ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS.
Our financial results and the market price of our Common Stock may be affected by the prices of digital assets that we hold.
As part of our capital allocation strategy for assets that are not required to provide working capital for our ongoing operations, we have invested and will continue to invest in SOL and other digital assets. The price of digital assets has historically been subject to dramatic price fluctuations and is highly volatile. Moreover, digital assets, such as SOL, are relatively novel and the application of securities laws and other regulations to such assets is unclear in many respects. It is possible that new legislation, or change in regulatory interpretation of existing law, may adversely affect the liquidity or value of digital assets.
Any decrease in the fair value of digital assets below our carrying value for such assets currently would require us to incur a loss due to the decrease in fair market value, and such charge could be material to our financial results for the applicable reporting period, which may create significant volatility in our reported earnings. Any decrease in reported earnings or increased volatility of such earnings could have a material adverse effect on the market price of our Common Stock. In addition, the application of generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, with respect to digital assets, may change in the future and could have a material adverse effect on our financial results and the market price of our Common Stock.
In addition, if investors view the value of our Common Stock as dependent upon or linked to the value or change in the value of our digital asset holdings, the price of digital assets may significantly influence the market price of our Common Stock.
Table of Contents
The price of our Common Stock has been and may continue to be volatile and fluctuate substantially, which could result in substantial losses for purchasers of our Common Stock.
Our stock price has been and is likely to continue to be volatile. The stock market in general has experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. With the adoption of our new SOL treasury strategy, we expect to see additional volatility. As a result of this volatility, you may not be able to sell your Common Stock. The market price for our Common Stock may be influenced by many factors, including:
• our digital asset treasury strategy;
• the Solana developer community and whether people continue to engage in building;
• the recruitment or departure of key personnel within the Solana ecosystem;
• downtime and congestion of the Solana Network;
• changes in staking rewards or validator incentives in the Solana ecosystem;
• the success of competitive products to SOL, alternative services or technologies in the blockchain and technology community;
• regulatory or legal developments in the United States and other countries related to digital assets, blockchain and AI;
• variations in our financial results or those of companies that are perceived to be similar to us that also have a SOL treasury strategy;
• the inclusion, exclusion or deletion of our Common Stock from any trading indices;
• issuance of new or updated research or reports by securities analysts;
• sales of our Common Stock and other securities by us or our stockholders;
• general economic, industry and market conditions in the cryptocurrency industry and broader macroeconomic trends related to the digital asset industry; and
• the other factors described in this ‘‘Risk Factors’’ section and in the “ Risk Factors ” section of our other SEC filings.
Our management may invest or otherwise use the proceeds of any offering by the Company in ways with which you may not agree or in ways that may not yield a return.
Our management will have broad discretion in the application of the net proceeds from any offering by the Company and could use the proceeds in ways that do not improve our results of operations or enhance the value of our Common Stock. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could result in financial losses that could cause the price of our Common Stock to decline and delay the development of additional products and services or our pursuit of our new SOL strategy. Pending their use, we may invest the net proceeds from any offering in a manner that does not produce income or that loses value. We will not receive any proceeds from sales by the Selling Stockholders.
Our digital asset holdings are less liquid than our existing cash and cash equivalents and may not be able to serve as a source of liquidity for us to the same extent as cash and cash equivalents. We are also subject to the credit risk of custodians.
Historically, crypto markets have been characterized by significant volatility in price, limited liquidity and trading volumes compared to sovereign currencies markets, relative anonymity, a developing regulatory landscape, potential susceptibility to market abuse and manipulation, compliance and internal control failures at exchanges, and various other risks inherent in their entirely electronic, virtual form and decentralized network. During times of market instability, we may not be able to sell our digital asset holdings at favorable prices or at all. Further, we maintain substantially all of our proprietary digital asset holdings with centralized custodians and transact with trade execution partners. These entities do not have the same protections as are available to cash or securities deposited with or transacted by institutions subject to regulation. For example, U.S. banks are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) up to $250,000 per depositor in the case of the bank’s insolvency. U.S. broker-dealers are covered by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”), which ensures recovery of the securities by the depositor. In contrast, cryptocurrency custodians do not offer such protections. If a custodian were to become , it is possible that we would face or obtaining our digital assets. Moreover, there have been a number of instances in which custodians have used
Table of Contents
customer funds to fund their own operations. If that were the case with our custodian and the custodian were to become insolvent and file for bankruptcy, we may not be able to obtain all of the digital assets that we had deposited with the custodian. Even if we were to obtain our digital assets, it may require a considerable amount of time and expense, which could adversely impact our financial stability.
Apart from the risk of insolvency of the custodian, there is also a risk of custodians freezing withdrawals, typically in connection with a security incident, regulatory compliance or technical issues, and may be unresponsive to customers attempting to retrieve their funds. In such events, it may be difficult to reach a representative to assist with unfreezing assets and we may not be able to sell or use our digital assets.
Additionally, the secondary market for borrowing against digital assets is not well developed. We may be unable to enter into term loans or other capital raising transactions collateralized by our unencumbered digital assets or otherwise generate funds using our digital assets, especially during times of market instability or when the price of digital assets has declined significantly. If we are unable to sell our digital assets, enter into additional capital raising transactions using digital assets as collateral, or otherwise generate funds using our digital assets or if we are forced to sell our digital assets at a significant loss in order to meet our working capital requirements, our business and financial condition could be negatively impacted.
We may be subject to regulatory developments related to crypto assets and crypto asset markets, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
As SOL and other digital assets are relatively novel and the application of state and federal securities laws and other laws and regulations to digital assets is unclear in certain respects, it is possible that regulators in the United States or foreign countries may interpret or apply existing laws and regulations in a manner that adversely affects the price of digital assets. 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 digital assets or the ability of individuals or institutions such as us to own or transfer digital assets.
There are currently bills introduced into the U.S. Congress that, if they pass, may provide clarity on the market structure of whether digital assets are securities or commodities. If digital assets or related activities, such as staking arrangements, are determined to constitute investment contracts, and therefore securities, for purposes of the federal securities laws, the additional regulatory restrictions imposed by such a determination could adversely affect the market price of digital assets and, in turn, adversely affect the market price of our Common Stock.
Our SOL treasury strategy could create complications with external service providers, such as insurance companies, banking entities and auditors, which could have a materially adverse impact on our business.
Our SOL treasury strategy could create complications with external service providers that may place a high risk on companies engaging in such a treasury strategy. For example, in 2023, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC issued supervisory statements that digital assets were a “significant risk” to banking organizations. Similarly, external service providers began placing a high degree of risk on digital asset companies, including third-party providers such as insurance companies, banking entities, auditors, payment processors, compliance vendors and public relationship firms.
While the current administration has undertaken a coordinated policy shift across key financial regulatory agencies with respect to regulations of digital assets, the implications of such proposed and future policy changes are uncertain at this time. If future regulations and policy changes were to impose similar limitations as those in 2023, our service providers may refuse to enter into commercially acceptable contracts with us and other companies that engage in similar treasury strategies with digital assets. This could have a number of adverse impacts on the operation of our business. For example, with respect to insurance companies, the cost of our insurance may also increase or our insurers may refuse to underwrite policies or exclude digital asset liabilities from coverage. In the event that we are unable to obtain directors and officers liability insurance on acceptable terms, our directors and officers may be exposed to personal liability in connection with securities class actions, regulatory investigations and other legal proceedings. This could also deter us from retaining key employees or may prevent us from hiring talent. If we were to our banking services, it would our ability to maintain liquidity, process payroll, pay vendors or access fiat currency, which would have a significantly impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Certain auditors may
Table of Contents
also consider custody, fair market valuation, impairment testing and other controls as high-risk. If our auditor determined that it was unable to issue an unqualified opinion or could not engage with us altogether, it may adversely affect our ability to meet our periodic reporting obligations under the Exchange Act and significantly affect our business, financial condition and the ability to raise capital in the public markets.
Regulatory change reclassifying SOL as a security could lead to our falling within the definition of “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, or the 1940 Act, and could adversely affect the market price of SOL and the market price of our Common Stock.
Under Sections 3(a)(1)(A) and (C) of the Investment Company Act, a company generally will be deemed to be an “investment company” for purposes of the Investment Company Act if (1) it is, or holds itself out as being, engaged primarily, or proposes to engage primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities or (2) it is engaged, or proposes to engage, in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities and it owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of its total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. We do not believe that we are an “investment company,” as such term is defined in the Investment Company Act, and are not registered as an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act.
In the Crypto Asset Interpretation, the SEC concluded that SOL is not a “security” for purposes of the federal securities laws. The Crypto Asset Interpretation also identified situations in which a digital commodity, such as SOL, could become subject to an investment contract that would be a “security” for purposes of the federal securities laws. A determination by the SEC or a court of competent jurisdiction that SOL is a security or that SOL that we hold is subject to an investment contract and therefore is a security could lead to our meeting the definition of “investment company” under the Investment Company Act, if the portion of our assets that consists of investments in securities exceeds the 40% limit prescribed in the Investment Company Act, which would subject us to significant additional regulatory requirements that could have a material adverse effect on our business and operations and may also require us to change the manner in which we conduct our business.
We monitor our assets and income in order to conduct our business activities in a manner such that we either do not fall within the definition of “investment company” under the Investment Company Act or would qualify under one of the exemptions or exclusions provided by the Investment Company Act and corresponding SEC rules. If SOL is determined to be a security for purposes of the federal securities laws or SOL that we hold is determined to be subject to an investment contract, we would take steps to reduce our holdings of SOL or such SOL that is subject to investment contracts as a percentage of our total assets. These steps may include, among others, selling SOL that we might otherwise hold for the long term and deploying our cash in assets that are not considered to be investment securities under the Investment Company Act, in which case we may be forced to sell our SOL at unattractive prices. We may also seek to acquire additional assets that are not considered to be investment securities under the Investment Company Act, and we may need to incur debt, issue additional equity or enter into other financing arrangements that are not otherwise attractive to our business. Any of these actions could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, we can make no assurance that we would be to take the necessary steps to avoid meeting the definition of “investment company” under the Investment Company Act and becoming subject to its requirements. If SOL is determined to constitute a security for purposes of the federal securities laws, and if we are not to come within an available exemption or exclusion under the Investment Company Act, then we would have to register as an investment company, which would require us to change the manner in which we conduct our business. In addition, such a determination could affect the market price of SOL and in turn affect the market price of our Common Stock.
If SOL were considered a security, U.S. exchanges that list SOL would either have to register as a national securities exchange or de-list SOL. The delisting of SOL would have a significantly adverse impact on the liquidity of SOL, which would likely have a material adverse impact on our SOL treasury strategy and our business. Further, we may be forced to liquidate our holdings of SOL at unfavorable prices and change our SOL treasury strategy in the event that SOL is classified as a security.
We are not subject to legal and regulatory obligations that apply to investment companies such as mutual funds and funds, or to obligations applicable to investment advisers.
Mutual funds, exchange-traded funds and their directors and management are subject to extensive regulation as “investment companies” and “investment advisers” under U.S. federal and state law; this regulation is
Table of Contents
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 SOL strategy, our use of leverage, the manner in which our SOL 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. For example, although a significant change to our Treasury Reserve Policy would require the approval of our board of directors, no stockholder or regulatory approval would be necessary. Consequently, our board of directors has broad discretion over the investment, leverage and cash management policies it authorizes, whether in respect of our SOL or other activities we may pursue, and has the power to change our current policies, including our strategy of acquiring and holding SOL. As a result, investors in our company may be exposed to greater volatility, concentration risk and governance discretion than they would be if we were subject to the protections afforded to regulated investment companies or investments managed by investment advisers subject to the provisions of the Advisers Act.
If we or our service providers experience a security breach or cyberattack and unauthorized parties obtain access to our digital assets, or if our private keys are lost or destroyed, or other similar circumstances or events occur, we may lose some or all of our digital assets and our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
Substantially all of the digital assets we own are held in custody accounts at U.S. institutional digital asset custodians. Security breaches and cyberattacks are of particular concern with respect to our digital assets. Solana and other blockchain cryptocurrencies and the entities that provide services to participants in the Solana ecosystem have been, and may in the future be, subject to security breaches, cyberattacks, or other malicious activities. For example, in October 2021 it was reported that hackers exploited a flaw in the account recovery process and stole from the accounts of at least 6,000 customers of the Coinbase exchange, although the flaw was subsequently fixed and Coinbase reimbursed affected customers. Similarly, in November 2022, hackers exploited weaknesses in the security architecture of the FTX Trading digital asset exchange and reportedly stole over $400 million in digital assets from customers. A security or could result in:
• a partial or total loss of our digital assets in a manner that may not be covered by insurance or the liability provisions of the custody agreements with the custodians who hold our digital assets;
• 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 Solana ecosystem or in the use of the Solana Network to conduct financial transactions, which could negatively impact us.
Attacks upon systems across a variety of industries, including industries related to Solana, are increasing in frequency, persistence, and sophistication, and, in many cases, are being conducted by sophisticated, well 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 or other . In particular, we expect that parties will attempt to 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 . can come from a variety of sources, including hackers, hacktivists, state intrusions, industrial espionage, and insiders. In addition, certain types of attacks could us even if our systems are left undisturbed. For example, certain are designed to remain dormant or undetectable, sometimes for extended periods of time, or until launched a target and we may not be to implement adequate preventative measures. Further, there has been an increase in such activities due to the increase in remote work arrangements. The risk of could also be increased by
Table of Contents
cyberwarfare in connection with the conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East or elsewhere, 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 Solana industry, including third-party services on which we rely, could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
We face other risks related to our digital asset treasury reserve business model.
Our digital asset treasury reserve business model exposes us to various risks, including the following:
• SOL and other digital assets are subject to significant legal, commercial, regulatory, and technical uncertainty, and our SOL strategy subjects us to enhanced regulatory oversight;
• regulatory changes could impact our ability to operate validators or receive rewards;
• regulatory scrutiny of the Company’s activities may increase, potentially limiting our operations;
• potential litigation risks exist related to smart contract vulnerabilities, validator operations, or our business activities;
• uncertainty around digital assets, including SOL’s, regulatory status may impact our ability to list on certain exchanges;
• changes in political administration may not guarantee a favorable regulatory environment for digital assets;
• future SEC or CFTC actions or court decisions could retroactively classify digital assets as a security, potentially leading to penalties or forced unwinding of transactions; and
• increased regulatory focus on Layer-1 blockchains beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum could result in new compliance requirements.
We may engage in leveraged digital asset financing strategies, in which we will leverage our digital asset holdings to acquire additional amounts of the same leveraged digital assets, and may do so on a compounded basis, which will increase our exposure to smart-contract, operational, and counterparty risks.
We may engage in digital asset leverage strategies to acquire additional amounts of SOL. As part of this strategy, we may borrow digital assets by pledging our own SOL holdings as collateral, deploy these borrowed assets to acquire additional amounts of SOL, and subsequently re-pledge the newly acquired SOL to further engage in these leveraged transactions. As each of these transactions will be effectuated on chain, the strategy may expose us to significant smart-contract vulnerabilities and operational risks. The smart contracts that are used for purposes of these transactions may contain undiscovered bugs, logical errors or economic vulnerabilities that could be exploited by malicious actors or that could cause the contracts to perform in unintended ways, resulting in partial or total loss of our collateral and borrowed assets. In addition, the strategy may subject us to counterparty risk through the platforms we utilize to facilitate leveraging strategies including, among others, insolvency of the platform, coding errors, and . Finally, lenders customarily require that collateral ratios be maintained within narrowly defined thresholds and may exercise broad contractual discretion to impose additional margin requirements or to collateral without notice when those thresholds are . We may also incur if the interest that accrues on our borrowings significantly exceeds the revenue generated by the borrowed SOL.
Due to collateralization of leveraged digital asset financing strategies, declines in the market price of the underlying digital asset may result in a reduction in the value of posted collateral. If the value of such collateral falls below required thresholds, we may be subject to margin calls, forced liquidation or required to post additional collateral. In volatile market conditions, we may be unable to meet such requirements in a timely or cost-effective manner, resulting in liquidation of positions at unfavorable prices.
Additionally price volatility in digital assets, has historically been significant and unpredictable, and sudden and severe market movements could result in substantial or total loss of leveraged positions. We may also incur losses if the interest or fees associated with these leveraged borrowings exceeds the returns generated by the additional digital assets acquired, particularly in periods of declining prices in digital assets.
Table of Contents
SOL faces unique technical, governance and concentration risks that could materially affect its long-term viability.
The Solana Network is a high-throughput Layer-1 blockchain with architectural features that differ significantly from other blockchains, such as Ethereum. While these features allow for rapid processing of transactions, they introduce risks that could adversely impact the value of SOL and the stability of the Solana Network. Historically, the Solana Network has suffered network outages, slow operations and validator coordination failures. If such challenges were to persist, the confidence of the Solana development community and its users will be adversely affected, which could cause a rapid decline in the value of SOL. In addition, Solana’s consensus mechanism (PoH combined with PoS) is novel and relatively untested at a large scale over time. Structural flaws could emerge that require a fork, which may have an adverse impact on the Solana Network and our holdings.
Solana validators are relatively small in number, which may lead to coordinated censorship.
SOL requires high-performing computing hardware and internet connectivity to operate a validator node. These substantial infrastructure demands create a barrier of entry for validators, leading to a high concentration of validators that must be well capitalized. A significant portion of staked SOL tokens may be delegated to a few validators, resulting in a centralized block production environment. This concentration and centralization could lead to the risk of coordinated censorship, which validators or node operators could delay or exclude transactions or blocks from being confirmed and recorded on the blockchain, severely undermining neutrality and causing an erosion of the integrity of the Solana Network. In particular, Blue Moose Systems, a Solana validator that we have acquired, is one of the top-performing Solana validators that also controls a significant share of stake on SOL, which presents additional centralization risk.
Our Solana validator reward yield is expected to decline over time and could have a material adverse effect on our financial results.
We currently earn rewards from the Solana Network through operating two validator nodes. Solana’s current protocol distributes rewards to validators based on a declining inflation model. This model reduces the total amount of Solana rewards available to distribute to validators by 15% each year until it reaches a long-term rate of 1.5%. A significant reduction in validator reward yield could negatively impact our business and results of operations.
Our SOL treasury strategy is dependent on the Solana Foundation and core development team.
The Solana Network is more centralized than other blockchain protocols such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. The Solana Foundation and a relatively small group of core developers play a significant role in the governance, maintenance, and technical direction of the Solana protocol. If one or more key individuals that is responsible for the core development or leadership were to depart, become incapacitated or otherwise decide not to participate, the health of the Solana network will be significantly affected and would result in a material adverse impact on the value of SOL. Further, if the Solana Foundation were to become subject to a reputational event, it could lead to reduced developer engagement and adversely affect the functionality and value of the Solana Network.
SOL is subject to technological obsolescence, including competition from emerging blockchain and artificial intelligence protocols.
The digital asset ecosystem is characterized by rapid technological innovation, short development cycles, and intense competition among Layer-1 blockchains and related infrastructure providers. Solana faces intense competition among existing protocols, such as Aptos and Sei, and new entrants that are currently being developed. Competitors may offer superior scalability, security, interoperability, decentralization, programmability and adoption, and may attract developers away from the SOL ecosystem. Advancements in AI and blockchain technology are likely to accelerate the development of such protocols, including the development of additional networks that natively integrate AI into consensus mechanisms and other core features. If SOL is unable to evolve to address such increased competition or if Layer-2 networks believe that Solana’s core technology stack is outdated or less attractive compared with other Layer-1 networks, Solana may be considered technologically obsolete by the next-generation of protocols. The decline in the Solana Network would materially impact the market value of SOL and adversely affect the value of our SOL treasury holdings and our stock price.
Table of Contents
We may be subject to additional tax liability if regulation or policy changes adversely affect the tax treatment of rewards from staking SOL.
The U.S. federal income tax treatment of rewards from staking digital assets such as SOL remains uncertain and is currently the subject of debate and regulatory attention. Under current guidance by the IRS, staking rewards are generally treated as ordinary income upon receipt. However, the Company has taken a position for tax purposes that inflationary rewards (i.e., new SOL tokens minted by the Solana Protocol) are not required to be recognized as income upon receipt, but rather upon use or disposal. This conclusion is based on the view that generally the Internal Revenue Code provides that gross income from dealings in property is recognized at the time of disposition rather than at the time of acquisition. Accordingly, the Company is taking the position that it is not required to recognize income on inflationary rewards until such time that they are used or disposed. If regulation or policy changes, or the interpretation or enforcement thereof, results in adverse tax treatment of rewards from staking SOL, we could be subject to additional tax liabilities.
A majority of our Real Estate Platform revenue is derived from transaction fees, which are not long-term contracted sources of recurring revenue and are subject to external economic conditions and declines in those engagements could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations.
Our Real Estate Platform segment historically has earned principally all of its revenue from success fees when transactions close on the platform or through a match it curated. We expect that our segment will continue to rely heavily on revenue from these sources for substantially all of its revenue for the foreseeable future. A decline in the number of transactions completed or in the value of the commercial real estate it finances could significantly decrease our revenues, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our Real Estate Platform segment faces risks in its electronic payment services business that could adversely affect its business and/or results of operations.
Our electronic payment services business facilitates the processing of inbound and outbound payments for our SaaS customers. These payments are settled through our sponsoring clearing bank, licensed money transmitters, card payment processors and other third-party electronic payment services providers that we contract with from time to time. With respect to these service providers, we have significantly less control over the systems and processes than if we were to maintain and operate those systems and processes ourselves. In some cases, functions necessary to our business are performed on proprietary external systems and software to which we have no access. Our segment also generally does not have long-term contracts with these service providers. Moreover, we rely on a limited number of external electronic payment services providers and, in some instances, do not have a backup provider in place for a specific service. Accordingly, the failure of these service providers to renew their contracts with us or to fulfill their contractual obligations and perform satisfactorily could result in significant disruptions to our operations and adversely affect our operating results.
Our segment is and will continue to be subject to risks arising from or related to the settlement of payment transactions, including with respect to prefunding and chargeback requests as well as human or processing errors. Users are ultimately responsible for fulfilling their obligations to fund transactions; however, in instances where there are returns or chargebacks, we attempt to collect these funds from our customers. If we were unable to collect such amounts from our customers, we bear the risk of loss for the amount of the return or chargeback. While we have not experienced material losses resulting from payment returns or chargebacks in the past, there can be no assurance that we will not experience significant losses in the future. Any increase in returns or chargebacks that we are not able to recover from our customers may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, if transactions or settlement reconciliations are not performed timely or are inaccurate due to human or processing errors, we could experience significant financial that could have an effect on our business and operating results.
Our electronic payment services business also exposes us to risk in connection with theft, fraud and other malicious activity by our employees, external service providers’ employees, or external parties who improperly gain access to our systems or our customers’ systems. In the event of such activity, we may incur liability to compensate our customers, our customers’ stakeholders, or external electronic payment service providers for losses incurred. While we take reasonable measures to secure our systems and payments infrastructure, it is not possible to entirely eliminate the risk of intentional wrongdoing. In the past, third-party bad actors have gained improper access to our systems and our customers’ systems and we experienced financial loss as a result. If external bad actors again access to our systems or our customers’ systems, or our employees or
Table of Contents
external service providers’ employees misuse our payment systems for malicious purposes, we could experience material financial loss that may affect our operating results.
