of Bitcoin or other digital assets, or experience fraud, significant volumes of withdrawal, security failures or operational problems.
In 2019 there were reports claiming that 80-95% of Bitcoin trading volume on trading venues was false or non-economic in nature, with specific focus on unregulated exchanges located outside of the United States. The SEC also alleged as part of our June 5, 2023 complaint against Binance Holdings Ltd. that Binance committed strategic and targeted “wash trading” through our affiliates to artificially inflate the volume of certain digital assets traded on our exchange. The SEC has also brought recent actions against individuals and digital asset market participants alleging that such persons artificially increased trading volumes in certain digital assets through wash trades or repeated buying and selling of the same assets in fictitious transactions to manipulate their underlying trading price. Such reports and allegations may indicate that the Bitcoin market is significantly smaller than expected and that the United States makes up a significantly larger percentage of the Bitcoin market than is commonly understood. Any actual or perceived wash trading in the Bitcoin market, and any other fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the value of our Bitcoin. Negative perception, a lack of stability in the broader Bitcoin markets and the closure, temporary shutdown or operational disruption of Bitcoin trading venues, lending institutions, institutional investors, institutional miners, custodians, or other major participants in the Bitcoin ecosystem, due to fraud, business failure, cybersecurity events, government-mandated regulation, bankruptcy, or for any other reason, may result in a decline in confidence in Bitcoin and the broader Bitcoin ecosystem and greater volatility in the price of Bitcoin. Since 2018, the SEC has initiated a number of crypto and digital-asset-related enforcement actions. While the SEC has since requested the dismissal of several of these cases, the SEC or other regulatory agencies may initiate similar actions in the future, which could materially impact the price of Bitcoin and our ability to own or transfer Bitcoin. As the price of our listed securities is affected by the value of our Bitcoin holdings, the failure of a major participant in the Bitcoin ecosystem could have a material adverse effect on the market price of our listed securities.
In addition, private actors that are wary of Bitcoin or the regulatory concerns associated with Bitcoin have in the past taken and may in the future take further actions that may have an adverse effect on our business or the market price of our listed securities.
Failure to maintain effective Anti-Money Laundering and Know Your Customer compliance policies could adversely affect our business, reputation, and regulatory standing.
We implemented a comprehensive KYC and AML Policy designed to comply with global AML and CTF laws and regulations. The policy includes board-level governance, annual risk assessments, customer identification procedures, enhanced due diligence for high-risk customers, ongoing transaction monitoring, daily sanctions screening, and prompt reporting of suspicious activities. We also conduct annual AML/KYC training for all employees and engage an independent third party to audit our program annually.
Despite these measures, there can be no assurance that our policies and procedures will be fully effective in preventing the use of services for money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit activities. The legal and regulatory landscape governing AML, KYC, and CTF compliance continues to evolve, and we may be subject to increased scrutiny or new regulatory requirements in the jurisdictions in which we operate. Any failure, or perceived failure, to maintain effective compliance programs could result in significant legal, financial, and reputational harm, including regulatory enforcement actions, monetary penalties, operational restrictions, and loss of business opportunities.
Moreover, detecting and preventing such misuse is inherently challenging, and despite our efforts, we may not be able to identify all illicit activity in a timely manner or at all. Any such failure could harm our reputation, impair customer and partner confidence, and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
We do not have policies in place to address airdrops, incidental rights, or hard forks, and any failure to adopt or implement such policies in a timely manner could expose us to operational, legal, and compliance risks.
As part of our operations, we may be affected by events such as airdrops, the receipt of incidental rights, or blockchain protocol changes known as hard forks. At present, we do not have formal policies or procedures in place to address the accounting, operational, tax, legal, or regulatory implications of these events. We plan to evaluate the need for such policies in consultation with our board of directors. While our audit committee and board of directors will monitor related risks as part of their oversight responsibilities, there can be no assurance that appropriate policies will be adopted or implemented in a timely manner, or at all.
The absence of formalized policies increases our exposure to various risks, including inconsistent treatment of such events, potential violations of applicable laws or regulations, financial reporting inaccuracies, and operational inefficiencies. In addition, future receipt of digital assets through airdrops or forks may raise questions about our rights and obligations with respect to such assets, as well as potential tax liabilities. If we fail to appropriately address these issues, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
Our Bitcoin holdings will be less liquid than existing cash and cash equivalents and may not be able to serve as a source of liquidity for it to the same extent as cash and cash equivalents.
Historically, the Bitcoin market has 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 our entirely electronic, virtual form and decentralized network. During times of market instability, we may not be able to sell our Bitcoin at favorable prices or at all. For example, a number of Bitcoin exchanges or other trading venues temporarily halted deposits and withdrawals in 2022. As a result, our Bitcoin holdings may not be able to serve as a source of liquidity for it to the same extent as cash and cash equivalents. Further, Bitcoin we hold with our custodians and transact with our trade execution partners 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. Additionally, we may be unable to enter into term loans or other capital raising transactions collateralized by our unencumbered Bitcoin or otherwise generate funds using our Bitcoin holdings, including in particular during times of market instability or when the price of Bitcoin has declined significantly. If we are unable to sell our Bitcoin, enter into additional capital raising transactions, including capital raising transactions using Bitcoin as collateral, or otherwise generate funds using our Bitcoin holdings, or if it is forced to sell our Bitcoin at a significant loss, in order to meet our working capital requirements, our business and financial condition could be negatively impacted.
If we or our third-party service providers experience a security breach or cyber-attack and unauthorized parties obtain access to our Bitcoin assets, we may lose some or all of our Bitcoin assets temporarily or permanently and our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
Substantially all of the Bitcoin we own will be held in custody accounts at institutional-grade digital asset qualified custodians. Our third-party custody partners, including Anchorage and BitGo, safeguard our Bitcoin. Any material failure by our partners to maintain the necessary controls, policies, procedures to manage our Bitcoin could adversely impact our business, operating results, and financial condition. Security breaches and cyberattacks are of particular concern with respect to our Bitcoin. Bitcoin and other blockchain-based cryptocurrencies and the entities that provide services to participants in the Bitcoin ecosystem have been, and may in the future be, subject to security breaches, cyberattacks, or other malicious activities. A successful security breach or cyberattack could result in:
a partial or total loss of our Bitcoin in a manner that may not be covered by insurance or the liability provisions of the custody agreements with the custodians who hold our Bitcoin;
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 Bitcoin blockchain ecosystem or in the use of the Bitcoin network to conduct financial transactions, which could negatively impact us.
Attacks upon systems across a variety of industries, including industries related to Bitcoin, 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, unauthorized parties have attempted, and we expect that they will continue to 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 since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The risk of cyberattacks could also be increased by cyberwarfare in connection with the ongoing Russia-Ukraine and Middle East 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 Bitcoin industry, including third-party services on which it relies, could materially and adversely affect our business.
We face risks relating to the custody of our Bitcoin, including the loss or destruction of private keys required to access our Bitcoin and cyberattacks or other data loss relating to our Bitcoin, which could cause us to lose some or all of our Bitcoin.
We hold our Bitcoin with regulated qualified custodians at U.S.-based, institutional-grade custodians that have demonstrated records of regulatory compliance and information security. We do not anticipate that our custodial services contracts will restrict our ability to reallocate our Bitcoin among our custodians, and our Bitcoin holdings may be concentrated with a single custodian from time to time. If there is a decrease in the availability of digital asset qualified custodians that we believe can safely custody our Bitcoin, for example, due to regulatory developments or enforcement actions that cause custodians to discontinue or limit their services in the United States.
We may need to enter into agreements that are less favorable than our current agreements or take other measures to custody our Bitcoin, and our ability to seek a greater degree of diversification in the use of custodial services would be materially adversely affected.
Our insurance may only cover losses of a small fraction of the value of the entirety of our Bitcoin holdings, and there can be no guarantee that such insurance will be maintained as part of the custodial services we will have or that such coverage will cover losses with respect to our Bitcoin. Moreover, our use of custodians exposes it to the risk that the Bitcoin our custodians hold on our behalf could be subject to insolvency proceedings and we could be treated as a general unsecured creditor of the custodian, inhibiting our ability to exercise ownership rights with respect to such Bitcoin. Any loss associated with such insolvency proceedings is unlikely to be covered by any insurance coverage we maintain related to our Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is controllable only by the possessor of both the unique public key and private key(s) relating to the local or online digital wallet in which the Bitcoin is held. While the Bitcoin blockchain ledger requires a public key relating to a digital wallet to be published when used in a transaction, private keys must be safeguarded and kept private in order to prevent a third party from accessing the Bitcoin held in such wallet. To the extent the private key(s) for a digital wallet are lost, destroyed, or otherwise compromised and no backup of the private key(s) is accessible, neither we nor our custodians will be able to access the Bitcoin held in the related digital wallet. Furthermore, we cannot provide assurance that our digital wallets, nor the digital wallets of our custodians held on our behalf, will not be compromised as a result of a cyberattack. The Bitcoin and blockchain ledger, as well as other digital assets and blockchain technologies, have been, and may in the future be, subject to security breaches, cyberattacks, or other malicious activities.
Regulations may limit the number and quality of financial institutions that provide custodial services for Bitcoin.
On January 23, 2025, the SEC rescinded Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 and replaced it with Staff Accounting Bullet 122. SAB 122 expands the scope of reporting obligations for any companies with digital asset holdings subject to “crypto asset safeguarding obligations.” While the standard primarily addresses custodial assets, there is ambiguity regarding whether companies that use third-party custodians or engage in other digital asset treasury activities may be required to recognize liabilities or enhanced disclosures related to their Bitcoin holdings. If our Bitcoin treasury strategy is deemed to create safeguarding obligations under SAB 122, we could be required to recognize corresponding liabilities and assets, increasing reported balance sheet size without a change in economic exposure. This could distort financial metrics, increase compliance costs, and create additional risks of investor confusion or regulatory scrutiny.
Regulatory change reclassifying Bitcoin as a security could lead to our classification as an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”) and could adversely affect the market price of Bitcoin and the market price of our listed securities. Any such regulatory change could also require us to institute burdensome regulatory requirements, and our activities may be restricted. We are not subject to the legal and regulatory obligations that apply to investment companies such as mutual funds and ETFs, or to obligations applicable to investment advisers, which could pose risks to investors.
Our assets are concentrated in our Bitcoin holdings. The CFTC has asserted regulatory authority over Bitcoin and courts have generally accepted that Bitcoin falls under the CFTC’s purview for commodities regulation. While senior SEC officials have stated their view that Bitcoin is not a “security” for purposes of the federal securities laws, a contrary determination by the SEC could lead to our classification as an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act, which would subject us to significant additional regulatory controls, fines or other penalties that could have a material adverse effect on our ability to execute on our Bitcoin strategy and our business and operations, and may also require it to substantially change or restructure the manner in which we conduct our business, including discontinuing certain products or services. We cannot assure investors that, under certain conditions, changed circumstances, or changes in the law, we may not become subject to the Investment Company Act or other burdensome regulations.
In addition, if Bitcoin 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 Bitcoin and in turn adversely affect the market price of our listed securities.
If we were to become subject to the legal and regulatory obligations that apply to investment companies such as mutual funds and ETFs, or to obligations applicable to investment advisers, the costs of compliance could be burdensome and could prevent us from executing our Bitcoin strategy.
Mutual funds, ETFs and their directors and management are subject to extensive regulation as “investment companies” and “investment advisers,” as applicable, 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 Bitcoin strategy, our use of leverage, the manner in which our Bitcoin is 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. Our board of directors has broad discretion over the investment, leverage and cash management policies it authorizes, whether in respect of our Bitcoin holdings or other activities it may pursue, and has the power to change our current policies, including our strategy of acquiring and holding Bitcoin. Registration under, and compliance with, the Advisers Act (or comparable state laws) could be costly and could divert attention of us and our directors. If registration is required, there can be no assurance that necessary approvals will be obtained, or that statutory, regulatory, judicial, or administrative interpretations of existing laws and regulation will not in the future impose more comprehensive or stringent requirements on us and our directors.
Our Bitcoin strategy exposes it to risk of non-performance by counterparties, including in particular risks related to our custodians.
Our Bitcoin strategy exposes it to the risk of non-performance by counterparties, whether contractual or otherwise. Risk of non-performance includes inability or refusal of a counterparty to perform because of a deterioration in the counterparty’s financial condition and liquidity or for any other reason. For example, our execution partners, custodians, or other counterparties might fail to perform in accordance with the terms of our agreements with them, which could result in a loss of Bitcoin, a loss of the opportunity to generate funds, or other losses.
Our primary counterparty risk with respect to our Bitcoin is custodian performance obligations under the custody arrangements it has entered into. A series of relatively recent high-profile bankruptcies, closures, liquidations, regulatory enforcement actions and other events relating to companies operating in the digital asset industry, including the filings for bankruptcy protection by Three Arrows Capital, Celsius Network, Voyager Digital, FTX Trading and Genesis Global Capital, among others, and the filing and subsequent settlement of a civil fraud lawsuit by the New York Attorney General against Genesis Global Capital, our parent company Digital Currency Group, Inc., and former partner Gemini Trust Company have highlighted the perceived and actual counterparty risk applicable to digital asset ownership and trading. Although these bankruptcies, closures and liquidations have not resulted in any loss or misappropriation of our Bitcoin, nor have such events adversely impacted our access to our Bitcoin, legal precedent created in these bankruptcy and other proceedings may increase the risk of future rulings adverse to our interests in the event one or more of our custodians becomes a debtor in a bankruptcy case or is the subject of other liquidation, insolvency or similar proceedings.
While our custodians are subject to regulatory regimes intended to protect customers in the event of a custodial bankruptcy, receivership or similar insolvency proceeding, no assurance can be provided that our custodially-held Bitcoin will not become part of the custodian’s insolvency estate if one or more of our custodians enters bankruptcy, receivership or similar insolvency proceedings. Additionally, if we pursue any strategies to create income streams or otherwise generate funds using our Bitcoin holdings, it would become subject to additional counterparty risks. Any significant non-performance by counterparties, including in particular the custodians with which we custody substantially all of our Bitcoin, could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.
We may pursue strategies to generate income or liquidity from our Bitcoin holdings, such as lending, staking, or entering into other arrangements, which could significantly increase our exposure to counterparty, credit, and operational risks.
In addition to the risks associated with the custody of our Bitcoin, we may from time to time pursue strategies to generate income or liquidity from our Bitcoin holdings, including lending Bitcoin to third parties, entering into repurchase or derivative arrangements, staking assets (including other cryptocurrency assets, although Bitcoin itself does not natively support staking), or using our holdings in other ways that may involve the transfer or encumbrance of digital assets. These strategies inherently involve heightened counterparty risk, particularly where our Bitcoin is transferred to or held by third parties for purposes of collateralization, lending, or income generation. Any such arrangements could expose us to the risk of loss in the event of the counterparty’s default, insolvency, fraud, or mismanagement. In addition, these activities may subject us to complex legal, regulatory, and tax regimes that continue to evolve and remain uncertain. If a counterparty fails to return our Bitcoin as expected, or if our rights in such arrangements are not enforceable in the event of insolvency or other adverse proceedings, we could suffer substantial losses. These risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Because a substantial portion of our total assets consists of Bitcoin, a prolonged decline in the market price of Bitcoin could cause us to fall below Nasdaq’s continued listing standards for minimum stockholders’ equity or market value of listed securities.
A significant portion of our total assets is comprised of Bitcoin, and as a result, the value of our assets will be highly sensitive to fluctuations in the market price of Bitcoin. Nasdaq’s continued listing standards require listed companies to maintain certain minimum levels of stockholders’ equity and market value of listed securities. If the market price of Bitcoin were to experience a prolonged or severe decline, the value of our Bitcoin holdings - and consequently, our total assets and stockholders’ equity - could decrease substantially. Such a decline could cause us to fall below the minimum requirements for continued listing on Nasdaq, including the minimum stockholders’ equity or market value of listed securities. If we were to fail to satisfy these continued listing standards, Nasdaq could initiate delisting proceedings, which would likely have a material adverse effect on the liquidity and market price of our Common Stock. Delisting could also impair our ability to access capital markets, attract and retain investors, and execute our business strategy. Even the risk of potential delisting could negatively impact investor confidence and the value of our Common Stock.
Negative developments in the cryptocurrency industry - including fraud, cybercrime or platform failures - may result in unfavorable publicity and could impact investor sentiment with respect to us even if we are not directly involved in any of the reported events.
The cryptocurrency industry has been subject to a number of high-profile negative developments, including instances of fraud, theft, cyberattacks, regulatory enforcement actions, and failures or insolvencies of major trading platforms and custodians. Even if we are not directly involved in or affected by such events, negative publicity and heightened scrutiny of the cryptocurrency industry as a whole could adversely impact investor sentiment toward companies with significant exposure to digital assets, including ours. For example, reports of security breaches, mismanagement, or criminal activity at other cryptocurrency companies or exchanges may lead to increased concerns about the safety and legitimacy of digital assets generally, which could result in reduced demand for our Common Stock, increased volatility in our share price, and greater difficulty in raising capital or maintaining business relationships. In addition, negative industry developments may prompt regulatory authorities to impose stricter requirements or oversight, which could increase our compliance costs and operational risks. The perception of heightened risk in the cryptocurrency sector, regardless of our actual involvement or risk profile, could therefore have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition, and results of operations.
We may engage in staking activities with respect to digital assets that we hold, which could expose us to significant risks, including regulatory, operational, and financial risks.
Staking involves committing digital assets to support the operations of a blockchain network, including transaction validation and governance, in exchange for potential rewards. The regulatory treatment of staking remains uncertain, but the SEC recently issued a statement providing that certain cryptoasset staking activities in connection with proof-of-stake networks do not create investment contracts that would require registration under the federal securities laws. Specifically, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance issued a statement on May 29, 2025, stating that protocol staking activities, such as self-staking and custodial staking, are not considered investment contracts under the Howey test. This means that these activities do not involve the offer or sale of securities and are not subject to registration requirements under federal securities laws. However, this statement is narrowly framed and fact-dependent, and does not address all variations of staking, including “liquid staking” and “restaking.” Additionally, the SEC statement is non-binding and does not foreclose contrary SEC guidance or enforcement activity.
In addition, staking often involves the risk of “slashing,” a mechanism by which staked assets may be forfeited due to network rule violations or technical errors. Staked assets may also be subject to lock-up periods or delayed withdrawal windows, limiting liquidity and financial flexibility. Furthermore, staking typically requires reliance on third-party custodians or validator infrastructure, increasing exposure to cybersecurity threats, loss of access to digital wallets, or operational failures. These risks, combined with the evolving and complex nature of staking protocols, could result in asset loss, reduced returns, or other adverse effects on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Our advertising revenue and cryptocurrency-focused media business are subject to risks and uncertainties, including those related to the use of digital assets and staking activities, which could adversely affect our financial performance.
A portion of our business and revenue is derived from advertising and media operations focused on cryptocurrency markets, digital assets, and blockchain-related content. Advertising spending in this sector is highly volatile and closely tied to overall sentiment and activity in the cryptocurrency industry, which is subject to rapid market fluctuations, evolving technology, and increased regulatory scrutiny. Downturns in the digital asset markets, negative press coverage, or changes in public perception may cause advertisers to reduce or eliminate their spending on cryptocurrency-related platforms. As part of our advertising and media offerings, we may accept digital assets as payment from advertisers or partners and, with respect to certain Proof-of-Stake digital assets, we may engage in staking activities with respect to those assets to generate additional yield. The risks associated with staking are described above.
Moreover, our ability to attract and retain advertisers depends on the size and engagement of our audience, the perceived credibility and neutrality of our content, and our ability to comply with increasingly complex regulations governing financial promotions and digital marketing. Any adverse developments in these areas could materially and adversely affect our media operations, advertising revenue, and overall business and financial results.
Changes to the protocols underlying blockchain networks, including soft forks and hard forks, may result in significant disruptions, chain splits, or divergence in asset values, any of which could materially and adversely affect the value of our digital asset holdings and our business operations.
Blockchain networks, such as Bitcoin, operate on open-source protocols that are not centrally governed. As a result, changes to these protocols - whether through “soft forks” that maintain backward compatibility or “hard forks” that create incompatible versions - are typically initiated and adopted through community consensus. For certain changes, such as soft forks, miners may signal their support with hash power, but ultimate enforcement of rule changes is determined by the node operators who validate transactions and blocks. If a substantial portion of nodes rejects a proposed change, especially in the context of a hard fork, the network may experience a chain split in which two or more divergent versions of the blockchain emerge.
Such chain splits can lead to operational disruptions, security vulnerabilities, or significant uncertainty regarding which blockchain version will be recognized as the “main” chain. In the event of a fork, we may hold or receive assets on multiple chains, which could result in unexpected tax, legal, or accounting consequences, or may expose us to technical or custodial risks. Additionally, forks can cause volatility in the price and liquidity of digital assets held by us, particularly if there is a lack of consensus among network participants or divergence in community support, market acceptance, or exchange listings. These risks could adversely impact the value of our digital assets, impair our ability to generate revenue or pursue our business strategies, and result in increased compliance, legal, or operational costs.
Future acquisitions by us may create additional risks.
We regularly consider possible acquisitions of Bitcoin-related companies and AI companies. The success of this strategy is dependent upon our ability to identify appropriate acquisition targets, negotiate transactions on favorable terms, finance transactions, complete transactions and successfully integrate them into our existing business. Subject to the terms of our indebtedness, we may finance future acquisitions with cash from operations, additional indebtedness and/or by issuing additional equity or debt securities. Acquisitions can involve a number of special risks and challenges, including, but not limited to:
delays in closing the acquisition due to third-party consents, regulatory approvals or other reasons;
adverse effects from disclosed or undisclosed matters pertaining to the acquisition;
loss or termination of employees and the costs associated with the termination or replacement of such employees;
the assumption of debt, litigation or other liabilities of the acquired business
the incurrence of additional debt related to the acquisition;
costs, expenses and working capital requirements associated with the acquisition;
dilution of stock ownership of existing stockholders; and
accounting charges for restructuring and related expenses, impairment of goodwill, amortization of intangible assets and stock-based compensation expense.
Even if we consummate an acquisition, the process of integrating the new acquisition into our operations may result in unforeseen operational difficulties and additional costs and may adversely affect the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting. In addition, valuations supporting our acquisitions and strategic investments could change rapidly and integration may be more costly to accomplish than we expect. Moreover, our management may not be able to effectively manage a substantially larger business or successfully operate a new line of business. Furthermore, in completing acquisitions, we will rely upon the representations and warranties and indemnities made by the sellers with respect to each acquisition as well as our own due diligence investigation. We cannot assure you that such representations and warranties will be true and correct or that our due diligence will uncover all materially adverse facts relating to the operations and financial condition of the acquired companies or their businesses. To the extent that we are required to pay for undisclosed obligations of an acquired company, or if material misrepresentations exist, we may not realize the expected economic benefit from such acquisition and our ability to seek legal recourse from the seller may be limited. Failure to manage these acquisition risks could materially and adversely affect our ability to achieve anticipated levels of utilization, profitability or other benefits from the acquisitions, and ultimately could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Risks Related to Being a Public Company
The market price of our Common Stock may be volatile and decline materially as a result of volatility in Bitcoin or the digital asset markets generally, or for other reasons. You should be aware that you may lose some or all of your investment.
The trading price of our Common Stock is likely to be volatile. The stock market has recently experienced and in the future may experience extreme volatility. This volatility has often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of particular companies. You may not be able to resell your shares of our Common Stock at an attractive price due to a number of factors such as the following:
our operating and financial performance and prospects;
risk of our credit rating being downgraded;
our quarterly or annual earnings or those of other companies in our industry compared to market expectations;
conditions that impact demand for our future products and/or services;
future announcements concerning our business, our customers’ businesses or our competitors’ businesses;
the public’s reaction to our press releases or other public announcements and filings with the SEC;
the market’s reaction to our reduced disclosure and other requirements as a result of being an “emerging growth company” under the JOBS Act;
the size of our public float;
volatility in Bitcoin, our principal asset;
coverage by or changes in financial estimates by securities analysts or failure to meet their expectations;
market and industry perception of our success, or lack thereof, in pursuing our strategy;
strategic actions by us or our competitors, such as acquisitions or restructurings;
changes in laws or regulations which adversely affect our industry or us;
privacy and data protection laws, privacy or data breaches, or the loss of data;
changes in our accounting standards, policies, guidance, interpretations or principles;
changes in our senior management or key personnel;
issuances, exchanges or sales, or expected issuances, exchanges or sales of our Common Stock;
changes in our dividend policy;
failure by us to comply with regulatory requirements, including those related to governance and control requirements in particular jurisdictions, international sanctions or a change in regulations or enforcement policies that adversely affects our operations;
adverse resolution of new or pending investigation, regulatory action or litigation against us; and
changes in general market, economic and political conditions in the United States and other global economies or financial markets, including those resulting from inflation and related monetary policy in response to inflation, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, acts of war and responses to such events.
These broad market and industry factors may materially reduce the market price of our Common Stock, regardless of our operating performance. In addition, price volatility may be greater if the public float and trading volume of our Common Stock is low. As a result, you may suffer a loss on your investment. Our share price may be exposed to additional risks because our business became a public company through a “de-SPAC” transaction. There has been increased focus by government agencies on such transactions, and we expect that increased focus to continue. We may be subject to increased scrutiny by the SEC and other government agencies on holders of our securities as a result, which could adversely affect the price of our Common Stock.
A substantial part of our assets are our Bitcoin holdings and cash and cash equivalents from the proceeds of the Business Combination and the Transaction Financings not invested in Bitcoin. Although we expect to have certain other operations, we will depend on such retained cash and cash equivalents to pay our debts and other obligations.
A substantial part of our assets are our Bitcoin holdings and cash and cash equivalents from the proceeds of the Business Combination and the Transaction Financings not invested in Bitcoin. While we may generate revenue through the creation of media products related to Bitcoin as well as the active management of our Bitcoin holdings these business strategies are subject to risks as described in this section, our ability to pay taxes and operating expenses, as well as our debt service obligations in the future, if any, will be largely dependent upon the financial results and cash flows resulting from our business strategies. There can be no assurance that we will generate sufficient cash flow from our media products or active management of our Bitcoin holdings, or that applicable law and contractual restrictions, including negative covenants under any debt instruments, if applicable, will permit the sale of Bitcoin that secures then-outstanding notes in order to fund working capital needs. We may default on contractual obligations or have to borrow additional funds. In the event that we are required to borrow additional funds, it could adversely affect our liquidity and subject it to additional restrictions imposed by lenders. If we enter into additional financing or other agreements in the future, we cannot make assurances that these agreements will be on favorable terms or that they will not restrict the distribution of dividends or other payments to shareholders.
Our ability to timely raise capital in the future may be limited, or may be unavailable on acceptable terms, if at all. Our failure to raise capital when needed could harm our business, operating results and financial condition.
We cannot be certain if it will generate sufficient cash through our provision products or the active management of our Bitcoin holdings to fund future operations or growth of our business. Additional financing may not be available on favorable terms, if at all. If adequate funds are not available on acceptable terms, we may be unable to invest in future growth opportunities, which could harm our business, operating results and financial condition. We incurred debt at Closing pursuant to the issuance of the Convertible Notes, and may from time to time incur additional debt in order to further our Bitcoin acquisition strategy. If we incur additional debt, the debt holders could also have rights senior to holders of our Common Stock to make claims on our assets. The terms of any debt could restrict our operations, including our ability to pay dividends on our Common Stock. As a result, our common stockholders will bear the risk of future issuances of debt securities reducing the value of our Common Stock.
Our common stockholders will experience dilution in the future due to any exercise of existing Warrants and any future issuances of our equity securities for acquisitions.
We currently have outstanding Warrants. In addition, we may issue additional equity securities in the future. The exercise of our Warrants or the issuance of additional shares of our Common Stock or other equity-linked securities will dilute the ownership interests of existing shareholders and may adversely affect the market price of our Common Stock.
The issuance of additional shares or convertible securities by us could make it difficult for another company to acquire us, may dilute the ownership of our common stockholders and could adversely affect the price of our Common Stock.
We may obtain additional financing and may issue additional shares and/or offering debt or other equity securities, including senior or subordinated notes, debt securities convertible into equity and/or preferred shares. Issuing additional shares of our Common Stock, other equity securities, and/or securities convertible into equity may dilute the economic and voting rights of our existing shareholders, reduce the market price of outstanding shares of our Common Stock, or both. Debt securities convertible into equity could be subject to adjustments in the conversion ratio pursuant to which certain events may increase the number of equity securities issuable upon conversion. Preferred shares, if issued, could have a preference with respect to liquidating distributions or a preference with respect to dividend payments that could limit our ability to pay dividends to the holders of our Common Stock. The potential issuance of additional securities may delay or prevent a change in control of us, discourage bids for our securities at a premium to the market price, and materially and adversely affect the market price and the voting and other rights of the holders of our securities, including our Common Stock. Our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, which may adversely affect the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. As a result, holders of our Common Stock bear the risk that our future offerings and exercise of any options under any stock option plans that we may implement may reduce the market price of our Common Stock and dilute their percentage ownership.
We will incur significant costs as a result of being a public company, including additional legal, accounting, insurance and other expenses, as well as costs associated with public company reporting requirements.
We will incur significant legal, accounting, insurance and other expenses, including costs associated with public company reporting requirements. We will incur significant costs associated with complying with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, and related rules implemented by the SEC and Nasdaq, or any other national securities exchange on which it may list our securities. These laws and regulations could make it more difficult or costly for us to obtain certain types of insurance, including directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, and we may be forced to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. These laws and regulations could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our Board or board committees or as executive officers. Furthermore, if we are unable to satisfy our obligations as a public company, it could be subject to delisting of our Common Stock, fines, sanctions and other regulatory action and potentially civil litigation.
Our management team is expected to have limited experience managing and operating a U.S. public company.
Certain members of our management team are expected to have limited experience managing and operating a U.S. publicly traded company, interacting with U.S. public company investors, and complying with the increasingly complex laws pertaining to U.S. public companies. The transition to being a U.S. public company subjects us to significant regulatory oversight and reporting obligations under the U.S. federal securities laws and the continuous scrutiny of securities analysts and investors. These new obligations and constituents will require significant attention from our senior management and could divert their attention away from the day-to-day management of our business. We may not have adequate personnel with the appropriate level of knowledge, experience and training in the accounting policies, practices or internal control over financial reporting required of U.S. public companies. The development and implementation of the standards and controls necessary for us to achieve the level of accounting standards required of a public company may require costs greater than expected. To support our operations as a U.S. public company, we plan to recruit additional qualified employees or external consultants with relevant experience, which will increase our operating costs in future periods. Should any of these factors materialize, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.
If we are unable to maintain an effective system of internal controls and compliances, our business and reputation could be adversely affected.
Although we plan to manage regulatory compliance by monitoring and evaluating our internal controls to ensure that it is in compliance with all relevant statutory and regulatory requirements, there can be no assurance that deficiencies in our internal controls and compliances will not arise, or that it will be able to implement, and continue to maintain, adequate measures to rectify or mitigate any such deficiencies in our internal controls, in a timely manner or at all. We cannot assure that there will be no instances of inadvertent non-compliances with statutory requirements, which may subject it to regulatory action, including monetary penalties, which may adversely affect our business and reputation.
Our failure to timely and effectively implement controls and procedures required by Sections 302 and 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that are applicable to it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and prospects.
We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the rules and regulations of The Nasdaq Global Market. Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act will require, among other things, that we report on and evaluate the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures in our quarterly and annual reports. Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires us to evaluate the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of the end of each fiscal year, including a management report assessing the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting beginning with the second Annual Report on Form 10-K after the Closing of the Business Combination. Additionally, once we cease to be an emerging growth company, our independent registered accounting firm will also be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting in each Annual Report on Form 10-K to be filed with the SEC. We may in the future identify material weaknesses or significant deficiencies that it may be unable to remedy before the requisite deadline for those reports. Our ability to comply with the annual internal control reporting requirements will depend on the effectiveness of our financial reporting and data systems and controls across our company. We expect these systems and controls to involve significant expenditures and to become increasingly complex as our business grows. To effectively manage this complexity, we will need to continue to improve our operational, financial and management controls and our reporting systems and procedures. Any weaknesses or deficiencies or any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in the implementation or operation of these controls, could harm our operating results and cause it to fail to meet our financial reporting obligations or result in material misstatements or omissions in our financial statements, which could adversely affect our business, invite regulatory scrutiny, and reduce the market price of our Common Stock.
We are an “emerging growth company.” The reduced public company reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies may make our Common Stock less attractive to investors.
We qualify as an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. While we remain an emerging growth company, we will be permitted to, and plan to, rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. These provisions include: (i) an exemption from compliance with the auditor attestation requirement in the assessment of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, (ii) not being required to comply with any requirement that may be adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding mandatory audit firm rotation or a supplement to the auditor’s report providing additional information about the audit and the financial statements, (iii) reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation arrangements in our periodic reports, registration statements and proxy statements, and (iv) exemptions from the requirements of holding a non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. As a result, the information we provide will be different than the information that is available with respect to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies.
In addition, Section 107 of the JOBS Act provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of the exemption from complying with new or revised accounting standards provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act as long as we are an emerging growth company. An emerging growth company can therefore delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. The JOBS Act provides that a company can elect to opt out of the extended transition period and comply with the requirements that apply to non-emerging growth companies, but any such election to opt out is irrevocable.
We cannot predict whether investors will find our Common Stock less attractive if it relies on these exemptions. If some investors find our Common Stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for Common Stock. The market price of our Common Stock may be more volatile.
We expect to remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (i) the last day of the fiscal year (1) following the fifth anniversary of the consummation of the Business Combination, (2) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.235 billion, or (3) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our Common Stock that is held by non-affiliates equaled or exceeded $700 million as of the end of that year’s second fiscal quarter, and (ii) the date on which we have issued more than $1.00 billion in non-convertible debt securities during the prior three-year period.
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation (“Charter”) designates the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by our stockholders, and also provide that the federal district courts will be the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act, each of which could limit the stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees, agents or stockholders.
Our Charter provides that unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the sole and exclusive forum for (a) any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of us, (b) any action asserting a claim for breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any current or former director, officer, employee, agent or our stockholder to us or our stockholders, (c) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL, our Charter, or our Bylaws, or (d) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine, shall be the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, if the Court of Chancery lacks jurisdiction over any such action or proceeding, then another court of the State of Delaware or, if no court of the State of Delaware has jurisdiction, then the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Our Charter will also provide that unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States of America shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act, or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Section 27 of the Exchange Act creates exclusive federal jurisdiction over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder and Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. Our exclusive forum provision does not apply to a complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Exchange Act or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
These choice of forum provisions may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees, agents or stockholders, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and such persons. A stockholder that is unable to bring a claim in the judicial forum of our choosing may be required to incur additional costs in the pursuit of actions which are subject to the exclusive forum provisions described above. We believe these choice of forum provisions may benefit us by providing increased consistency in the application of the DGCL and federal securities laws by chancellors and judges, as applicable, particularly experienced in resolving corporate disputes, efficient administration of cases on a more expedited schedule relative to other forums, and protection against the burdens of multi-forum litigation. Our stockholders will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder as a result of the choice of forum provisions included in our governing documents. If a court were to find these provisions of our governing documents inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business or publish negative reports, the market price of our Common Stock could decline.
The trading market for our Common Stock will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us, our business. We may be unable or slow to attract research coverage and if one or more analysts cease coverage of us, the price and trading volume of our securities would likely be negatively impacted. If any of the analysts that may cover us change their recommendation regarding our securities adversely, or provide more favorable relative recommendations about our competitors, the price of our securities would likely decline. If any analyst that may cover us ceases covering us or fails to regularly publish reports on us, it could lose visibility in the financial markets, which could cause the price or trading volume of our securities to decline. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrades our Common Stock or if our reporting results do not meet their expectations, the market price of our Common Stock could decline. Moreover, the market price of our Common Stock may decline after the Business Combination if we do not achieve the perceived benefits of the Business Combination as rapidly or to the extent anticipated by financial analysts, or the effect of the Business Combination on our financial results is not consistent with the expectations of financial analysts. Accordingly, holders of our Common Stock may experience a loss as a result of a decline in the market price of our Common Stock following the Business Combination. In addition, a decline in the market price of our Common Stock following the consummation of the Business Combination could adversely affect our ability to issue additional securities and to obtain additional financing in the future.
We may be subject to material litigation, including individual and class action lawsuits, as well as investigations and enforcement actions by regulators and governmental authorities. These matters are often expensive and time consuming, and, if resolved adversely, could harm our business, financial condition and operating results.
We may from time to time become subject to claims, arbitrations, individual and class action lawsuits with respect to a variety of matters, including employment, consumer protection, advertising and securities. In addition, we may from time to time become subject to government and regulatory investigations, inquiries, actions or requests, other proceedings and enforcement actions alleging violations of laws, rules and regulations, both foreign and domestic. The scope, determination and impact of claims, lawsuits, government and regulatory investigations, enforcement actions, disputes and proceedings to which we are subject cannot be predicted with certainty, and may result in:
substantial payments to satisfy judgments, fines or penalties;
substantial outside counsel, advisor and consultant fees and costs, including costs for monitorships or other compliance requirements that last beyond the date of the initial regulatory or other governmental action;
substantial administrative costs, including arbitration fees;
additional compliance and licensure requirements;
loss or non-renewal of then-existing licenses or authorizations, or prohibition from or delays in obtaining additional licenses or authorizations, required for our business;
loss of productivity and high demands on employee time;
criminal sanctions or consent decrees;
termination of certain employees, including members of our executive team;
barring of certain employees from participating in our business in whole or in part;
orders that restrict our business or prevent us from offering certain products or services;
changes to our business model and practices;
an inability to deliver on our strategy;
delays to planned transactions, product launches or improvements; and
damage to our brand and reputation.
Regardless of the outcome, any such matters can have an adverse impact, which may be material, on our business, operating results or financial condition because of legal costs, diversion of management resources, reputational damage and other factors.
We are highly dependent on the services of Anthony Pompliano, who will be our Chief Executive Officer and other members of our senior management team. The loss of any of these key individuals could have a material adverse effect on our business, operations, financial condition, and stock price.
We are highly dependent on the services of Anthony Pompliano, who will be our Chief Executive Officer. Although Mr. Pompliano will spend a majority of his business time and attention on our Company and expects to be highly active in our management, he does not expect to devote his full time and attention to us. Mr. Pompliano will continue to lead Professional Capital Management and to serve as Chief Executive Officer and member of the board of directors of ProCap Acquisition Corp, a special purpose acquisition company, among other business ventures. As a result, he may devote less time to us than if he was not engaged in other business activities. While Mr. Pompliano owes fiduciary duties to our stockholders, he may also owe fiduciary duties to shareholders of other companies with which he may be affiliated. We are in the process of obtaining key man insurance for certain executives, including our Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Pompliano, to mitigate the financial risks associated with the loss of their services, such insurance may not be sufficient to fully cover the potential disruption caused by the loss of these executives. Mr. Pompliano is not bound by an employment agreement for any specific term and, if we were unable to retain him, we may not be able to successfully attract and retain a qualified replacement. Furthermore, the loss of any key personnel could impact our ability to maintain relationships with customers, partners, and investors, or to execute our business strategy effectively, particularly if a suitable replacement cannot be found in a timely manner. The unanticipated departure of any of our key executives could cause uncertainty among investors and employees, potentially leading to stock price volatility or operational challenges. Additionally, the absence of our key executives could result in significant management and operational gaps that could take time to address, which could negatively affect our ability to meet business objectives.
We have engaged in transactions with our affiliates and we expect to do so in the future. The terms of such transactions and the resolution of any conflicts that may arise may not always be in our or our stockholders’ best interests.
We have engaged in transactions, and we expect to continue to engage in transactions with affiliated companies. Related party transactions can create the possibility of conflicts of interest with regard to our management. Such a conflict could cause an individual in our management to seek to advance his or her economic interests above ours. Further, the appearance of conflicts of interest created by related party transactions could impair the confidence of our investors.
For example, Legacy ProCap entered into the Services Agreement on June 23, 2025 that was assigned to us upon Closing with Professional Capital Management, an entity owned and controlled by Mr. Pompliano, our Chief Executive Officer. Under the Services Agreement, Professional Capital Management provides consulting and marketing services to us. The term of the Services Agreement is four years and automatically renews annually thereafter, however, the Services Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 30-days’ written notice. The purpose of the Services Agreement is for Professional Capital Management to provide certain services and resources to support our growth. The services that Professional Capital Management provides through the Services Agreement are different than the services Mr. Pompliano provides in his role as Chief Executive Officer of our Company. As we mature, we expect that it will use fewer of Professional Capital Management’s services pursuant to the Services Agreement.
Mr. Pompliano has entered into a separate non-compete agreement, which is limited to him becoming a Control Person (as defined in the non-compete agreement) of a public company with a Bitcoin treasury strategy focus until the earlier of (i) eighteen months after Closing and (ii) six months after he ceases to be a Control Person of our Company. If Mr. Pompliano were to terminate his employment with our Company, or if Mr. Pompliano became a Control Person of a public or private company with a Bitcoin treasury strategy, such action could cause Professional Capital Management to terminate the Services Agreement with us or have a material impact on our future business operations and financial condition.
These transactions between Legacy ProCap, us, and other entities controlled by Mr. Pompliano may raise potential conflicts of interest and could result in business arrangements that are not as favorable to us as those with unrelated third parties. In particular, Mr. Pompliano will have significant influence over our operations and the interests of his other business ventures, including in Professional Capital Management, may conflict with our interests. These conflicts of interest could arise in situations where our business needs and Mr. Pompliano’s personal or other business interests diverge. If any such conflicts arise, they could harm our business or reputation, lead to regulatory scrutiny, or result in adverse financial or operational consequences. Although we have adopted policies and procedures intended to address such conflicts of interest, there can be no assurance that these measures will effectively mitigate all risks associated with related-party transactions.
Equity-based compensation awards to our Chief Executive Officer and directors may expose us to reputational risk, stockholder discontent, dilution to existing holders of our Common Stock or litigation, which could have an adverse impact on our business, reputation, and results of operations.
Our Chief Executive Officer, Anthony Pompliano, and members of our board of directors will receive a significant portion of their compensation in the form of incentive-based equity awards that are subject to the achievement of specified performance metrics over multi-year periods. While these awards are designed to align incentives with long-term company performance and stockholder returns, the structure, size, or outcome of such awards may not be viewed as appropriately calibrated by stockholders, proxy advisory firms, or the general public.
If our Chief Executive Officer and directors receive substantial equity compensation due to the achievement of certain performance metrics that are perceived as insufficiently rigorous, misaligned with actual performance, or not reflective of broader stockholder value creation, we may be subject to negative publicity, or reputational damage. Additionally, we may face scrutiny from institutional investors or governance advocacy groups, which could impact investor sentiment and ultimately stock price.
Moreover, actual or perceived misalignment in the design, disclosure, or approval of such compensation arrangements could increase the likelihood of stockholder derivative litigation, including claims of breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, or inadequate disclosure under securities laws. Even if such claims are without merit, defending against them could require significant time and result in substantial legal costs. Defense of any claim, any adverse judgment, or settlement could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, business, or reputation.
In addition, the issuance of equity awards to our Chief Executive Officer and directors will increase the number of outstanding shares of our Common Stock, which will dilute the ownership interests of existing stockholders. Such dilution may be significant depending on the size of the awards and future equity grants and could adversely affect the market price of our Common Stock and the voting power of existing stockholders. Furthermore, because these awards may be structured to vest upon the achievement of performance metrics or service-based milestones, the timing and magnitude of such dilution may be unpredictable. Any such dilution could also make it more difficult for existing stockholders to realize future appreciation in the value of their investment.
Excessive severance arrangements may discourage the timely termination of underperforming executives and could negatively impact our performance, governance practices, and reputation.
Upon Closing, we entered into severance arrangements with certain of our executive officers, including our Chief Executive Officer, Anthony Pompliano, that provide for significant payments and benefits upon termination of employment under specified circumstances. While these arrangements are intended to attract and retain experienced leadership, they may reduce our ability to remove executives whose performance does not meet expectations.
If the severance benefits payable upon termination are perceived to be excessive in light of the executive’s experience, performance or tenure, we may be disincentivized from pursuing termination due to the associated financial cost or potential public scrutiny. This could result in the continued employment of underperforming executives, which may hinder our ability to execute strategic initiatives, weaken operational effectiveness, and impair long-term value creation for stockholders.
Additionally, such arrangements may be criticized by stockholders, proxy advisory firms, or corporate governance advocates, particularly if the terms are viewed as misaligned with market practice or performance outcomes. This may lead to reputational harm, litigation, or increased scrutiny of our executive compensation practices. In some cases, these concerns may give rise to stockholder litigation alleging breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate waste. Defending against such actions could be costly and time-consuming, and an adverse outcome could materially affect our financial condition and results of operations.
Our decision to compensate our Chief Executive Officer at a rate of $1 per year may expose us to legal and reputational risks under federal and New York State labor laws.
We currently compensate our Chief Executive Officer, Anthony Pompliano, at an annual salary of $1. While it is not uncommon for executives of growth-stage companies to forego cash compensation, and this arrangement is intended to reflect Mr. Pompliano’s personal commitment to us and is voluntarily undertaken, it is significantly below the minimum wage requirements under both the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law. There is no legal exception that would allow us to not pay an executive at least minimum wage for all hours worked, plus potentially overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
While Mr. Pompliano will receive other compensation from us in the form of incentive-based equity, there is a risk that regulatory authorities or courts could determine that our compensation arrangement does not meet the applicable legal standards. This could subject us to investigations, governmental agency audits, litigation, penalties, and potential back-pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees obligations. The annual salary of $1 is also insufficient with respect to satisfying standard employee withholdings and deductions, such as for certain insurances and statutory benefits (e.g., disability and paid family leave in New York). Moreover, any such actions could divert management’s attention, result in significant costs, and negatively impact our reputation with investors, regulators, and potential employees. Further, this compensation arrangement could generate negative public perception or scrutiny, particularly in light of broader concerns about labor practices and executive governance. Any adverse outcome from this arrangement could result in damages for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, civil penalties, interest, and attorney’s fees, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and reputation.
Our directors and executive officers are active on social media, which may pose risks to our reputation, create regulatory or disclosure concerns, and impact the Common Stock price.
Certain of our directors and executive officers maintain active personal or professional social media accounts, including on platforms such as X (formerly known as Twitter), LinkedIn, Instagram, and others. Although these individuals may not intend to speak on behalf of us, statements made on social media whether related to our business or unrelated personal views - may nonetheless be attributed to us. This could result in reputational harm, increased media or regulatory scrutiny, or adverse reactions from investors, customers, or other stakeholders.
Additionally, if any such communications are deemed to be incorrect, include material nonpublic information or are inconsistent with our public disclosures, we could face legal, regulatory, or investor relations challenges. We may also be required to address or clarify such statements, which could divert management’s attention, result in increased costs, and negatively impact the Common Stock price. While we will maintain disclosure controls and provide guidelines to our officers and directors, we cannot guarantee compliance at all times or prevent the dissemination of information that may adversely affect our business, results of operations, or financial condition.
Finally, the considerable expansion in the use of social media over recent years has increased the volume and speed at which negative publicity arising from these events can be generated and spread, and we may be unable to timely respond to, correct any inaccuracies in, or adequately address negative perceptions arising from such coverage. In addition, negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us on social media platforms could damage our reputation, brand image and goodwill, and we could lose the confidence of our customers and partners, regardless of whether such information is true and regardless of any number of measures we may take to address them.
Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock.
We have identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. If we are unable to maintain effective internal controls, the accuracy and timeliness of our financial reporting may be adversely affected, which could cause the market price of our Common Stock to decline, lessen investor confidence and harm our business.
As a public company, we are subject to significant requirements for enhanced financial reporting and internal controls. The process of designing and implementing effective internal controls is a continuous effort that requires us to anticipate and react to changes in our business and the economic and regulatory environments and to expend significant resources to maintain a system of internal controls that is adequate to satisfy our reporting obligations as a public company. In addition, we are required, pursuant to Section 404, to furnish a report by management on, among other things, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, and our auditors will be required to issue an attestation report on the effectiveness of our internal controls on an annual basis.
The rules governing the standards that must be met for our management to assess our internal control over financial reporting are complex and require significant documentation, testing, and possible remediation. Testing and maintaining internal controls may divert our management’s attention from other matters that are important to our business.
During the preparation of our financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report we identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB”) defines a material weakness as “a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.”
A description of the material weakness identified is included under “ Part II – Item 9A – Controls and Procedures .”
We are in the process of developing a remediation plan designed to remediate the identified material weakness; however the material weakness will not be considered remediated until the action items arising out of the plan have been implemented and the new controls and procedures have been operating effectively for a sufficient period of time. While we will work to remediate the material weakness as quickly and efficiently as possible, we cannot at this time provide an expected timeline in connection with any remediation plan. These remediation measures may be time-consuming and costly and might place significant demands on our financial and operational resources.
As permitted under the U.S. securities laws, neither we nor our independent registered public accounting firm have performed or are required to perform an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. In the future, we may identify additional material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting.
Our ability to comply with the annual internal control reporting requirements will depend on the effectiveness of our financial reporting and data systems and controls across our Company. Any weaknesses or deficiencies or any failure to implement new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in the implementation or operation of these controls, could harm our operating results and cause us to fail to meet our financial reporting obligations, or result in material misstatements in our consolidated financial statements, which could adversely affect our business and reduce the price of our Common Stock.
If we are unable to conclude on an ongoing basis that we have effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404, our independent registered public accounting firm may not issue an unqualified opinion. If we are unable to conclude that we have effective internal control over financial reporting, investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a material adverse effect on the trading price of our Common Stock. Failure to remedy any material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, or to implement or maintain other effective control systems required of public companies, could also restrict our future access to the capital markets.
Volatility in our share price could subject us to securities class action litigation.
The market price of the shares of our Common Stock may be volatile and, in the past, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their shares have been subject to securities class action litigation. We may be the target of this type of litigation and investigations. Securities litigation against us could result in substantial costs and divert management’s attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business.
The financial forecasts for us are based on various assumptions that may not be realized.
Any financial forecasts or projections provided in connection with the Business Combination are based on numerous assumptions regarding future events and circumstances, many of which are beyond our control. There can be no assurance that these assumptions will prove to be accurate or that the projected results will be realized. Actual results may differ materially from those forecasted, and investors should not place undue reliance on such projections.
Reports published by analysts, including projections in those reports that differ from our actual results, could adversely affect the price and trading volume of our Common Stock.
Our management currently expects that securities research analysts will establish and publish their own periodic projections for our business. These projections may vary widely and may not accurately predict the results we actually achieve. Our share price may decline if our actual results do not match the projections of these securities research analysts. Similarly, if one or more of the analysts who write reports on us downgrades our stock or publishes inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our share price could decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fails to publish reports on it regularly, our share price or trading volume could decline. While our management expects research analyst coverage, if no analysts commence coverage of us, the trading price and volume for our Common Stock could be adversely affected.
We may or may not pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future.
Any decision to declare and pay dividends in the future will be made at the discretion of our Board and will depend on, among other things, applicable law, regulations, restrictions, our respective results of operations, financial condition, cash requirements, contractual restrictions, our future projects and plans and other factors that our Board may deem relevant. In addition, our ability to pay dividends depends significantly on the extent to which it receives dividends from us and there can be no assurance that we will pay dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our Common Stock will be an investor’s sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.
We cannot guarantee that our share repurchase program will be fully consummated or that it will enhance long-term shareholder value. Share repurchases and dividend payments, including recent changes in the amount of our dividend, could also increase the volatility of the trading price of our Common Stock and will diminish our cash reserves.
On December 9, 2025, our Board authorized a share repurchase plan (the “2025 Repurchase Program”), pursuant to which the Company is authorized to repurchase, up to a maximum aggregate amount of $100 million of shares of the Company’s Common Stock. We cannot guarantee that the 2025 Repurchase Program will be fully consummated. The 2025 Repurchase Program allows the Company to purchase shares of its Common Stock from time to time in one or more open market or privately negotiated transactions, including pursuant to Rule 10b5-1 or Rule 10b-18 of the Exchange Act or pursuant to one or more accelerated share repurchase agreements, subject to certain requirements and other factors. The Company is not obligated to repurchase any of its shares of Common Stock, and the timing and amount of any repurchases will depend on legal requirements, market conditions, stock price, the availability of certain safe harbors provided under the Exchange Act, alternative uses of capital, and other factors. Further, our share repurchases could affect our share trading prices, increase their volatility, reduce our cash reserves and may be suspended or terminated at any time, which may result in a decrease in the trading price of our Common Stock.
As a result of the resignation of one of our directors in January 2026, we are not in compliance with Nasdaq rules regarding the composition of our board of directors and audit committee, and there is a risk of delisting if the non-compliance is not cured within the time period allowed by Nasdaq.
On January 21, 2026, William H. Miller IV resigned from our board of directors, or Board. Mr. Miller was one of three members of the audit committee of our Board. As a consequence of Mr. Miller’s resignation, we became out of compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(c)(2), which requires that the board of directors of a Nasdaq listed company have an audit committee made up of at least three independent directors. On January 22, 2026, we advised Nasdaq of Mr. Miller’s resignation, its consequences with regard to compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rules 5605(c)(2) and our intention to regain compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(c)(2) in a timely manner. In accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(c)(4), we have an automatic cure period in order to regain compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(c)(2) until (i) the earlier of our next annual stockholders’ meeting or January 21, 2027; or (ii) if our next annual stockholders’ meeting is held before July 20, 2026, then we must evidence compliance no later than July 20, 2026. We intend to appoint a third independent director to our Board and audit committee and thereby regain compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(c)(2), prior to our next annual meeting of stockholders. However, if we are unable to regain compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(c)(2) in a timely manner, the Nasdaq will commence suspension and delisting procedures.
Risks Related to the Convertible Notes
Our indebtedness could adversely affect our financial condition and prevent us from fulfilling our obligations under the Convertible Notes and could have a further material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
In the future, we may seek to raise or borrow additional funds to expand our product or business development efforts, make acquisitions or otherwise fund or grow our business and operations. Our indebtedness could have important consequences to the holders of our Common Stock, including:
increasing our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions;
requiring us to dedicate a portion of our cash flow from operations to principal and interest payments on our indebtedness, thereby reducing the availability of cash flow to fund working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions and investments and other general corporate purposes;
making it more difficult for us to optimally capitalize and manage the cash flow for our businesses;
limiting our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our businesses and the markets in which we operate;
possibly placing us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors that have less debt;
limiting our ability to borrow additional funds or to borrow funds at rates or on other terms that we find acceptable;
federal and state fraudulent transfer laws may permit a court to void the Convertible Notes and, if that occurs, the noteholders may not receive any payments on the Convertible Notes;
We may not have the ability to raise the funds necessary to settle conversions of the Convertible Notes, repurchase the Convertible Notes upon a fundamental change, purchase the Convertible Notes if tendered at the option of holders at the date specified in the indenture that governs the Convertible Notes (the “Indenture”) or repay the Convertible Notes in cash at their maturity, and our future debt may contain limitations on our ability to pay cash upon conversion, redemption or repurchase of the Convertible Notes;
the accounting method for convertible debt securities that may be settled in cash, including the Convertible Notes, may have a material effect on our reported financial results; and
the market price of the Convertible Notes, which may fluctuate significantly, may directly affect the market price for the Common Stock.
We may be able to incur significant additional indebtedness in the future and this could result in additional risk.
If we incur any additional indebtedness that ranks equally with the Convertible Notes, subject to any collateral arrangements, the holders of that debt will be entitled to share ratably in any proceeds distributed in connection with our insolvency, liquidation, reorganization, dissolution or other winding up as a company. This may have the effect of reducing the amount of proceeds paid to our creditors and stockholders. These restrictions also will not prevent us from incurring obligations that do not constitute indebtedness. If new indebtedness is added to our current indebtedness levels, the related risks that we now face could increase. Any of these risks could materially impact our ability to fund our operations or limit our ability to expand our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We may not be able to generate sufficient cash to service all of our indebtedness, including the Convertible Notes, and may be forced to take other actions to satisfy our obligations under our indebtedness, which may not be successful or be on commercially reasonable terms, which would materially and adversely affect our financial position and results of operations and our ability to satisfy our obligations under the Convertible Notes and could force us into bankruptcy or liquidation.
Our ability to make scheduled payments on or to refinance our debt obligations, including the Convertible Notes, depends on our financial condition and results of operations, which in turn are highly dependent on and correlated with the value and performance of our Bitcoin holdings, as well as subject to prevailing economic and competitive conditions and to certain financial, business and other factors beyond our control. We may not be able to maintain a level of cash flows from operating activities sufficient to permit us to pay the principal, premium, if any, and interest on our indebtedness, including the Convertible Notes.
If our cash flows and capital resources are insufficient to fund our debt service obligations, we could face substantial liquidity problems and may be forced to reduce or delay investments and capital expenditures, or to sell assets, seek additional capital or restructure or refinance our indebtedness, including the Convertible Notes. Our ability to restructure or refinance our debt will depend on, among other things, the condition of the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. Any refinancing of our debt could be at higher interest rates and may require us to comply with more onerous covenants, which could further restrict our business operations. The terms of existing or future debt instruments and the Indenture that governs the Convertible Notes may restrict us from adopting some of these alternatives. In addition, any failure to make payments of interest and principal on our outstanding indebtedness on a timely basis would likely result in a reduction of our credit rating, which could harm our ability to incur additional indebtedness. In the absence of such cash flows and resources, we could face substantial liquidity problems and might be required to dispose of material assets or operations to meet our debt service and other obligations.
Further, the Indenture that governs the Convertible Notes contains provisions that will restrict our ability to dispose of assets constituting collateral that secures the repayment of the Convertible Notes and use the proceeds from any such disposition. While we may dispose of assets not constituting collateral, it may not be able to consummate those dispositions quickly or at all or to obtain the proceeds that could be realized from such dispositions. In addition, any such dispositions and these proceeds may not be adequate to meet any debt service obligations then due. These alternative measures may not be successful and may not permit us to meet our scheduled debt service obligations.
If we cannot make scheduled payments on our indebtedness, to the extent applicable, we will be in default and holders of the Convertible Notes and our other indebtedness could declare all outstanding principal and interest to be due and payable and foreclose against the assets securing their borrowings and we could be forced into bankruptcy or liquidation. If we breach the covenants under our debt instruments, we would be in default under such instruments. The holders of such indebtedness could exercise their rights, as described above, and we could be forced into bankruptcy or liquidation. All of these events could result in the noteholders losing their entire investment in the Convertible Notes.
Additionally, in the event of a foreclosure on the collateral securing the Convertible Notes, the interests of our equity holders would be adversely affected. The collateral may include assets material to our business, including Bitcoin or other digital assets, and the loss of such assets could significantly impair our operations, financial condition, and prospects. Furthermore, because the claims of secured creditors generally take priority over those of equity holders in a bankruptcy or liquidation scenario, any such foreclosure could materially diminish or eliminate the residual value of our equity. As a result, holders of our Common Stock could lose all or a substantial portion of their investment in the event of a default and subsequent enforcement of remedies by the holders of the Convertible Note.
The debt documents governing debt incurred by us other than the Convertible Notes may contain terms that restrict our current and future borrowing costs and reduce our access to capital.
The terms of debt documents for indebtedness that we may incur other than the Convertible Notes may impose significant operating and financial restrictions on us. These restrictions could limit our ability to incur additional indebtedness, pay dividends, make investments, sell assets, or engage in certain business transactions. Such covenants may also require us to maintain specified financial ratios or meet other financial conditions. These restrictions could limit our flexibility in responding to changing business and economic conditions, increase our borrowing costs, and reduce our ability to obtain additional financing on favorable terms or at all. If we are unable to comply with the covenants or other terms of the Indenture or any other debt documents pursuant to which it incurs indebtedness other than the Convertible Notes, it could result in an event of default, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
A lowering or withdrawal of the ratings assigned to our debt securities by rating agencies, if any, may increase our future borrowing costs and reduce our access to capital.
There can be no assurances that any rating assigned to our debt securities will remain for any given period of time or that a rating will not be lowered or withdrawn entirely by a rating agency if, in that rating agency’s judgment, future circumstances relating to the basis of the rating, such as adverse changes, so warrant. Consequently, real or anticipated changes in our credit ratings will generally affect the market value of the Convertible Notes. Credit ratings are not recommendations to purchase, hold or sell the Convertible Notes, and may be revised or withdrawn at any time. Additionally, credit ratings may not reflect the potential effect of risks relating to the structure or marketing of the Convertible Notes.
Any future lowering of our ratings likely would make it more difficult or more expensive for us to obtain additional debt financing. If any credit rating initially assigned to the Convertible Notes is subsequently lowered or withdrawn for any reason, our noteholders may not be able to resell their Convertible Notes at a favorable price or at all.
The Convertible Notes will be secured by a substantial portion of our assets. As a result of these security interests, such assets would only be available to satisfy claims of our general creditors or to holders of our equity securities if we were to become insolvent to the extent the value of such assets exceeded the amount of our secured indebtedness and other obligations. In addition, the existence of these security interests may adversely affect our financial flexibility.
Under the Indenture associated with the Convertible Note Financing, we have up to 30 days from the Closing to 1.0:1.0 times collateralize the Convertible Notes using a mix of Bitcoin (with Bitcoin being valued at 50% for collateral calculation purposes), cash and cash equivalents (with cash and cash equivalents being valued at 100% for collateral calculation purposes). As of February 12, 2026 the company held 3,000 Bitcoin and $26.7 million in cash with US Bank for collateral of the Convertible Notes. This collateral composition is subject to change to account for market conditions, including the price of Bitcoin. In the event of our insolvency, liquidation, dissolution, or reorganization, the assets securing the Convertible Notes will be available to satisfy the claims of the holders of the Convertible Notes and other secured creditors before any remaining value is available to satisfy the claims of our unsecured creditors or holders of our equity securities. If the value of the secured assets is insufficient to repay all amounts owed under the Convertible Notes and other secured obligations, our general creditors and equity holders may not receive any recovery. Because a significant portion of our assets consists of Bitcoin, the value of the collateral securing the Convertible Notes is subject to extreme volatility. See the risk factors entitled “ Our principal asset is Bitcoin. The concentration of our Bitcoin holdings enhances the risks inherent in our Bitcoin strategy” and “Bitcoin is a highly volatile asset, and our operating results and market price may significantly fluctuate, including due to the highly volatile nature of the price of Bitcoin and erratic market movements .” Sharp declines in the price of Bitcoin could require us to pledge additional Bitcoin, cash, or cash equivalents in order to maintain the collateral coverage required under the terms of the Convertible Notes. Furthermore, the existence of these security interests may limit our ability to incur additional secured indebtedness, dispose of assets, or obtain additional financing, thereby reducing our financial flexibility and ability to respond to business opportunities or adverse developments.
Federal and state fraudulent transfer laws may permit a court to void the Convertible Notes and, if that occurs, the Convertible noteholders may not receive any payments on the Convertible Notes.
Under U.S. federal and state laws, a court may void or otherwise decline to enforce the Convertible Notes, or subordinate the Convertible Notes to our other obligations, if it finds that, at the time the Convertible Notes were issued, we received less than reasonably equivalent value or fair consideration for the Convertible Notes and, among other things, (i) was insolvent or rendered insolvent by reason of the issuance of the Convertible Notes, (ii) was engaged in a business or transaction for which our remaining assets constituted unreasonably small capital, or (iii) intended to incur, or believed it would incur, debts beyond our ability to pay as they mature. In addition, a court could void the Convertible Notes if it finds that they were issued with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. If a court were to take any such action, noteholders could lose their right to payment on the Convertible Notes, which would have a material adverse effect on their investment.
The conversion rate of the Convertible Notes may not be adjusted for all dilutive events that may occur.
The terms of the Convertible Notes provide for adjustments to the conversion rate in certain circumstances, such as stock splits, stock or cash dividends, certain distributions, tender or exchange offers or a “Make-Whole Fundamental Change” (as such term is defined in the Indenture). However, the conversion rate will not be adjusted for every event that could have a dilutive effect on the value of the Convertible Notes or the underlying our Common Stock. As a result, events may occur that adversely affect the value of the Convertible Notes or the Common Stock into which the Convertible Notes are convertible, but that do not result in an adjustment to the conversion rate. This could result in noteholders receiving less value upon conversion than they would have if the conversion rate had been adjusted for all such events.
The increase in the conversion rate applicable to the Convertible Notes that holders convert in connection with a redemption or conversion may not adequately compensate noteholders for the lost option time value of the Convertible Notes.
If we elect to redeem the Convertible Notes or if certain other events occur, the conversion rate may be increased for notes converted in connection with such events. However, the amount of any such increase may not fully compensate noteholders for the lost time value of their option to convert the Convertible Notes at a later date. As a result, noteholders who convert their notes in connection with a redemption or other event may receive less value than they would have received if they had been able to hold the Convertible Notes until a later date or convert at a more favorable time.
Liquidity, regulatory actions, changes in market conditions and other events may adversely affect the trading price and liquidity of the Convertible Notes and the ability of investors to implement a convertible note arbitrage trading strategy.
The trading price and liquidity of the Convertible Notes may be affected by a variety of factors, including changes in market conditions, regulatory actions, and other events beyond our control. These factors may make it difficult for investors to buy or sell the Convertible Notes at desired prices or in desired quantities. In addition, the ability of investors to implement a convertible note arbitrage trading strategy, which typically involves taking offsetting positions in the Convertible Notes and the underlying our Common Stock, may be adversely affected by limited liquidity or other market disruptions. As a result, investors may not be able to realize the expected returns from their investment in the Convertible Notes.
Upon conversion of the Convertible Notes, noteholders may receive less valuable consideration than expected because the value of the Common Stock may decline after noteholders exercise their conversion right but before we settle the conversion obligation.
When a noteholder elects to convert notes into our Common Stock, there may be a delay between the time the conversion right is exercised and the time we deliver the shares or other consideration. During this period, the market price of our Common Stock may decrease, resulting in the Convertible Notes noteholder receiving less valuable consideration than anticipated at the time of conversion. This risk is heightened during periods of market volatility or if there are delays in settlement.
Conversion or redemption may adversely affect noteholders’ return on the Convertible Notes.
If the Convertible Notes are converted or redeemed prior to maturity, noteholders may not realize the full potential return on their investment. Early conversion or redemption may occur at times when the market price of our Common Stock is unfavorable or when interest rates or other market conditions would otherwise make holding the Convertible Notes more advantageous. As a result, noteholders may receive less value than if they had held the Convertible Notes to maturity or converted at a later, more favorable time.
Investors in the Convertible Notes may have to pay U.S. federal income tax if we adjust the conversion rate of the Convertible Notes in certain circumstances, even if they do not receive any cash.
In certain circumstances, an adjustment to the conversion rate of the Convertible Notes may be treated as a taxable distribution to noteholders for U.S. federal income tax purposes, even if noteholders do not receive any cash or other property as a result of the adjustment. Noteholders may be required to include the amount of such a distribution in their taxable income and pay tax on it, even though they have not received any cash with which to pay the tax. The tax treatment of such adjustments is complex and may vary depending on individual circumstances.
The accounting method for convertible debt securities that may be settled in cash, including the Convertible Notes, may have a material effect on our reported financial results.
Under applicable accounting standards, we will be required to separately account for the liability and equity components of the Convertible Notes, which will result in the recognition of non-cash interest expense in our financial statements. This could have a material effect on our reported net income, earnings per share, and other financial measures. In addition, changes in accounting rules or interpretations could further affect the accounting treatment of the Convertible Notes and our reported financial results.
The market price of our Common Stock, which may fluctuate significantly, may directly affect the value of the Convertible Notes.
The market price of our Common Stock is likely to fluctuate due to various factors, including our financial performance, industry trends, general economic conditions, and market sentiment. Because the Convertible Notes are convertible into Common Stock, the value of the Convertible Notes will be directly affected by fluctuations in the market price of our Common Stock. A decline in the market price of our Common Stock could reduce the value of the Convertible Notes and the amount that noteholders would receive upon conversion.
There is expected to be limited trading and liquidity for the Convertible Notes, and notwithstanding any registration rights and trading being facilitated through the facilities of The Depository Trust Company, holders’ ability to sell the Convertible Notes could be limited.
The Convertible Notes are a new issue of securities for which there is expected to be only a limited trading market. Although the Convertible Notes may be eligible for trading through the facilities of The Depository Trust Company and we have granted registration rights, there can be no assurance that an active trading market for the Convertible Notes will develop or be maintained. As a result, holders may not be able to sell their notes at desired times or prices, or at all. The lack of liquidity could adversely affect the market value of the Convertible Notes.
Noteholders will not be entitled to any rights with respect to our Common Stock, but will be subject to all changes made with respect to our Common Stock.
Until a noteholder converts notes into our Common Stock, the Convertible Notes noteholder will not have any rights as a stockholder, including voting rights or rights to receive dividends or other distributions. However, the value of the Convertible Notes may be affected by changes in the rights, preferences, or privileges of our Common Stock, or by other actions taken by us with respect to our Common Stock. As a result, noteholders are subject to the risks associated with changes affecting our Common Stock, even though they do not have the rights of stockholders.
The Convertible Notes are convertible into our Common Stock. As a result, noteholders will be subject to all of the risks associated with holding our Common Stock of a public company listed on Nasdaq.
Because the Convertible Notes are convertible into shares of our Common Stock, noteholders will be exposed to the risks associated with an investment in our Common Stock. These risks include, among others, the risk of fluctuations in the market price of our Common Stock, the risk that we may not pay dividends, and the risk that our business, financial condition, or results of operations may be adversely affected by factors beyond our control. In addition, as a public company listed on Nasdaq, we are subject to extensive regulation and reporting requirements, and any failure to comply with these requirements could adversely affect the value of our Common Stock and, consequently, the value of the Convertible Notes.
Cross-default provisions under the Indenture and under indebtedness documents governing our indebtedness other than the Convertible Notes could result in liquidity issues and impact our ability to repay our indebtedness obligations generally.
The Indenture contains a cross-default provision that allows for the holders of the Convertible Notes to accelerate repayment of the Convertible Notes in the event of (i) a payment default with respect to any of our indebtedness other than the Convertible Notes in an amount equal to or greater than one-hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) (or our foreign currency equivalent) in the aggregate or (ii) any other default under any such indebtedness that results in such indebtedness becoming or being declared due and payable before our stated maturity.
In addition, the breach of the covenants under the Indenture, including defaults related to payment, conversion of the Convertible Notes or bankruptcy or insolvency-related issues, among other defaults, could result in an event of default under our indebtedness other than the Convertible Notes, assuming the documents governing any such indebtedness contain similar cross-default or cross-acceleration provisions. Such a default under the Indenture would allow the creditors under such other indebtedness to accelerate the repayment of their indebtedness.
A triggering of any such cross-default or cross-acceleration provisions under the Indenture and/or such other indebtedness on a stand-alone or simultaneous basis could create liquidity issues and adversely impact our ability to repay the Convertible Notes and/or such other indebtedness. An inability of us to repay the holders of the Convertible Notes would give such holders the right to proceed against the collateral granted to them to secure such indebtedness. Assuming such other indebtedness other than the Convertible Notes is also secured, the creditors under such indebtedness would similarly have the right to proceed against the collateral granted to them to secure their indebtedness. Additionally, we may not be able to incur additional loans from other lenders to enable it to refinance the Convertible Notes and/or any such other indebtedness.
Risks Related to Taxation
Unrealized fair value gains on our Bitcoin holdings could cause us to become subject to the corporate alternative minimum tax under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
The U.S. enacted the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) in August 2022. Unless an exemption applies, the IRA imposes a 15% corporate alternative minimum tax (“CAMT”) on a corporation with respect to an initial tax year and subsequent tax years, if the average annual adjusted financial statement income for any consecutive three-tax-year period preceding the initial tax year exceeds $1 billion. On September 12, 2024, the Department of Treasury and the IRS issued proposed regulations with respect to the application of CAMT.
Additionally, we are required to adopt ASU 2023-08, under which Bitcoin holdings must be measured at fair value in our statement of financial position, with gains and losses from changes in the fair value of our Bitcoin recognized in net income each reporting period. When determining whether we are subject to CAMT and when calculating any related tax liability for an applicable tax year, the proposed regulations provide that, among other adjustments, our adjusted financial statement income must include any unrealized gains or losses reported in the applicable tax year.
Accordingly, as a result of the enactment of the IRA and our adoption of ASU 2023-08, we may be subject to CAMT in the 2026 taxable year and beyond. If we become subject to CAMT, it could result in a material tax obligation that we would need to satisfy in cash, which could materially affect our financial results, including our earnings and cash flow, and our financial condition.
Realized losses and our inability to obtain all expected tax benefits could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and cash flows.
Our business is exposed to significant price volatility and operational risks inherent in the Bitcoin ecosystem, which may cause us to incur realized losses on digital asset positions, hedges, lending or staking arrangements, and other activities. Market dislocations, sharp declines in Bitcoin prices, forced liquidations, counterparty defaults, or changes in trading or custody practices may require us to sell assets at unfavorable prices or incur losses on settlements and unwinds. In addition, changes in accounting standards or their application may accelerate recognition of losses or reduce the timing or magnitude of gains, which can increase earnings volatility and negatively impact regulatory capital, liquidity management, and debt covenant compliance. Any sustained period of realized losses could materially reduce our cash flows and capital resources and constrain our ability to invest in growth initiatives.
We may be unable to realize the full value of our expected tax benefits, including net operating losses, capital loss carryforwards, tax credit carryforwards, and deductions relating to our digital asset activities. The characterization and timing of income, gains, and losses from digital assets remain areas of evolving and, in some jurisdictions, unsettled tax law. As a result, tax authorities may challenge our positions, deny deductions, recharacterize transactions, or otherwise reduce the availability of anticipated tax attributes. Moreover, limitations under applicable tax law—such as restrictions on the use of capital losses against ordinary income, annual utilization caps, separate-return limitation year rules, or ownership change limitations—could defer, diminish, or eliminate our ability to utilize carryforwards. Changes in tax legislation, regulations, administrative guidance, or judicial decisions, in the United States or in non-U.S. jurisdictions where we operate, could further reduce the expected benefit of our tax attributes or require us to establish additional valuation allowances.
We periodically assess the realizability of our deferred tax assets and may be required to record or increase a valuation allowance if we experience losses, reduced forecasted taxable income, or adverse changes in tax law or audit outcomes. Establishing or increasing valuation allowances would increase our tax expense and reduce net income. In addition, if we experience an “ownership change” for tax purposes, our ability to use net operating loss carryforwards and certain built-in losses may be subject to significant annual limitations. To the extent our realized losses increase while our expected tax benefits decline or are deferred, our effective tax rate may rise and our after-tax results and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.
Risks Related to the Merger with CFO Silvia
If the conditions to the Agreement and Plan of Merger between Silvia Merger Sub, CFO Silvia, Shain Noor, and the Company (the “Merger”) are not satisfied or waived, the Merger may not be consummated.
The closing of the Merger is subject to a number of conditions as set forth in the Agreement and Plan of Merger that must be satisfied or waived, including, among others, the approval of the Merger proposal by our shareholders at the special meeting and the other conditions described in the Merger Agreement.
There can be no assurance as to whether or when the conditions to the closing of the Merger will be satisfied or waived or as to whether or when the merger will be consummated. If the conditions are not satisfied or waived, the Merger may not be consummated or the closing may be delayed, and we and CFO Silvia may each lose some or all of the intended benefits of the Merger.
There is no assurance when or if the Merger will be completed.
If the Merger is not completed, our stock price may decline or fluctuate significantly.
The market price of our Common Stock is subject to significant fluctuations. The market price of our shares of Common Stock will likely be volatile based on whether shareholders and other investors believe that we can complete the Merger. In addition, our shares of Common Stock are expected to be subject to such significant fluctuations even if the Merger is completed.
The volatility of the market price of our shares of Common Stock may be exacerbated by low trading volume or other factors. Moreover, the stock markets in general have experienced substantial volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of individual companies. These broad market fluctuations may also adversely affect the trading price of our Common Stock. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, shareholders have often instituted class action securities litigation against such companies.
The market price of our shares of Common Stock following the Merger may decline as a result of the Merger.
The market price of our shares of Common Stock may decline as a result of the Merger for a number of reasons, including if:
investors react negatively to the prospects of the combined company’s business and prospects following the closing of the Merger;
the effect of the Merger on the combined company’s business and prospects following the closing of the Merger is not consistent with the expectations of financial or industry analysts; or
the combined company does not achieve the perceived benefits of the Merger as rapidly or to the extent anticipated by shareholders or financial or industry analysts.
Anthony Pompliano’s indirect ownership interests in CFO Silvia may create conflicts of interest, which could result in terms that are less favorable to the Company than those that could have been obtained otherwise.
Anthony Pompliano has interests in the Merger that may be different from, or in addition to, those of CFO Silvia stockholders. Certain of CFO Silvia’s directors and executive officers negotiated the terms of the Merger Agreement and some of them hold executive positions in us. Some of such relations may create conflicts with the interests of CFO Silvia or us. For example, Anthony Pompliano is also the Chief Executive Officer of Professional Capital Management, a majority holder of CFO Silvia. Further, certain of our stockholders of also hold shares of CFO Silvia. Inflection Points, Inc. holds shares of us and is a majority holder of CFO Silvia.
The members of our Board were aware of and considered these interests in evaluating the Merger and in making our recommendation.
The special committee of the Company’s Board established in connection with the Merger with CFO Silvia may not be effective in mitigating conflicts of interest.
The Board established a special committee composed of independent and disinterested directors (the “Special Committee”) to evaluate the Merger and make a recommendation to the Board regarding whether the Merger is fair to, and in the best interests of, the Company and its unaffiliated stockholders. While the Special Committee was formed to address potential conflicts of interest arising from the Merger, there can be no assurance that the Special Committee will be effective in eliminating or adequately mitigating all conflicts of interest or that the processes and procedures adopted by the Special Committee will result in outcomes equivalent to those that would have been achieved in the absence of such conflicts.
Certain members of the Company’s management and Board may have interests in the Merger that are different from, or in addition to, those of the Company’s stockholders generally. These interests may create actual or potential conflicts of interest and could influence the perspectives and recommendations of individuals involved in evaluating, negotiating, or approving the Merger. Although the Special Committee has retained independent legal and financial advisors to assist in its evaluation of the Merger, the effectiveness of the Special Committee depends on numerous factors, including the quality and completeness of information provided to the Special Committee, the expertise and diligence of the Special Committee members and their advisors, the limitations inherent in the Special Committee’s mandate and authority, and the ability of the Special Committee to identify and address conflicts that may not be immediately apparent.
Furthermore, the Special Committee’s evaluation and recommendation were not necessarily based on the information available at the time of its deliberations and may not account for developments or risks that materialize after the Special Committee completed its work. The measures undertaken by the Special Committee, while designed to protect the interests of unaffiliated stockholders, may prove insufficient if conflicts of interest were not fully identified, disclosed, or addressed, or if the processes employed by the Special Committee contained limitations or deficiencies that were not recognized at the time. Accordingly, notwithstanding the establishment and work of the Special Committee, stockholders may not receive the same level of protection or outcomes that would exist in a transaction negotiated entirely at arm’s length between unrelated parties.
