American Bitcoin Corp.

Described below are certain risks to our business and the industry in which we operate. You should carefully consider the risks described below, together with the financial and other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in our other public disclosures. If any of the following risks actually occurs, our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects could be materially and adversely affected. As a result, our future results could differ materially from historical results and from guidance we may provide regarding our expectations of our future financial performance, and the trading price of our common stock could decline.

Risks Related to Our Business

Bitcoin price volatility may affect our ability to effectively manage our growth plans and profitability.*

The market price of bitcoin is extremely volatile, and in fiscal 2024 the price range of bitcoin was between approximately $39,000 and $106,000. The cost to mine a bitcoin is independent of the then current price of bitcoin, so when bitcoin prices are low, the cost per coin to mine may consume much of our available cash, limiting our ability to invest in expansion, upgrade mining equipment and infrastructure or fund other strategic initiatives. Additionally, because our revenue is primarily derived from mining bitcoin, our profitability fluctuates in direct correlation with bitcoin price movements. A decrease in bitcoin’s price results in a corresponding decrease in the value of the bitcoin we mine, reducing our revenues and profitability on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Given the volatility of bitcoin prices, we are unable to accurately predict our future growth trajectory or reliably forecast our revenue and profitability for any given reporting period. Our ability to expand our operations depends on our assumptions regarding bitcoin’s future price. If those assumptions are incorrect, and bitcoin prices fail to reach or sustain levels high enough to justify our capital expenditures, we may be unable to generate sufficient revenue to maintain profitability or execute our growth strategy, which could materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Gryphon’s success depends upon the value of Bitcoin; the value of Bitcoin may be subject to pricing risk and has historically been subject to wide swings.

Gryphon’s operating results depend on the value of Bitcoin because it is the only cryptocurrency that Gryphon mines. Specifically, Gryphon’s revenues from its bitcoin mining operations are based on two factors: (1) the number of bitcoin rewards Gryphon successfully mines and (2) the value of Bitcoin. In addition, Gryphon’s operating results are directly impacted by changes in the value of Bitcoin, because under the value measurement model, impairment of Bitcoin and realized gains will be reflected in Gryphon’s statement of operations (i.e., Gryphon will be marking bitcoin to fair value each closing period). This means that Gryphon’s operating results will be subject to swings based upon increases or decreases in the value of Bitcoin. Further, Gryphon’s current application-specific integrated circuit, or ASIC, machines (which Gryphon refers to as “miners”) are principally utilized for mining bitcoin and cannot mine other cryptocurrencies, such as ether, that are not mined utilizing the “SHA-256 algorithm.” If other cryptocurrencies were to achieve acceptance at the expense of Bitcoin causing the value of Bitcoin to decline, or if Bitcoin were to switch its proof of work algorithm from SHA-256 to another algorithm for which Gryphon’s miners are not specialized, or the value of Bitcoin were to decline for other reasons, particularly if such decline were significant or over an extended period of time, Gryphon’s operating results would be adversely affected, and there could be a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s ability to continue as a going concern or to pursue Gryphon’s strategy at all, which could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, prospects or operations, and harm investors.

Bitcoin market prices, which have historically been volatile and are impacted by a variety of factors (including those discussed below), are determined primarily using data from various exchanges, over-the-counter markets and derivative platforms. Furthermore, such prices may be subject to factors such as those that impact commodities, more so than business activities, which could be subjected to additional influence from fraudulent or illegitimate actors, real or perceived scarcity, and political, economic, regulatory or other conditions. Pricing may be the result of, and may continue to result in, speculation regarding future appreciation in the value of Bitcoin, which inflates and makes its market prices more volatile or creates “bubble” type risks for Bitcoin.

Regulatory, commercial and technical uncertainties may influence bitcoin prices.

The market price of bitcoin is subject to numerous uncertainties, including evolving regulatory frameworks, commercial adoption trends and technical risks, any of which could negatively impact its value. Regulatory treatment of digital assets remains uncertain in various jurisdictions, and new regulations, enforcement actions, or interpretations by governmental authorities could diminish bitcoin’s appeal, restrict its use or otherwise depress its market price.

Beyond regulation, bitcoin’s price is influenced by factors such as:

Even if bitcoin adoption increases in the short term, there is no guarantee that this growth will be sustained. Since bitcoin exists solely as digital records on the Bitcoin blockchain, its value is also susceptible to technical risks, including:

Additionally, bitcoin’s liquidity could be adversely affected if financial institutions, payment processors or market makers withdraw their support for bitcoin-related services due to regulatory pressure, reputational concerns or operational risks. If any of these risks materialize, they could negatively impact bitcoin’s market price, which, in turn, would adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Failure to increase our hashrate may reduce our competitiveness and negatively impact our financial performance.*

Our ability to earn bitcoin rewards is directly proportional to our mining power, or hashrate, relative to the total hashrate of the Bitcoin network. As more miners enter the network and deploy more powerful mining equipment, the global hashrate increases, making it more difficult to successfully mine bitcoin. To remain competitive, we must continuously invest in expanding our hashrate by acquiring new, more efficient mining hardware. However, as demand for mining equipment grows, the cost of acquiring and deploying new miners increases, which could limit our ability to scale. If we are unable to access capital to acquire additional miners, our hashrate may stagnate and we may fall behind our competitors. If we fail to increase our hashrate at a pace that keeps up with network difficulty growth, our share of total bitcoin mining rewards will decline, reducing our revenue and negatively impacting our financial performance.

Gryphon may face several risks due to disruptions in the crypto asset markets, including but not limited to the risk from depreciation in Gryphon’s stock price, financing risk, risk of increased losses or impairments in its investments or other assets, risks of legal proceedings and government investigations, and risks from price declines or price volatility of crypto assets.

The use of crypto assets to, among other things, buy and sell goods and services and complete other transactions is part of a new and rapidly evolving industry that employs crypto assets based upon a computer generated mathematical and/or cryptographic protocol. The growth of this industry in general, and the use of crypto assets in particular, is subject to a high degree of uncertainty, and the slowing or stopping of the development or acceptance of developing protocols may adversely affect Gryphon’s operations. The factors affecting the further development of the industry, include, but are not limited to:

Many crypto asset exchanges currently do not provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management teams, corporate practices or regulatory compliance. As a result, the marketplace may lose confidence in, or may experience problems relating to, crypto asset exchanges, which may cause the price of Bitcoin to decline. For example, in the first half of 2022, each of Celsius Network LLC, et al. (“Celsius”), Voyager Digital Ltd., et al. (“Voyager”), and Three Arrows Capital (“Three Arrows”) declared bankruptcy, resulting in a loss of confidence among participants in the crypto asset ecosystem and negative publicity surrounding crypto assets more broadly. In November 2022, BlockFi Inc. (“BlockFi”) and FTX Trading Ltd. (“FTX”), the third largest crypto asset exchange by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals and shortly thereafter, FTX and its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy. In December 2022, Core Scientific Inc. (“Core”), one of the largest publicly traded crypto mining companies in the U.S., filed for bankruptcy. In January 2023, Genesis Global Holdco, LLC, et al. (“Genesis”) filed for bankruptcy.

In response to these events, the crypto asset markets, including the market for Bitcoin specifically, have experienced extreme price volatility and several other entities in the crypto asset industry have been, and may continue to be, negatively affected, further undermining confidence in the crypto asset market and in Bitcoin. These events have also negatively impacted the liquidity of the crypto asset market as certain entities affiliated with FTX engaged in significant trading activity. If the liquidity of the crypto asset market continues to be negatively impacted by these events, crypto asset prices, including the price of Bitcoin, may continue to experience significant volatility and confidence in the crypto asset markets may be further undermined. A perceived lack of stability in the crypto asset exchange market and the closure or temporary shutdown of crypto asset exchanges due to business failure, hackers or malware, government-mandated regulation or fraud, may reduce confidence at least in part in crypto asset networks and result in greater volatility in Bitcoin’s value. Because the value of Bitcoin is derived from the continued willingness of market participants to exchange government-issued currency that is designated as legal tender in its country of issuance through government decree, regulation or law for Bitcoin, should the marketplace for Bitcoin be jeopardized or disappear entirely, permanent and total loss of the value of Bitcoin may result. Such a decrease in Bitcoin price may have a material and adverse effect on Gryphon’s results of operations and financial condition as the results of Gryphon’s operations are significantly tied to the price of Bitcoin.

The failure or insolvency of large exchanges like FTX may cause the price of Bitcoin to fall and decrease confidence in the ecosystem, which could adversely affect an investment in Gryphon. Such market volatility and decrease in Bitcoin price may have a material and adverse effect on Gryphon’s results of operations and financial condition as the results of Gryphon’s operations are significantly tied to the price of Bitcoin.

As of the date hereof, Gryphon has not experienced any material impact resulting from the bankruptcy filings of FTX, Three Arrows, Celsius, Voyager, BlockFi, and Genesis and the attendant disruptions in the crypto asset markets. Genesis is owned by Digital Currency Group Inc. (“DCG”), which also owns Foundry Digital LLC (“Foundry”), one of Gryphon’s mining pool providers. However, at this time, Gryphon believes it is not subject to any material risks arising from its previous exposure to Genesis. Other than the Genesis entities, Gryphon (i) has no direct exposure to any crypto asset entities that have recently filed for bankruptcy; (ii) has no assets that may not be recovered due to these bankruptcies; and (iii) has no exposure to any other counterparties, customers, custodians or other crypto asset market third parties known to Gryphon to have (x) experienced material excessive redemptions or withdrawals or suspended redemptions or withdrawals of crypto assets, (y) the crypto assets of their customers unaccounted for, or (z) experienced material compliance failures.

The adoption and long-term viability of digital asset networks is uncertain, and a decline in their growth or acceptance could negatively impact our business and the value of our stock.

Bitcoin and other digital assets are part of a new and rapidly evolving industry. The long-term growth and viability of digital assets depend on multiple factors, including:

If bitcoin adoption stagnates or declines, demand for bitcoin could weaken, which could negatively affect our business. A prolonged lack of growth in bitcoin adoption could reduce market confidence, leading to lower trading volumes and diminished liquidity. Additionally, bitcoin’s price volatility undermines its role as a medium of exchange, as retailers are less likely to accept it as a form of payment. Marketplace acceptance of bitcoin as a medium of exchange and payment method may remain low. The relative lack of acceptance of bitcoin in the retail and commercial marketplace, or a reduction of such use, limits the ability of end users to use bitcoin to pay for goods and services.

Further, as block rewards decrease, higher transaction fees may be required to incentivize miners, potentially reducing bitcoin adoption and value. In order to incentivize miners to continue to contribute processing power to any digital asset network, such network may either formally or informally transition from a set reward to transaction fees earned upon solving for a block. This transition could be accomplished either by miners independently electing to record in the blocks they solve only those transactions that include payment of a transaction fee or by the digital asset network adopting software upgrades that require the payment of a minimum transaction fee for all transactions. If transaction fees paid for digital asset transactions become too high, the marketplace may be reluctant to accept digital assets as a means of payment and existing users may be motivated to switch from one digital asset to another digital asset or back to fiat currency. A decline in bitcoin transactions and adoption could reduce demand, negatively impacting bitcoin’s price and affecting the value of our bitcoin holdings.

Geopolitical and economic crises could lead to increased uncertainty, large-scale selloffs of digital assets and a decline in bitcoin’s value, negatively impacting our business and stock price.

Bitcoin is an alternative to fiat currencies that are backed by central governments, but its value is highly dependent on supply and demand. It is unclear how global geopolitical and economic crises will affect the adoption and valuation of digital assets. However, such crises may lead to large-scale acquisitions or sales of digital assets, causing significant price volatility. A large-scale selloff of bitcoin could decrease its value, directly affecting our business and the price of our common stock. Additionally, broader macroeconomic instability, inflation and regulatory uncertainty could impact our ability to conduct business efficiently and profitably. A significant decline in bitcoin’s value due to economic or geopolitical factors could negatively affect our financial condition.

We face risks related to technological obsolescence, vulnerability of the global supply chain for cryptocurrency hardware, potential trade restrictions and difficulty in obtaining new hardware, which may have a material adverse effect on our business.

Bitcoin mining hardware experiences wear and tear over time, requiring periodic repairs or replacement to maintain efficiency. Additionally, as mining technology evolves, we must invest in newer, more efficient mining equipment to remain competitive, which requires significant capital expenditures.

Further, we have faced complications related to the import of mining equipment in the past and may face such complications in the future. The global supply of miners is unpredictable and presently heavily dependent on manufacturers based in China. Geopolitical matters, including the relationship between the United States and other countries and trade restrictions and tariffs (or the threat of trade restrictions or tariffs), may impact our ability to import miners or other equipment necessary for our operations. Restrictions or bans on mining equipment from China, whether due to trade restrictions, national security concerns or geopolitical tensions, could disrupt our supply chain, increase equipment costs and delay our growth plans.

In addition, officials of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency (“CBP”) have broad discretion regarding products imported into the United States, and the CBP has on occasion detained or seized imported miners and other equipment necessary to the operation of our miners, which has resulted in significant costs to us. If our imported mining equipment is detained or seized in the future, we may not be able to obtain adequate replacement parts for our existing miners and other equipment or obtain additional miners and other equipment from manufacturers on a timely basis or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Bitcoin network forks, where the blockchain splits into two separate networks, could cause disruptions and negatively impact our business.

Since the Bitcoin network is an open-source project, any individual can download the Bitcoin network software and make any desired modifications, which are proposed to users and miners on the Bitcoin network through software downloads and upgrades and typically posted to the Bitcoin development forum on GitHub.com. A substantial majority of miners and Bitcoin users must consent to those software modifications by downloading the altered software or upgrade that implements the changes. Otherwise, the changes do not become a part of the Bitcoin network.

Since the Bitcoin network’s inception, changes to the network have been accepted by the vast majority of users and miners, ensuring that the network remains a coherent economic system. However, a developer or group of developers could propose a modification to the Bitcoin network that is not accepted by a vast majority of miners and users, but that is nonetheless accepted by a substantial population of participants in the Bitcoin network. In such a case, and if the modification is material or not compatible with the prior version of Bitcoin network software, a fork in the blockchain could develop and two separate Bitcoin networks could result with one running the pre-modification software program and the other running the modified version (i.e., a second “Bitcoin” network).

Historically, the Bitcoin community has worked to merge forked blockchains, but a prolonged or unresolved split could create confusion, disrupt the network and affect bitcoin’s stability. A fork could decrease confidence in bitcoin, negatively impacting its price and, in turn, our business and stock value.

A 51% attack on the Bitcoin network could undermine security and market confidence.

The security of the Bitcoin network relies on its decentralized nature, which makes it difficult for any single entity to control a majority of the network’s mining power. However, if a malicious actor or coordinated group were to gain control of more than 50% of the total hashrate, a scenario known as a “51% attack,” they could theoretically manipulate the network by:

A 51% attack could occur through several mechanisms, including large-scale mining operations, through which a single entity invests in expansive mining facilities with enough computing power to control the majority of the network; mining pool dominance, in which mining pool becomes so large that it collectively controls more than 50% of the network’s hashrate; or botnet-based attacks, in which botnets (volunteers or hacked collections of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) are used to hijack computing resources and direct them toward mining, effectively amassing enough power to launch an attack.

If a 51% attack were successfully executed, it could lead to a loss of confidence in bitcoin’s security and reliability, causing its price to drop significantly. Such an event could also prompt regulatory restrictions on cryptocurrency mining and trading, further exacerbating the negative impact on our business.

Even if a 51% attack does not occur, the mere perception that such an attack is possible could damage bitcoin’s credibility and discourage institutional adoption. Given our dependence on bitcoin mining, any loss of trust in the security of the Bitcoin network could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Noise generated by our mining operations poses regulatory, legal, operational and reputational risks.

Our mining operations involve the use of a large number of high-powered miners and cooling systems that generate substantial noise. This noise poses risks to our business, including community complaints, reputational damage, litigation risk, regulatory risk, operational constraints, increased costs and opposition to expansion. These risks could lead to fines or penalties imposed by local governments, requirements to implement costly noise mitigation measures, restrictions on our operating hours, reduction of scale of our operations, stricter noise controls regulations on our operations, potential shutdown of data centers that cannot meet local noise regulations, damages resulting from lawsuits and difficulty obtaining necessary permits and approvals for expanding existing data centers or establishing new site operations. These risks may negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We may experience liquidity constraints and need additional capital, which may not be available to us on favorable terms, or at all.

Liquidity risk is the possibility that we will be unable to meet our financial obligations as they come due. We will need to raise additional capital to expand our operations, pursue our growth strategy in AI and HPC and respond to competitive pressures or unanticipated working capital requirements. We may seek but fail to obtain additional debt or equity financing on favorable terms, if at all, which could impair our growth and adversely affect our existing operations. Raising capital through equity financing could dilute existing stockholders and reduce the value of their investment. Debt financing, on the other hand, could impose restrictive terms, prioritize creditors over stockholders or require us to maintain liquidity levels or financial ratios that may not align with our business needs or be in the best interest of our stockholders.

The lack of regulation of digital asset exchanges which Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies, are traded on, may expose Gryphon to the effects of negative publicity resulting from fraudulent actors in the cryptocurrency space, and can adversely affect an investment in Gryphon.

The digital asset exchanges on which Bitcoin is traded are relatively new and largely unregulated. Many digital asset exchanges do not provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management teams, corporate practices, or regulatory compliance. As a result, the marketplace may lose confidence in, or may experience problems relating to, such digital asset exchanges, including prominent exchanges handling a significant portion of the volume of digital asset trading. In 2022, FTX and a number of other digital asset exchanges filed for bankruptcy proceedings after failing to solve financial issues caused by the falling prices of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. FTX and others became the subjects of investigations by various governmental agencies for, among other things, fraud, which caused a loss of confidence in cryptocurrency market participants and an increase in negative publicity for the digital asset ecosystem. As a result, many digital asset markets, including the market for Bitcoin, did and continue to experience increased price volatility. The Bitcoin ecosystem may continue to be negatively impacted and experience long term volatility if public confidence cannot rebound or decreases again due similar future events.

These events are continuing to develop and it is not possible to predict, at this time, every risk that they may pose to Gryphon, Gryphon’s service providers, or the digital asset industry as a whole. A perceived lack of stability in the digital asset exchange market and the closure or temporary shutdown of digital asset exchanges due to business failure, hackers or malware, government-mandated regulation, or fraud, may reduce confidence in digital asset networks and result in greater volatility in cryptocurrency values. These potential consequences of a digital asset exchange’s failure could adversely affect an investment in Gryphon.

Changes in U.S. political leadership and economic policies may create uncertainty that materially affects our business and financial performance. Shifts in legal, regulatory, and trade policies, particularly under a new presidential administration, could disrupt our operations and long-term strategy.

For example, if the U.S. government establishes a strategic bitcoin reserve, large-scale purchases could create price volatility or artificial price suppression, making our mining operations less profitable. Conversely, slow or no action in creating such a reserve could limit institutional adoption and negatively impact bitcoin’s value, which could also harm our financial condition. Additionally, increased government influence over the Bitcoin network could affect mining difficulty, transaction processing, and other technical aspects, further impacting our business.

We also face risks from trade policy changes, including tariffs and restrictions on imports of mining equipment. The current administration has imposed, and may continue to impose, tariffs on imports from key manufacturing regions, increasing costs and disrupting supply chains.

The scope and timing of potential policy changes remain uncertain, making it difficult to plan for or mitigate these risks. Any such changes could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We have engaged in, and may continue to engage in, strategic acquisitions and other transactions that could disrupt our business, dilute our stockholders, strain our financial resources and harm our operating results.*

As part of our growth strategy, we have pursued strategic transactions, including the Captus Acquisition, miners and data centers. In the future, we may seek additional opportunities to expand our mining operations, including purchasing energy assets, HPC and AI assets, miners, data centers and other facilities, potentially from companies in financial distress. Our ability to grow through acquisitions depends on several factors, including the availability of suitable opportunities at acceptable costs, our ability to compete effectively to attract those opportunities and access to financing.

Acquisitions may require us to issue common stock, thereby diluting existing stockholders, or take on liabilities from acquired businesses. They may also result in recording goodwill and intangible assets that require regular impairment testing, which could lead to periodic write-downs. Additionally, acquisitions often involve significant costs, including integration expenses, restructuring charges and potential litigation risks.

Even when successful, acquisitions and expansions may take considerable time to deliver anticipated benefits, if at all. Integrating new businesses, technologies, and personnel can be complex and may divert management’s attention from daily operations. We may also face liabilities related to a target company’s past operations. Entering new markets where we have little experience could pose additional challenges, particularly if competitors have stronger market positions. Furthermore, we may struggle to generate sufficient revenue to justify acquisition costs, and the integration process could disrupt relationships with employees, suppliers and other stakeholders.

Further, we may not be able to pursue our current acquisition strategy in the future. Beyond energy assets, HPC and AI assets, bitcoin mining and related acquisitions, we have explored, and may continue to explore, opportunities in adjacent or complementary businesses as market conditions allow. These ventures may carry similar risks, including operational and financial challenges, and there is no guarantee they will provide the expected benefits in a timely manner, if at all.

The Bitcoin market is exposed to financially troubled cryptocurrency-based companies.

The failure of several cryptocurrency platforms has impacted and may continue to impact the broader cryptocurrency economy; the full extent of these impacts may not yet be known. Bitcoin is part of the cryptocurrency environment and is subject to price volatility resulting from financial instability, poor business practices, and fraudulent activities of players in the cryptocurrency market. When investors in cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency-based companies experience financial difficulty as a result of price volatility, poor business practices, and/or fraud, it has caused, and may continue to cause, loss of confidence in the cryptocurrency space, reputational harm to cryptocurrency assets, heightened scrutiny by regulatory authorities and law makers, and a steep decline in the value of Bitcoin, among other material impacts. Such adverse effects have affected, and may in the future continue to affect, the profitability of Gryphon’s bitcoin mining operations.

***The lack of legal recourse and insurance for our digital assets increases the risk of total loss in the event of theft or destruction.

Our digital assets are not insured against theft, loss or destruction. If an event occurs where we lose our digital assets, whether due to cyberattacks, fraud or other malicious activities, we may not have any viable legal recourse or ability to recover the lost assets. Unlike funds held in insured banking institutions, our digital assets are not protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. If our digital assets are lost under circumstances that render another party liable, there is no guarantee that the responsible party will have the financial resources to compensate us. As a result, we and our stockholders could face significant financial losses.

There is a lack of liquid markets for, and possible manipulation of, blockchain/cryptocurrency-based assets.

Cryptocurrencies that are represented and trade on a ledger-based platform may not necessarily benefit from viable trading markets. Stock exchanges have listing requirements and vet issuers, requiring them to be subjected to rigorous listing standards and rules, and monitor investors transacting on such platform for fraud and other improprieties. These conditions may not necessarily be replicated on a distributed ledger platform, depending on the platform’s controls and other policies. The more relaxed a distributed ledger platform is about vetting issuers of cryptocurrency assets or users that transact on the platform, the higher the potential risk for fraud or the manipulation of the ledger due to a control event. These factors may decrease liquidity or volume or may otherwise increase volatility of investment securities or other assets trading on a ledger-based system. Such circumstances could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s ability to continue as a going concern or to pursue its strategy at all, which could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, prospects or operations and potentially the value of any bitcoin that Gryphon mines or otherwise acquires or holds for its own account, which in turn could harm investors.

Acceptance and/or widespread use of Bitcoin are uncertain.

Currently, there is a relatively limited use of Bitcoin in the retail and commercial marketplace. Banks and other established financial institutions may refuse to process funds for Bitcoin transactions, process wire transfers to or from Bitcoin exchanges, Bitcoin-related companies or service providers, or maintain accounts for persons or entities transacting in Bitcoin. Conversely, a significant portion of Bitcoin demand is generated by investors seeking a long-term store of value or speculators seeking to profit from the short- or long-term holding of the asset. Price volatility undermines Bitcoin’s role as a medium of exchange, as retailers are much less likely to accept it as a form of payment. Market capitalization for Bitcoin as a medium of exchange and payment method may always be low.

The relative lack of acceptance of Bitcoin in the retail and commercial marketplace limits the ability of end users to use bitcoin to pay for goods and services. Such lack of acceptance could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s ability to continue as a going concern or to pursue Gryphon’s strategy at all, which could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, prospects or operations and potentially the value of Bitcoin Gryphon mines or otherwise acquires or holds for its own account.

The further development and acceptance of digital asset networks and other digital assets, which represent a new and rapidly changing industry, are subject to a variety of factors that are difficult to evaluate. The slowing or stopping of the development or acceptance of digital asset systems may adversely affect an investment in Gryphon.

The use of cryptocurrencies to, among other things, buy and sell goods and services and complete transactions, is part of a new and rapidly evolving industry that employs cryptocurrency assets, including Bitcoin, based upon a computer-generated mathematical and/or cryptographic protocol. Large-scale acceptance of Bitcoin as a means of payment has not, and may never, occur. The growth of this industry in general, and the use of Bitcoin in particular, is subject to a high degree of uncertainty, and the slowing or stopping of the development or acceptance of developing protocols may occur unpredictably. The factors include, but are not limited to:

The outcome of these factors could have negative effects on Gryphon’s ability to continue as a going concern or to pursue Gryphon’s business strategy at all, which could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, prospects or operations as well as a potentially negative effect on the value of any bitcoin that Gryphon mines or otherwise acquires or holds for Gryphon’s own account, which would harm investors.

The bitcoin reward for successfully uncovering a block will halve several times in the future and Bitcoin value may not adjust to compensate Gryphon for the reduction in the rewards Gryphon receives from its mining efforts.

Halving is a process designed to control the overall supply and reduce the risk of inflation in cryptocurrencies using a proof-of-work consensus algorithm. At a predetermined block, the mining reward is cut in half, hence the term “halving.” For Bitcoin, the reward was initially set at 50 bitcoin currency rewards per block. This was cut in half to 25 on November 28, 2012 at block 210,000, and then again to 12.5 on July 9, 2016 at block 420,000. The most recent halving for Bitcoin happened on April 19, 2024, and the reward reduced to 3.125. This process will reoccur until the total amount of bitcoin currency rewards issued reaches 21 million, which is expected around 2140.

While Bitcoin prices have historically increased around these halving events, which increases in price have correspondingly mitigated the decrease in mining reward, there is no guarantee that the price change would be favorable or would compensate for the reduction in mining reward. If a corresponding and proportionate increase in the trading price of Bitcoin or a proportionate decrease in mining difficulty does not follow these anticipated halving events, the revenue Gryphon earns from its bitcoin mining operations would see a corresponding decrease, which would have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business and the economics of Gryphon’s mining operations.

Gryphon aims to mitigate the impacts of halving by maintaining a breakeven profitability floor far below the network average. To do so, Gryphon has developed and implemented a curtailment agreement with its hosting partners to maximize the marginal profitability of its machines.

Gryphon’s partners have also implemented standard operating procedures to maximize the operational efficiency of its sites, such as preventative maintenance and cleaning of equipment. Gryphon believes that these steps can enable it to maintain survivability above its competitors and mitigate the downside risk of decreased rewards.

Cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, face significant scaling obstacles that can lead to high fees or slow transaction settlement times.

Cryptocurrencies face significant scaling obstacles that can lead to high fees or slow transaction settlement times, and attempts to increase the volume of transactions may not be effective. Scaling cryptocurrencies is essential to the widespread acceptance of cryptocurrencies as a means of payment, which widespread acceptance is important to the continued growth and development of Gryphon’s business. Many cryptocurrency networks, including the Bitcoin network, face significant scaling challenges. For example, cryptocurrencies are limited with respect to how many transactions can occur per second. Participants in the cryptocurrency ecosystem debate potential approaches to increasing the average number of transactions per second that the network can handle and have implemented mechanisms or are researching ways to increase scale, such as increasing the allowable sizes of blocks, and therefore the number of transactions per block, and sharding (a horizontal partition of data in a database or search engine), which would not require every single transaction to be included in every single miner’s or validator’s block. However, there is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the scale of settlement of cryptocurrency and, specifically, Bitcoin transactions will be effective, or how long they will take to become effective, which could adversely affect Gryphon’s business.

Transaction fees may decrease demand for Bitcoin and prevent expansion that could adversely impact an investment in Gryphon.

As the number of bitcoins awarded for solving a block in a blockchain decreases, the incentive for miners to continue to contribute to the Bitcoin network may transition from a set reward to transaction fees. In order to incentivize miners to continue to contribute to the Bitcoin network, the Bitcoin network may either formally or informally transition from a set reward to transaction fees earned upon solving a block. This transition could be accomplished by miners independently electing to record in the blocks they solve only those transactions that include payment of a transaction fee. If transaction fees paid for Bitcoin transactions become too high, the marketplace may be reluctant to accept Bitcoin as a means of payment and existing users may be motivated to switch from Bitcoin to another cryptocurrency or to fiat currency. Either the requirement from miners of higher transaction fees in exchange for recording transactions in a blockchain or a software upgrade that automatically charges fees for all transactions may decrease demand for Bitcoin and prevent the expansion of the Bitcoin network to retail merchants and commercial businesses, resulting in a reduction in the price of Bitcoin that could adversely impact Gryphon’s business. Decreased use and demand for bitcoins that Gryphon has accumulated may adversely affect their value and may adversely impact an investment in Gryphon.

The price of Bitcoin may be affected by the sale of Bitcoin by other vehicles investing in Bitcoin or tracking Bitcoin markets.

The global market for Bitcoin is characterized by supply constraints that differ from those present in the markets for commodities or other assets such as gold and silver. The mathematical protocols under which Bitcoin is mined permit the creation of a limited, predetermined amount of currency, while others have no limit established on total supply. To the extent that other vehicles investing in Bitcoin or tracking Bitcoin markets form and come to represent a significant proportion of the demand for Bitcoin, large redemptions of the securities of those vehicles and the subsequent sale of Bitcoin by such vehicles could negatively affect Bitcoin prices and therefore affect the value of the Bitcoin holdings Gryphon holds. Such events could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s ability to continue as a going concern or to pursue Gryphon’s new strategy at all, which could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, prospects or operations and potentially the value of any bitcoin that Gryphon mines or otherwise acquires or holds for its own account.

The development of other cryptocurrencies and/or digital currencies may adversely affect the value of Bitcoin.

To the extent that other cryptocurrencies are introduced into the market, gain traction and are supported by the deployment of significant resources, the success of any such cryptocurrency could lead to a decrease in demand and the potential exclusion of existing cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin.

In addition, central banks in some countries have started to introduce digital forms of legal tender. Whether or not they incorporate blockchain or similar technology, central bank digital currencies as legal tender in the issuing jurisdiction could have an advantage in competing with, or replacing, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as a medium of exchange or store of value. As a result, the value of Bitcoin could decrease, which could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

If a malicious actor or botnet (a volunteer or hacked collection of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) obtains a majority of the processing power dedicated to mining on any digital asset network, including the Bitcoin network, it may be able to alter the blockchain by constructing alternate blocks if it is able to solve for such blocks faster than the remainder of the miners on the blockchain can add valid blocks. In such alternate blocks, the malicious actor or botnet could control, exclude or modify the ordering of transactions, though it could not generate new digital assets or transactions using such control. Using alternate blocks, the malicious actor could “double-spend” its own digital assets (i.e., spend the same digital assets in more than one transaction) and prevent the confirmation of other users’ transactions for so long as it maintains control. To the extent that such malicious actor or botnet does not yield its majority control of the processing power or the digital asset community does not reject the fraudulent blocks as malicious, reversing any changes made to the blockchain may not be possible. Such changes could adversely affect an investment in Gryphon.

For example, in late May and early June 2014, a mining pool known as GHash.io approached and, during a 24- to 48-hour period may have exceeded, the threshold of 50% of the processing power on the Bitcoin network. To the extent that GHash.io did exceed 50% of the processing power on the network, reports indicate that such threshold was surpassed for only a short period, and there are no reports of any malicious activity or control of the blockchain performed by GHash.io. Furthermore, the processing power in the mining pool appears to have been redirected to other pools on a voluntary basis by participants in the GHash.io pool, as had been done in prior instances when a mining pool exceeded 40% of the processing power on the Bitcoin network.

The approach towards and possible crossing of the 50% threshold indicate a greater risk that a single mining pool could exert authority over the validation of digital asset transactions. To the extent that the digital assets ecosystems do not act to ensure greater decentralization of digital asset mining processing power, the feasibility of a malicious actor obtaining in excess of 50% of the processing power on any digital asset network (e.g., through control of a large mining pool or through hacking such a mining pool) will increase, which may adversely impact an investment in Gryphon.

The decentralized nature of cryptocurrency systems may lead to slow or inadequate responses to crises, which may negatively affect Gryphon’s business.

The decentralized nature of the governance of cryptocurrency systems may lead to ineffective decision making that slows development or prevents a network from overcoming emergent obstacles. Governance of many cryptocurrency systems is by voluntary consensus and open competition with no clear leadership structure or authority. To the extent lack of clarity in corporate governance of the Bitcoin blockchain leads to ineffective decision making that slows development and growth of the Bitcoin network protocol, Gryphon’s business may be adversely affected.

The open-source structure of the Bitcoin network protocol means that the contributors to the protocol are generally not directly compensated for their contributions in maintaining and developing the protocol. A failure to properly monitor and upgrade the protocol could damage the Bitcoin network and an investment in Gryphon.

The Bitcoin network operates based on an open-source protocol maintained by contributors, largely on the Bitcoin Core project on GitHub. As an open-source project, Bitcoin is not represented by an official organization or authority. As the Bitcoin network protocol is not sold and its use does not generate revenues for contributors, contributors are generally not compensated for maintaining and updating the Bitcoin network protocol. The lack of guaranteed financial incentive for contributors to maintain or develop the Bitcoin network and the lack of guaranteed resources to adequately address emerging issues with the Bitcoin network may reduce incentives to address the issues adequately or in a timely manner. Changes to a digital asset network that Gryphon is mining on may adversely affect an investment in Gryphon.

The impact of geopolitical and economic events on the supply and demand for Bitcoin is uncertain.

Geopolitical crises may motivate large-scale purchases of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, which could increase the price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies rapidly. This may increase the likelihood of a subsequent price decrease as crisis-driven purchasing behavior dissipates, which would adversely affect the value of Gryphon’s Bitcoin value following such downward adjustment. Such risks are similar to the risks of purchasing commodities in uncertain times, such as the risk of purchasing, holding or selling gold. Alternatively, as an emerging asset class with limited acceptance as a payment system or commodity, global crises and general economic downturns may discourage investment in Bitcoin as investors focus their investments on less volatile asset classes as a means of hedging their investment risks.

As an alternative to fiat currencies that are backed by central governments, Bitcoin, which is relatively new, is subject to supply and demand forces. How such supply and demand will be impacted by geopolitical events is largely uncertain but could be harmful to Gryphon. Political or economic crises may motivate large-scale acquisitions or sales of Bitcoin either globally or locally. Such events could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s ability to continue as a going concern or to pursue Gryphon’s new strategy at all, which could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, prospects or operations and potentially the value of any bitcoin that Gryphon mines or otherwise acquires or holds for its own account.

Gryphon faces risks of Internet disruptions, which could have an adverse effect on the price of Bitcoin.

A disruption of the Internet may affect the use of Bitcoin. Generally, Bitcoin and Gryphon’s business of mining Bitcoin are dependent upon the Internet. A significant disruption in Internet connectivity could disrupt a currency’s network operations until the disruption is resolved and have an adverse effect on the price of Bitcoin and Gryphon’s ability to mine bitcoin.

Fluctuations in the price of bitcoin may significantly influence the market price of our bitcoin holdings and therefore, the price of our common stock.

To the extent investors view the value of our common stock as linked to the value or change in the value of our bitcoin, fluctuations in the price of bitcoin may significantly influence the market price of our common stock.

Generally, a bitcoin miner’s chance of solving a block on the Bitcoin blockchain and earning a bitcoin reward is a function of the miner’s hash rate (i.e., the amount of computing power devoted to supporting the Bitcoin blockchain), relative to the global network hash rate. As greater adoption of Bitcoin occurs, we expect the demand for Bitcoin will increase further, drawing more mining companies into the industry and thereby increasing the global network hash rate. As new and more powerful miners are deployed, the global network hash rate will continue to increase, meaning a miner’s chance of earning bitcoin rewards will decline unless it deploys additional hash rate at pace with the industry. Accordingly, to maintain our chances of earning new bitcoin rewards and remaining competitive in our industry, we must seek to continually add new miners to grow our hash rate at pace with the growth in the Bitcoin global network hash rate. However, as demand has increased and scarcity in the supply of new miners has resulted, the price of new miners has increased sharply, and we expect this process to continue in the future as demand for bitcoin increases. Therefore, if the price of bitcoin is not sufficiently high to allow us to fund our hash rate growth through new miner acquisitions and if we are otherwise unable to access additional capital to acquire these miners, our hash rate may stagnate and we may fall behind our competitors. If this happens, our chances of earning new bitcoin rewards would decline and, as such, our results of operations and financial condition may suffer.

Risks Related to Operations

Gryphon is an early-stage company and has a limited history of generating profits.

Gryphon was formed in October 2020 and has a limited history upon which an evaluation of Gryphon’s performance and future prospects can be made. Gryphon began mining operations in September 2021, and had no previous existing operations. Gryphon’s current and proposed operations are subject to all of the business risks associated with new enterprises. These include likely fluctuations in operating results as Gryphon reacts to developments in its market, manages its growth and operations, and responds to the entry of competitors into the market. Further, there is no assurance that Gryphon can successfully execute its business plan. Gryphon has had limited revenues generated since its bitcoin miners became operational in September 2021, and consequently recorded losses in 2024, 2023, 2021 and 2020. Gryphon generated minimal profits in 2022 and may not be able to sustain profitability in the future.

Gryphon may be unable to access sufficient additional capital to fund its operations or for future strategic growth initiatives.

Gryphon’s purchase of miners is a capital intensive, and Gryphon anticipates that future strategic growth initiatives will likewise be capital-intensive. Gryphon expects to raise additional capital to fund its operations and future strategic growth initiatives. If Gryphon raises additional capital through public or private equity offerings, the ownership interest of Gryphon’s existing stockholders will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect Gryphon’s stockholders’ rights. If Gryphon raises additional capital through debt financing, Gryphon may be subject to covenants limiting or restricting Gryphon’s ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt or liens, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. Further, Gryphon may be unable to raise capital in a timely manner, in sufficient quantities, or on terms acceptable to Gryphon, if at all. If Gryphon is unable to raise the additional capital needed to fund its operations or execute future strategic growth initiatives, Gryphon may be less competitive in its industry and its results of operations and financial condition may suffer. The value of its securities may also be materially and adversely affected.

Gryphon’s independent registered public accounting firm’s report contains an explanatory paragraph that expresses substantial doubt about Gryphon’s ability continue as a “going concern.”

Gryphon’s consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), which contemplate the continuation of Gryphon as a going concern and the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the ordinary course of business.

Since Gryphon began revenue generation in September 2021, management has financed Gryphon’s operations through equity and debt financing and the sale of the digital assets earned through mining operations.

Gryphon may incur additional losses from operations and negative cash outflows from operations in the foreseeable future. In the event Gryphon does incur losses, it may need to raise debt or equity financing to finance its operations until operations are cashflow positive. However, there can be no assurance that such financing will be available in sufficient amounts and on acceptable terms, when and if needed, or at all. The precise amount and timing of the funding needs cannot be determined accurately at this time and will depend on several factors, including the market price for the underlying commodity mined by Gryphon, the potential cost of funding Captus Energy and its ability to procure equipment and operate profitably. Gryphon’s financial statements have been presented on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the ordinary course of business.

Gryphon’s loss of any of its management or advisory team, its inability to execute an effective succession plan, or its inability to attract and retain qualified personnel, could adversely affect Gryphon’s business.

Gryphon’s success and future growth will depend to a significant degree on the skills and services of its management and advisors, including Steve Gutterman, Gryphon’s Chief Executive Officer and Sim Salzman, Gryphon’s Chief Financial Officer. Gryphon will need to continue to grow its management in order to alleviate pressure on its existing team and in order to continue to develop its business. If Gryphon’s management, including any new hires that Gryphon may make, fail to work together effectively and to execute Gryphon’s plans and strategies on a timely basis, Gryphon’s business could be harmed. Furthermore, if Gryphon fails to execute an effective contingency or succession plan with the loss of any member of management, the loss of such management personnel may significantly disrupt its business.

The loss of key members of management or advisory team could inhibit Gryphon’s growth prospects. Gryphon’s future success also depends in large part on its ability to attract, retain and motivate key management and operating personnel. As Gryphon continues to develop and expand its operations and pursue new strategies, it may require personnel with different skills and experiences, and who have sound understandings of Gryphon’s business and both the Bitcoin network industry and the AI and HPC industry. The market for highly qualified personnel in these industries is very competitive, and Gryphon may be unable to attract such personnel. If Gryphon is unable to attract such personnel, its business could be harmed.*** ***

Gryphon’s bitcoin may be subject to loss, theft or restriction on access.

There is a risk that some or all of Gryphon’s bitcoin could be lost or stolen. Cryptocurrencies are stored in cryptocurrency sites commonly referred to as “wallets” by holders of cryptocurrencies, which may be accessed to exchange a holder’s cryptocurrency assets. Access to Gryphon’s bitcoin assets could also be restricted by cybercrime (such as a denial of service attack) against a service at which Gryphon maintains a hosted hot wallet. A hot wallet refers to any cryptocurrency wallet that is connected to the Internet. Generally, hot wallets are easier to set up and access than wallets in cold storage, but they are also more susceptible to hackers and other technical vulnerabilities. Cold storage refers to any cryptocurrency wallet that is not connected to the Internet. Gryphon holds its bitcoin solely in cold custodial wallets with keys managed by BitGo Trust. Cold storage is generally more secure than hot storage, but is not ideal for quick or regular transactions, and Gryphon may experience lag time in its ability to respond to market fluctuations in the price of Gryphon’s bitcoin assets.

Hackers or malicious actors may launch attacks to steal, compromise or secure bitcoin, such as by attacking the Bitcoin network source code, exchange miners, third-party platforms, cold and hot storage locations or software, through phishing schemes or by other means. Several errors and defects in such codes have been found previously, including those that disabled some functionality for users and exposed users’ information. Exploitations of flaws in the source code that allow malicious actors to take or create money have previously occurred. Despite Gryphon’s efforts and processes to prevent breaches, Gryphon’s devices, as well as Gryphon’s miners, computer systems and those of third parties that Gryphon uses in its operations, are vulnerable to cybersecurity risks, including cyberattacks such as viruses and worms, phishing attacks, denial-of-service attacks, physical or electronic break-ins, employee theft or misuse, and similar disruptions from unauthorized tampering with Gryphon’s miners and computer systems or those of third parties that Gryphon uses in its operations. Any of these events may adversely affect Gryphon’s operations and, consequently, Gryphon’s investments and profitability. The loss or destruction of a private key required to access Gryphon’s digital wallets may be irreversible and Gryphon may be denied access for all time to its bitcoin holdings or the holdings of others held in those compromised wallets. Gryphon’s loss of access to its private keys or a data loss relating to Gryphon’s digital wallets could adversely affect Gryphon’s investments and assets.

Cryptocurrencies are controllable only by the possessor of both the unique public and private keys relating to the local or online digital wallet in which they are held, which wallet’s public key or address is reflected in the network’s public blockchain. Gryphon will publish the public key relating to digital wallets in use when Gryphon verifies the receipt of transfers and disseminates such information into the network, but Gryphon will need to safeguard the private keys relating to such digital wallets. We safeguard and keep private the private keys relating to our digital assets by relying on BitGo Trust’s (as defined herein) 100% cold storage custody solution held in a purpose-built physically-secure environment based on established, industry best practices to safeguard our digital assets from theft, loss, destruction or other issues relating to hackers and technological attack. Gryphon’s CEO holds Gryphon side private keys that are protected with two-factor authentication. Gryphon confirms transactional validity and data for revenue recognition through a daily review and reconciliation of BitGo reports. Custodial side keys are held by BitGo Trust who verifies requests with two factor authentication and video reviews. To the extent such private keys are lost, destroyed or otherwise compromised, Gryphon will be unable to access its bitcoin rewards and such private keys may not be capable of being restored by any network. Any loss of private keys relating to digital wallets used to store Gryphon’s bitcoin could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s ability to continue as a going concern or to pursue its new strategy at all, which could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, prospects or operations and potentially the value of any bitcoin that Gryphon mines or otherwise acquires or holds for its own account.

Our ability to adopt technology in response to changing security needs or trends and reliance on third party, Bitgo Prime, for custody poses a challenge to the safekeeping of our digital assets.

The history of digital asset exchanges has shown that exchanges and large holders of digital assets must adapt to technological change in order to secure and safeguard their digital assets. We rely on Bitgo Trust’s 100% cold storage custody solution held in a purpose-built physically-secure environment based on established, industry best practices to safeguard our digital assets from theft, loss, destruction or other issues relating to hackers and technological attack. We believe that it may become a more appealing target of security threats as the size of our bitcoin holdings grow. To the extent that either BitGo Trust or we are unable to identify and mitigate or stop new security threats, our digital assets may be subject to theft, loss, destruction or other attack, which could adversely affect an investment in us. To the extent that BitGo Trust is no longer, due to the current banking crisis, able to safeguard our assets, we would be at risk of loss if safeguarding protocols fail.

Incorrect or fraudulent cryptocurrency transactions may be irreversible.

Cryptocurrency transactions are irrevocable and stolen or incorrectly transferred cryptocurrencies may be irretrievable. As a result, any incorrectly executed or fraudulent Bitcoin transactions could adversely affect Gryphon’s investments and assets. Cryptocurrency transactions are not, from an administrative perspective, reversible without the consent and active participation of the recipient of the cryptocurrency from the transaction. In theory, Bitcoin transactions may be reversible with the control or consent of a majority of processing power on the Bitcoin network; however, Gryphon does not now, nor is it feasible that Gryphon could in the future, possess sufficient processing power to effect such a reversal. Once a transaction has been verified and recorded in a block that is added to a blockchain, an incorrect transfer of a cryptocurrency or a theft thereof generally will not be reversible and Gryphon may not have sufficient recourse to recover its losses from any such transfer or theft. It is possible that, through computer or human error, or through theft, fraud, phishing schemes or other criminal action, Gryphon’s cryptocurrency rewards could be transferred in incorrect amounts or to unauthorized third parties or uncontrolled accounts. Further, at this time, there is no specifically enumerated U.S. or foreign governmental, regulatory, investigative or prosecutorial authority or mechanism through which to bring an action or complaint regarding missing or stolen cryptocurrency. In the event of a loss, Gryphon would be reliant on existing private investigative entities to investigate any such loss of Gryphon’s bitcoin assets. These third-party service providers rely on data analysis and compliance of Internet service providers with traditional court orders to reveal information such as the IP addresses of any attackers who may have targeted Gryphon. To the extent that Gryphon is unable to recover its losses from such action, error, theft or other criminal action, such events could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s ability to continue as a going concern or to pursue Gryphon’s new strategy at all, which could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, prospects or operations of and potentially the value of any bitcoin that Gryphon mines or otherwise acquires or holds for its own account.

Gryphon may be affected by price fluctuations in the wholesale and retail power markets.

Market prices for power, generation capacity and ancillary services, are unpredictable. Depending upon the effectiveness of any price risk management activity undertaken by Gryphon, including but not limited to attempts to secure hosting services contracts at fixed fees, an increase in market prices for power, generation capacity, and ancillary services may adversely affect Gryphon’s business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results. Long- and short-term power prices may fluctuate substantially due to a variety of factors outside of Gryphon’s control, including, but not limited to:

If Gryphon is unable to secure and maintain its power supply at prices or on terms acceptable to it, a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results would occur.

To remain competitive in Gryphon’s industry, Gryphon seeks to grow its hash rate to match the growing network hash rate and increasing network difficulty of the Bitcoin blockchain, and if Gryphon is unable to grow its hash rate at pace with the network hash rate, Gryphon’s chance of earning bitcoin from its mining operations would decline.

As the adoption of Bitcoin has increased, the price of Bitcoin has generally appreciated, causing the demand for new bitcoin rewards for successfully solving blocks on the Bitcoin blockchain to likewise increase. This has encouraged more miners to attempt to mine bitcoin, which increases the global network hash rate deployed in support of the Bitcoin blockchain.

Because a miner’s relative chance of successfully solving a block and earning a new bitcoin reward is generally a function of the ratio the miner’s individual hash rate bears to the global network hash rate, as the global network hash rate increases, a miner must increase its individual hash rate to maintain its chances of earning new bitcoin rewards. Therefore, as new miners enter the industry and as miners deploy greater and greater numbers of increasingly powerful machines, existing miners must seek to continually increase their hash rates to remain competitive. Thus, a feedback loop is created: as Bitcoin gains popularity and its relative market price increases, more miners attempt to mine bitcoin and the Bitcoin network hash rate is increased; in response, existing miners and new miners devote more and more hash rate to the Bitcoin blockchain by deploying greater numbers of increasingly powerful machines in an attempt to ensure their abilities to earn additional bitcoin rewards do not decrease. Compounding this feedback loop, the network difficulty of the Bitcoin network (i.e., the amount of work (measured in hashes) necessary to solve a block) is periodically adjusted to maintain the pace of new block additions (with one new block added to the blockchain approximately every ten minutes), and thereby control the supply of Bitcoin. As miners deploy more hash rate and the Bitcoin network hash rate is increased, the Bitcoin network difficulty is adjusted upwards by requiring more hash rate to be deployed to solve a block. Thus, miners are further incentivized to grow their hash rates to maintain their chances of earning new bitcoin rewards. In theory, these dual processes should continually replicate themselves until the supply of available bitcoin is exhausted. In response, miners have attempted to achieve greater hash rates by deploying increasingly sophisticated and expensive miners in ever greater quantities. This has become the Bitcoin mining industry’s great “arms race.” Moreover, because there are very few manufacturers of miners capable of producing a sufficient number of miners of adequate quality to meet this need, scarcity results and miner prices increase. Compounding this phenomenon, it has been observed that some manufacturers of bitcoin miners may increase their prices for new miners as the market price of Bitcoin increases.

Accordingly, for Gryphon to maintain its chances of earning new bitcoin rewards and remaining competitive in its industry, Gryphon must seek to continually add new miners to grow its hash rate at pace with the growth in the Bitcoin network hash rate. However, as demand has increased and scarcity in the supply of new miners has resulted, the price of new miners has increased, and Gryphon expects this process to continue in the future as demand for bitcoin increases. Therefore, if the price of Bitcoin is not sufficiently high to allow Gryphon to fund its hash rate growth through new miner acquisitions, and if Gryphon is otherwise unable to access additional capital to acquire these miners, Gryphon’s hash rate may stagnate and Gryphon may fall behind its competitors. If this happens, Gryphon’s chances of earning new bitcoin rewards would decline and, as such, its results of operations and financial condition may suffer.

Gryphon’s business is dependent on a small number of digital asset mining equipment suppliers.

Gryphon’s business is dependent upon digital asset mining equipment suppliers providing an adequate supply of new generation digital asset mining machines at economical prices to customers intending to purchase its hosting and other solutions. The growth in Gryphon’s business is directly related to increased demand for hosting services and digital assets such as Bitcoin, which is dependent in large part on the availability of new generation mining machines offered for sale at a price conducive to profitable digital asset mining, as well as the trading price of digital assets such as Bitcoin. The market price and availability of new mining machines fluctuates with the price of Bitcoin and can be volatile. Higher Bitcoin prices increase the demand for mining equipment and increase the cost. In addition, as more companies seek to enter the mining industry, the demand for machines may outpace supply and create mining machine equipment shortages. There are no assurances that digital asset mining equipment suppliers will be able to keep pace with any surge in demand for mining equipment. Further, manufacturing mining machine purchase contracts are not favorable to purchasers and Gryphon may have little or no recourse in the event a mining machine manufacturer defaults on its mining machine delivery commitments. If Gryphon and its customers are not able to obtain a sufficient number of digital asset mining machines at favorable prices, its growth expectations, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations will be negatively impacted.

Mining machines rely on components and raw materials that may be subject to price fluctuations or shortages, including ASIC chips that have been subject to an ongoing significant shortage.

In order to build and sustain Gryphon’s self-mining operations, Gryphon will depend on third parties to provide it with ASIC chips and other critical components for its mining equipment, which may be subject to price fluctuations or shortages. For example, the ASIC chip is the key component of a mining machine as it determines the efficiency of the device. The production of ASIC chips typically requires highly sophisticated silicon wafers, which currently only a small number of fabrication facilities, or wafer foundries, in the world are capable of producing. ASIC chips were recently subject to significant price increases and shortages that may occur again in the future.

There is also a risk that a manufacturer or seller of ASIC chips or other necessary mining equipment may adjust the prices according to Bitcoin, other cryptocurrency prices or otherwise, so the cost of new machines could become unpredictable and extremely high. As a result, at times, Gryphon may be forced to obtain mining machines and other hardware at premium prices, to the extent they are even available. Such events could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Gryphon’s reliance primarily on a single model of miner may subject its operations to increased risk of design flaws.

The performance and reliability of Gryphon’s miners and its technology is critical to Gryphon’s reputation and its operations. Because Gryphon currently only uses Bitmain Antminer type miners, if there are issues with those machines, such as a design flaw in the ASIC chips they employ, Gryphon’s entire system could be affected. Any system error or failure may significantly delay response times or even cause Gryphon’s system to fail. Any disruption in Gryphon’s ability to continue mining could result in lower yields and harm its reputation and business. Any exploitable weakness, flaw, or error common to Bitmain miners could affect all of Gryphon’s miners; therefore, if a defect or other flaw exists and is exploited, Gryphon’s entire miner fleet could be adversely impacted. Any interruption, delay or system failure could result in financial losses, a decrease in the value of Gryphon’s stock and damage to Gryphon’s reputation.

There are risks related to technological obsolescence, the vulnerability of the global supply chain to Bitcoin hardware disruption, and difficulty in obtaining new hardware, which may have a negative effect on Gryphon’s business.

Gryphon’s mining operations can only be successful and profitable if the costs of mining Bitcoin, including hardware and electricity costs, associated with mining Bitcoin are lower than the price of a bitcoin. As Gryphon’s mining facility operates, Gryphon’s miners experience ordinary wear and tear, and may also face more significant malfunctions caused by a number of extraneous factors beyond Gryphon’s control. The physical degradation of Gryphon’s miners will require Gryphon to, over time, replace those miners which are no longer functional. Additionally, as the technology evolves, Gryphon may be required to acquire newer models of miners to remain competitive in the market. Also, because Gryphon expects to depreciate all new miners, Gryphon’s reported operating results will be negatively affected.

Gryphon’s use of third-party mining pools exposes it to additional risks.

Gryphon receives bitcoin rewards from its mining activity through a third-party mining pool operator. Mining pools allow miners to combine their processing power, which increases miners’ chances of solving blocks and receiving bitcoin rewards from the network. The rewards are distributed by the pool operator, proportionally to Gryphon’s contribution to the pool’s overall mining power, after deducting the applicable pool fee, if any, used to solve a particular block on the Bitcoin blockchain. Should the pool operator’s system suffer downtime due to a cyber-attack, software malfunction or other issue, Gryphon’s ability to mine and receive revenue will be negatively impacted.

Gryphon relies on hosting arrangements to conduct its business, and the availability of such hosting arrangements is uncertain and competitive and may be affected by changes in regulation in one or more countries.

Gryphon relies on its hosting arrangements with Blockfusion and Mawson, to provide mining data centers and host its mining equipment. If these mining data centers fail to perform their obligations under their agreements with Gryphon, Gryphon may be forced to look for alternative mining data centers to host its mining equipment, which may not be available on favorable terms or at all. Additionally, if the mining data centers shut down or cannot accommodate additional miners as Gryphon expands its fleet, Gryphon may be forced to look for alternative centers.

In May 2021, China’s State Council issued a statement signaling its intent to restrict cryptocurrency mining and trading activities, resulting in provincial governments taking proactive measurements to prohibit cryptocurrency mining. On September 24, 2021, China’s central bank and its National Development and Reform Commission issued a nation-wide ban on cryptocurrency mining and declaring all financial transactions involving cryptocurrencies illegal. As a result, mining data centers previously operating in China have been forced to shut down and owners of cryptocurrency mining equipment located in China have been attempting to relocate the equipment to mining data centers in other jurisdictions, with a particular focus on locations within the United States. Combined with the increase in the price of bitcoin in 2021, the influx of cryptocurrency miners from China has created conditions of great demand for mining data centers and limited supply. Due to these conditions, there is no assurance that Gryphon will be able to procure alternative hosting agreements on acceptable terms in a timely manner or at all.

Significant competition for suitable mining data centers is expected to continue, and other government regulators, including local permitting officials, may potentially restrict the ability of potential mining data centers to begin or continue operations in certain locations. They can also restrict the ability of electricity suppliers to provide electricity to mining operations in times of electricity shortage, or may otherwise potentially restrict or prohibit the provision of electricity to mining operations. While Gryphon is not aware of the existence of any such restrictions in New York and Pennsylvania, the jurisdictions in which the mining data centers that Gryphon is currently maintaining its machines at are located, new ordinances and other regulations at the federal, state and local levels can be introduced at any time and can be triggered by certain adverse weather conditions or natural disasters, among other reasons.

The mining data centers at which Gryphon maintains its mining equipment may experience damages, including damages that are not covered by insurance.

Gryphon maintains its mining equipment at mining data centers in New York and Pennsylvania. The mining data centers at which Gryphon maintains its mining equipment, and any future mining data centers at which Gryphon maintains its mining equipment will be, subject to a variety of risks relating to physical condition and operation, including:

For example, the mining data centers at which Gryphon maintains its mining equipment could be rendered inoperable, temporarily or permanently, as a result of a fire or other natural disaster or by a terrorist or other attack on the facilities where Gryphon’s mining equipment is located. The security and other measures Gryphon takes to protect against these risks may not be sufficient. Any property insurance Gryphon obtained in the future may not be adequate to cover the losses Gryphon suffers as a result of any of these events. In the event of an uninsured loss, including a loss in excess of insured limits, at any of the mining data centers at which Gryphon maintains its mining equipment, such mining data centers may not be adequately repaired in a timely manner or at all and Gryphon may lose some or all of the future revenues anticipated to be derived from Gryphon’s equipment located at such mining data centers. Additionally, Gryphon is exposed to regulatory risk in New York and Pennsylvania . The recent regulatory changes in New York have not impacted Gryphon’s operations due the scope of the changes being limited to carbon-based electricity. However, Gryphon is acutely aware that further regulatory changes could impact its ability to operate in the state and is prepared to shift its operations to alternative jurisdictions should it be required. Such a shift could be costly, which could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Gryphon may not be able to compete with other companies, some of whom have greater resources and experience.

Gryphon may not be able to compete successfully against present or future competitors. Gryphon does not have the resources to compete with larger providers of similar services at this time. The AI, HPC and Bitcoin industries have attracted various high-profile and well-established operators, some of which have substantially greater liquidity and financial resources than Gryphon does. With the limited resources Gryphon has available, Gryphon may experience great difficulties in establishing itself in the AI and HPC industries and expanding and improving its network of computers to remain competitive. Competition from existing and future competitors, particularly those that have access to competitively-priced energy, could result in Gryphon’s inability to secure acquisitions and partnerships that Gryphon may need to expand Gryphon’s business in the future. This competition from other entities with greater resources, experience and reputations may result in Gryphon’s failure to maintain or expand its business, as Gryphon may never be able to successfully execute its business plan. If Gryphon is unable to expand and remain competitive, its business could be negatively affected.

Gryphon’s operations, investment strategies and profitability may be adversely affected by competition from other methods of investing in Bitcoin.

Gryphon competes with other users and/or companies that are mining Bitcoin and other potential financial vehicles, including securities backed by or linked to Bitcoin through entities similar to Gryphon. Market and financial conditions, and other conditions beyond Gryphon’s control, may make it more attractive to invest in other financial vehicles, or to invest in Bitcoin directly. The emergence of other financial vehicles and exchange-traded funds have been scrutinized by regulators and such scrutiny and the negative impressions or conclusions resulting from such scrutiny could be applicable to Gryphon and impact Gryphon’s ability to successfully pursue its strategy or operate at all, or to establish or maintain a public market for Gryphon’s securities. Such circumstances could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s ability to continue as a going concern or to pursue its strategy at all, which could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, prospects or operations and potentially the value of any bitcoin that Gryphon mines or otherwise acquires or holds for its own account, and harm investors.

The development and acceptance of competing blockchain platforms or technologies may cause consumers to use alternative distributed ledgers or an alternative to distributed ledgers altogether. Gryphon’s business utilizes presently existent digital ledgers and blockchains and Gryphon could face difficulty adapting to emergent digital ledgers, blockchains, or alternatives thereto. This may adversely affect Gryphon and Gryphon’s exposure to various blockchain technologies and prevent Gryphon from realizing the anticipated profits from its investments. Such circumstances could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s ability to continue as a going concern or to pursue Gryphon’s strategy at all, which could have a material adverse effect on its business, prospects or operations and potentially the value of any bitcoin that Gryphon mines or otherwise acquires or holds for Gryphon’s own account, which could in turn harm investors.

Gryphon may not adequately respond to price fluctuations and rapidly changing technology, which may negatively affect Gryphon’s business.

Competitive conditions within the AI, HPC and Bitcoin industries require that Gryphon use sophisticated technology in the operation of Gryphon’s business. The industry for blockchain technology is characterized by rapid technological changes, new product introductions, enhancements and evolving industry standards. New technologies, techniques or products could emerge that might offer better performance than the software and other technologies Gryphon currently utilizes, and Gryphon may have to manage transitions to these new technologies to remain competitive. Gryphon may not be successful, generally or relative to Gryphon’s competitors in the AI, HPC and Bitcoin industries, in timely implementing new technology into Gryphon’s systems, or doing so in a cost-effective manner. During the course of implementing any such new technology into Gryphon’s operations, Gryphon may experience system interruptions and failures during such implementation. Furthermore, there can be no assurances that Gryphon will recognize, in a timely manner or at all, the benefits that Gryphon may expect as a result of implementing new technology into its operations. As a result, Gryphon’s business and operations may suffer.

There is a possibility of Bitcoin mining algorithms transitioning to proof of stake validation and other mining related risks, which could make Gryphon less competitive and ultimately adversely affect Gryphon’s business.

Proof of stake is an alternative method in validating Bitcoin transactions. Should the algorithm shift from a proof of work validation method to a proof of stake method, mining would require less energy and may render any company that maintains advantages in the current climate (for example, from lower priced electricity, processing, real estate, or hosting) less competitive. Gryphon, as a result of its efforts to optimize and improve the efficiency of its bitcoin mining operations, may be exposed to the risk in the future of losing the benefit of Gryphon’s capital investments and the competitive advantage Gryphon hopes to gain from this as a result, and may be negatively impacted if a switch to proof of stake validation were to occur. Such events could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s ability to continue as a going concern or to pursue its new strategy at all, which could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, prospects or operations and potentially the value of any bitcoin that Gryphon mines or otherwise acquires or holds for its own account.

Gryphon may not be able to realize the benefits of forks. Forks in a digital asset network may occur in the future which may affect the value of bitcoin held by Gryphon.

To the extent that a significant majority of users and miners on a cryptocurrency network install software that changes the cryptocurrency network or properties of a cryptocurrency, including the irreversibility of transactions and limitations on the mining of new cryptocurrency, the cryptocurrency network would be subject to new protocols and software. However, if less than a significant majority of users and miners on the cryptocurrency network consent to the proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the software prior to its modification, the consequence would be what is known as a “fork” of the network, with one prong running the pre-modified software and the other running the modified software. The effect of such a fork would be the existence of two versions of the cryptocurrency running in parallel, yet lacking interchangeability and necessitating exchange-type transactions to convert currencies between the two forks. Additionally, it may be unclear following a fork which fork represents the original asset and which is the new asset. Different metrics adopted by industry participants to determine which is the original asset include: referring to the wishes of the core developers of a cryptocurrency, blockchains with the greatest amount of hashing power contributed by miners or validators, or blockchains with the longest chain. A fork in the Bitcoin network could adversely affect Gryphon’s ability to operate.

Gryphon may not be able to realize the economic benefit of a fork, either immediately or ever, which could adversely affect Gryphon’s business. If Gryphon holds bitcoin at the time of a hard fork into two cryptocurrencies, industry standards would dictate that Gryphon would be expected to hold an equivalent amount of the old and new assets following the fork. However, Gryphon may not be able, or it may not be practical, to secure or realize the economic benefit of the new asset for various reasons. For instance, Gryphon may determine that there is no safe or practical way to custody the new asset, that trying to do so may pose an unacceptable risk to Gryphon’s holdings in the old asset, or that the costs of taking possession and/or maintaining ownership of the new cryptocurrency exceed the benefits of owning the new cryptocurrency. Additionally, laws, regulations or other factors may prevent Gryphon from benefitting from the new asset even if there is a safe and practical way to custody and secure the new asset.

The impacts of climate change may result in additional costs or risks.

The physical risks of climate change may impact the availability and cost of materials and natural resources, sources and supply of energy, demand for AI, HPC, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, and other operating costs. If environmental laws or regulations or industry standards are either changed or adopted and impose significant operational restrictions and compliance requirements on Gryphon’s operations, or if Gryphon’s operations are disrupted due to physical impacts of climate change, Gryphon’s business, capital expenditures, results of operations, financial condition and competitive position could be negatively impacted.

Terminations of agreements with hosting partners may materially our operations, financial condition, and results of operations.

On October 31, 2024, we terminated our hosting agreement with Coinmint, with effect on January 1, 2025. On December 1, 2024, we entered into the Blockfusion Agreement with Blockfusion for hosting 3,780 of our bitcoin miners at Blockfusion’s facility in Niagara Falls, New York. The Blockfusion Agreement has a term of twelve months and automatically renews for subsequent one-month terms until terminated on thirty days’ notice. Additionally, on January 3, 2025, we entered into the Mawson Agreement with Mawson for hosting the remaining 635 of our bitcoin miners at Mawson’s facility in Midland, Pennsylvania, with the right to host up to 5,880 miners. The Mawson Agreement has an initial term of one year and may be terminated on sixty days’ notice.

The termination of agreements with hosting partners exposes us to numerous risks, including the potential for a decline in our market position, reduced operational efficiency, and the likelihood of increased operational costs if we are required to secure emergency or short-term hosting solutions at unfavorable terms. In addition, we may need to devote significant resources to identify and secure a new hosting arrangement. There can be no assurance that we will find a suitable or economically viable replacement in a timely manner, if at all, in the event of a termination.

Restrictive covenants in the New Loan Agreement and Notes may limit our operating flexibility and ability to engage in certain transactions that may be in our long-term best interest.

The New Loan Agreement and the Notes contain certain covenants that limit Gryphon’s ability to engage in certain transactions that may be in Gryphon’s long-term best interest. Subject to certain limited exceptions, these covenants do or may limit Gryphon’s ability to or prohibit Gryphon from permitting any of its subsidiaries to, as applicable, among other things:

While Gryphon has not previously breached and is currently in compliance with the covenants contained in the New Loan Agreement and Notes, Gryphon may breach these covenants in the future. Gryphon’s ability to comply with these covenants may be affected by events and factors beyond its control. In the event that Gryphon breaches one or more covenants, Anchorage or the holders of the Notes, as applicable, may choose to declare an event of default and require that Gryphon immediately repay all amounts outstanding under the New Loan Agreement or the Notes, as applicable, and terminate any commitment to extend further credit and foreclose on collateral. The occurrence of any of these events could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Governmental Regulation and Enforcement

As cryptocurrencies may be determined to be investment securities, Gryphon may inadvertently violate the Investment Company Act of 1940 and incur large losses as a result and potentially be required to register as an investment company or terminate operations and Gryphon may incur third-party liabilities.

Gryphon believes that it is not engaged in the business of investing, reinvesting, or trading in securities, and it does not hold itself out as being engaged in those activities. However, under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”), a company may be deemed an investment company under section 3(a)(1)(C) thereof if the value of its investment securities is more than 40% of its total assets (exclusive of government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis.

As a result of Gryphon’s investments and its mining activities, including investments in which it does not have a controlling interest, the investment securities Gryphon holds could exceed 40% of Gryphon’s total assets, exclusive of cash items and, accordingly, Gryphon could determine that it has become an inadvertent investment company. The bitcoin that Gryphon owns, acquires or mines may be deemed an investment security by the SEC, although Gryphon does not believe any of the bitcoin it owns, acquires or mines are securities. An inadvertent investment company can avoid being classified as an investment company if it can rely on one of the exclusions under the Investment Company Act. One such exclusion, Rule 3a-2 under the Investment Company Act, allows an inadvertent investment company a grace period of one year from the earlier of (a) the date on which an issuer owns securities and/or cash having a value exceeding 50% of the issuer’s total assets on either a consolidated or unconsolidated basis and (b) the date on which an issuer owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of such issuer’s total assets (exclusive of government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. As of the date of this Report, Gryphon does not believe it is an inadvertent investment company. Gryphon may take actions to cause the investment securities held by it to be less than 40% of its total assets, which may include acquiring assets with Gryphon’s cash and bitcoin on hand or liquidating Gryphon’s investment securities or bitcoin or seeking a no-action letter from the SEC if Gryphon is unable to acquire sufficient assets or liquidate sufficient investment securities in a timely manner.

As the Rule 3a-2 exception is available to a company no more than once every three years, and assuming no other exclusion were available to Gryphon, Gryphon would have to keep within the 40% limit for at least three years after it ceases being an inadvertent investment company. This may limit Gryphon’s ability to make certain investments or enter into joint ventures that could otherwise have a positive impact on Gryphon’s earnings. In any event, Gryphon does not intend to become an investment company engaged in the business of investing and trading securities.

Classification as an investment company under the Investment Company Act requires registration with the SEC. If an investment company fails to register, it would have to stop doing almost all business, and its contracts would become voidable. Registration is time consuming and restrictive and would require a restructuring of Gryphon’s operations, and Gryphon would be very constrained in the kind of business it could do as a registered investment company. Further, Gryphon would become subject to substantial regulation concerning management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons and portfolio composition, and would need to file reports under the Investment Company Act regime. The cost of such compliance would result in Gryphon incurring substantial additional expenses, and the failure to register if required would have a materially adverse impact to conduct Gryphon’s operations.

If regulatory changes or interpretations of Gryphon’s activities require its registration as a money services business under the regulations promulgated by The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network under the authority of the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act, Gryphon may be required to register and comply with such regulations. If regulatory changes or interpretations of Gryphon’s activities require the licensing or other registration of Gryphon as a money transmitter (or equivalent designation) under state law in any state in which Gryphon operates, Gryphon may be required to seek licensure or otherwise register and comply with such state law. In the event of any such requirement, to the extent Gryphon decides to continue, the required registrations, licensure and regulatory compliance steps may result in extraordinary, non-recurring expenses to Gryphon. Gryphon may also decide to cease its operations. Any termination of certain operations in response to the changed regulatory circumstances may be at a time that is disadvantageous to investors.

To the extent that Gryphon’s activities cause it to be deemed a money service business under the regulations promulgated by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the U.S. Treasury Department (“FinCEN”) under the authority of the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act, Gryphon may be required to comply with FinCEN regulations, including those that would mandate Gryphon to implement anti-money laundering programs, make certain reports to FinCEN and maintain certain records.

To the extent that Gryphon’s activities cause Gryphon to be deemed a money transmitter or equivalent designation under state law in any state in which Gryphon operates, Gryphon may be required to seek a license or otherwise register with a state regulator and comply with state regulations that may include the implementation of anti-money laundering programs, maintenance of certain records and other operational requirements. Currently, the New York Department of Financial Services maintains a comprehensive “BitLicense” framework for businesses that conduct “virtual currency business activity.” Gryphon will continue to monitor for developments in New York legislation, guidance and regulations.

Such additional federal or state regulatory obligations may cause Gryphon to incur extraordinary expenses, which could affect Gryphon’s business in a material and adverse manner. Furthermore, Gryphon and its service providers may not be capable of complying with certain federal or state regulatory obligations applicable to money service businesses and money transmitters. If Gryphon is deemed to be subject to and determined not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, Gryphon may act to dissolve and liquidate Gryphon. Any such action may adversely affect an investment in Gryphon.

Gryphon is subject to an extensive, highly evolving and uncertain regulatory and business landscape and any adverse changes to, or its failure to comply with, any laws and regulations, and adverse business reactions from counterparties could adversely affect its brand, reputation, business, operating results, and financial condition.

Gryphon’s business is subject to extensive laws, rules, regulations, policies, orders, determinations, directives, treaties, and legal and regulatory interpretations and guidance, as well as counterparty risk in the markets in which it operates, including regulatory aspects from financial services, federal energy and other regulators, the SEC, the CFTC, credit, crypto asset custody, exchange, and transfer, cross-border and domestic money and crypto asset transmission, consumer and commercial lending, usury, foreign currency exchange, privacy, data governance, data protection, cybersecurity, fraud detection, antitrust and competition, bankruptcy, tax, anti-bribery, economic and trade sanctions, anti-money laundering, and counter-terrorist financing, as well as the same regulatory risks applicable to counterparties, most notably hosting businesses, as well as the recent economic issues and bankruptcies befalling some in this industry. Many of these legal and regulatory regimes were adopted prior to the advent of the internet, mobile technologies, crypto assets, and related technologies. As a result, some applicable laws and regulations do not contemplate or address unique issues associated with the crypto economy, are subject to significant uncertainty, and vary widely across U.S. federal, state, and local and international jurisdictions. These legal and regulatory regimes, including the laws, rules, and regulations thereunder, evolve frequently and may be modified, interpreted, and applied in an inconsistent manner from one jurisdiction to another, and may conflict with one another. Moreover, the complexity and evolving nature of Gryphon’s business and the significant uncertainty surrounding the regulation of the crypto economy requires Gryphon to exercise its judgment as to whether certain laws, rules, and regulations apply to us, and it is possible that governmental bodies and regulators may disagree with Gryphon’s conclusions. To the extent Gryphon has not complied with such laws, rules, and regulations, it could be subject to significant fines, revocation of licenses, limitations on its products and services, reputational harm, and other regulatory consequences, each of which may be significant and could adversely affect its business, operating results, and financial condition.

Additionally, various governmental and regulatory bodies, including legislative and executive bodies, in the United States and in other countries may adopt new laws and regulations, the direction and timing of which may be influenced by changes in the governing administrations and major events in the crypto economy. The collapse of TerraUSD and Luna and the bankruptcy filings of FTX and its subsidiaries, Three Arrows, Celsius, Voyager, Genesis and BlockFi have resulted in calls for heightened scrutiny and regulation of the digital asset industry, with a specific focus on digital asset exchanges, platforms, and custodians. Federal and state legislatures and regulatory agencies are expected to introduce and enact new laws and regulations to regulate digital asset intermediaries, such as digital asset exchanges and custodians. The U.S. regulatory regime - namely the Federal Reserve Board, U.S. Congress and certain U.S. agencies (e.g., the SEC, the CFTC, FinCEN, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation) as well as the White House have issued reports and releases concerning digital assets, including Bitcoin and digital asset markets. In the near future, various governmental and regulatory bodies, including in the United States, may introduce new policies, laws, and regulations relating to crypto assets and the crypto economy generally, and crypto asset platforms in particular. However, the extent and content of any forthcoming laws and regulations are not yet ascertainable with certainty, and it may not be ascertainable in the near future. The failures of risk management and other control functions at other companies that played a role in these events could accelerate an existing regulatory trend toward stricter oversight of crypto asset platforms and the crypto economy.

Although Gryphon is not directly connected to the recent cryptocurrency market events, Gryphon may still suffer reputational harm due to its association with the cryptocurrency industry in light of the recent disruption in the crypto asset markets. Due to its business activities, Gryphon may be subject to ongoing examinations, oversight, and reviews and currently are, and expect in the future, to be subject to investigations and inquiries, by U.S. federal and state regulators, many of which have broad discretion to audit and examine its business. Moreover, new laws, regulations, or interpretations may result in additional litigation, regulatory investigations, and enforcement or other actions, including preventing or delaying Gryphon from offering certain products or services offered by its competitors or could impact how it offers such products and services. Adverse changes to, or its failure to comply with, any laws and regulations have had, and may continue to have, an adverse effect on its reputation and brand and its business, operating results, and financial condition.

There is no one unifying principle governing the regulatory status of cryptocurrency nor whether cryptocurrency is a security in each context in which it is viewed. Regulatory changes or actions in one or more countries may alter the nature of an investment in Gryphon or restrict the use of digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies, in a manner that adversely affects Gryphon’s business, prospects or operations.

As cryptocurrencies have grown in both popularity and market size, governments around the world have reacted differently, with certain governments deeming cryptocurrencies illegal, and others allowing their use and trade without restriction. In some jurisdictions, such as in the U.S., digital assets, like cryptocurrencies, are subject to extensive, and in some cases overlapping, unclear and evolving regulatory requirements. On March 8, 2022, President Biden announced an executive order on cryptocurrencies, which seeks to establish a unified federal regulatory regime for cryptocurrencies. In connection with FTX’s collapse and bankruptcy filing, the U.S. Department of Justice brought criminal charges, including charges of fraud, violations of federal securities laws, money laundering, and campaign finance offenses against FTX’s former CEO and others. FTX is also under investigation by the SEC, the Justice Department, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as well as by various regulatory authorities in the Bahamas, Europe and other jurisdictions. Regulatory and enforcement scrutiny has also increased, including from the DOJ, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress. Gryphon is unable to predict the nature or extent of new and proposed legislation and regulation potentially stemming from the Biden Administration executive order and proceedings surrounding FTX.

Bitcoin is the oldest and most well-known form of cryptocurrency. Bitcoin and other forms of cryptocurrencies have been the source of much regulatory consternation, resulting in differing definitional outcomes without a single unifying statement. Bitcoin and other digital assets are viewed differently by different regulatory and standards setting organizations globally as well as in the United States on the federal and state levels. For example, the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) consider a cryptocurrency as currency or an asset or property. Further, the IRS applies general tax principles that apply to property transactions to transactions involving virtual currency.

If regulatory changes or interpretations require the regulation of Bitcoin or other digital assets under the securities laws of the United States or elsewhere, including the Securities Act of 1933, the Exchange Act and the 1940 Act or similar laws of other jurisdictions and interpretations by the SEC, the CFTC, the IRS, Department of Treasury or other agencies or authorities, Gryphon may be required to register and comply with such regulations, including at a state or local level. To the extent that Gryphon decides to continue operations, the required registrations and regulatory compliance steps may result in extraordinary expense or burdens to Gryphon. Gryphon may also decide to cease certain operations and change Gryphon’s business model. Any disruption of Gryphon’s operations in response to the changed regulatory circumstances may be at a time that is disadvantageous to Gryphon.

Current and future legislation and SEC-rulemaking and other regulatory developments, including interpretations released by a regulatory authority, may impact the manner in which Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies are viewed or treated for classification and clearing purposes. In particular, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies may not be excluded from the definition of “security” by SEC rulemaking or interpretation requiring registration of all transactions unless another exemption is available, including transacting in bitcoin or cryptocurrency among owners and require registration of trading platforms as “exchanges.”

Gryphon cannot be certain as to how future regulatory developments will impact the treatment of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies under the law. While Gryphon received crypto assets other than Bitcoin from the private placement of stock, Gryphon has long since sold these assets and currently does not hold any crypto assets other than Bitcoin. Additionally, Gryphon does not intend to expand its business by acquiring digital assets other than Bitcoin. Nonetheless, if Bitcoin becomes subject to additional regulatory and registration requirements, and Gryphon fails to comply with these, Gryphon may seek to cease certain of its operations or be subjected to fines, penalties and other governmental action. Such circumstances could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s ability to continue as a going concern or to pursue its business model at all, which could have a material adverse effect on its business, prospects or operations and potentially the value of any cryptocurrencies Gryphon plans to hold or expect to acquire for its own account.

Banks and financial institutions may not provide banking services, or may cut off services, to businesses that engage in Bitcoin-related activities or that accept bitcoin as payment, including financial institutions of investors in Gryphon’s common stock.

A number of companies that engage in Bitcoin and/or other cryptocurrency-related activities have been unable to find banks or financial institutions that are willing to provide them with bank accounts and other services. Similarly, a number of companies and individuals or businesses associated with Bitcoin may have had and may continue to have their existing bank accounts closed or services discontinued with financial institutions in response to government action, particularly in China, where regulatory response to cryptocurrencies has been to exclude their use for ordinary consumer transactions within China. In January 2023, the Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued a joint statement effectively discouraging banks from doing business with clients in crypto-asset industries. The Federal Reserve also issued a policy statement broadening its authority to cover state-chartered institutions. Moreover, in January 2023, the White House issued a statement cautioning deepening ties between crypto-assets and the broader financial system. Gryphon also may be unable to obtain or maintain these financial services for Gryphon’s business. The difficulty that many businesses that provide Bitcoin and/or derivatives on other cryptocurrency-related activities have and may continue to have in finding banks and financial institutions willing to provide them services could decrease their usefulness and harm their public perception in the future and may be decreasing the usefulness of Bitcoin as a payment system and harming public perception of Bitcoin.

The usefulness of Bitcoin as a payment system and the public perception of Bitcoin could be damaged if banks or financial institutions were to close the accounts of businesses engaging in Bitcoin and/or other cryptocurrency-related activities. This could occur as a result of compliance risk, cost, government regulation or public pressure. The risk applies to securities firms, clearance and settlement firms, national stock exchanges and commodities derivatives exchanges, the over-the-counter market, and the Depository Trust Company, which, if any of such entities adopts or implements similar policies, rules or regulations, could negatively affect Gryphon’s relationships with financial institutions and impede Gryphon’s ability to convert bitcoin to fiat currencies. Such factors could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s ability to continue as a going concern or to pursue its strategy at all, which could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, prospects or operations and harm investors.

It may be illegal now, or in the future, to acquire, own, hold, sell or use bitcoin, ether, or other cryptocurrencies, participate in blockchains or utilize similar cryptocurrency assets in one or more countries, the ruling of which would adversely affect Gryphon.

As Bitcoin has grown in both popularity and market size, governments around the world have reacted differently to Bitcoin; certain governments have deemed them illegal, and others have allowed their use and trade without restriction, while in some jurisdictions, such as in the U.S., subject to extensive, and in some cases overlapping, unclear and evolving regulatory requirements. Until recently, little or no regulatory attention has been directed toward Bitcoin and the Bitcoin network by U.S. federal and state governments, foreign governments and self-regulatory agencies. As Bitcoin has grown in popularity and in market size, the Federal Reserve Board, U.S. Congress and certain U.S. agencies (e.g., the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the SEC, FinCEN and the Federal Bureau of Investigation) have begun to examine the operations of the Bitcoin network, Bitcoin users and the Bitcoin exchange market.

One or more countries such as China and Russia, which have taken harsh regulatory action in the past, may take regulatory actions in the future that could severely restrict the right to acquire, own, hold, sell or use these cryptocurrency assets or to exchange for fiat currency. In many nations, particularly in China and Russia, it is illegal to accept payment in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for consumer transactions and banking institutions are barred from accepting deposits of Bitcoin. Such restrictions may adversely affect Gryphon as the large-scale use of Bitcoin as a means of exchange is presently confined to certain regions globally. Such circumstances could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s ability to continue as a going concern or to pursue Gryphon’s strategy at all, which could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, prospects or operations and potentially the value of any Bitcoin that Gryphon mines or otherwise acquires or holds for its own account, and harm investors.

Gryphon’s interactions with a blockchain may expose Gryphon to specially designated nationals or blocked persons or cause Gryphon to violate provisions of law that did not contemplate distributed ledger technology.

The Office of Financial Assets Control of the U.S. Department of Treasury (“OFAC”) requires Gryphon to comply with its sanction program and not conduct business with persons named on its specially designated nationals list. However, because of the pseudonymous nature of blockchain transactions, Gryphon may inadvertently and without Gryphon’s knowledge engage in transactions with persons named on OFAC’s specially designated nationals list. Gryphon’s policy prohibits any transactions with such specially designated national individuals, but Gryphon may not be adequately capable of determining the ultimate identity of the individual with whom Gryphon transacts with respect to selling bitcoin assets. Moreover, federal law prohibits any U.S. person from knowingly or unknowingly possessing any visual depiction commonly known as child pornography. Recent media reports have suggested that persons have imbedded such depictions on one or more blockchains. Because Gryphon’s business requires it to download and retain one or more blockchains to effectuate Gryphon’s ongoing business, it is possible that such digital ledgers contain prohibited depictions without Gryphon’s knowledge or consent. To the extent government enforcement authorities literally enforce these and other laws and regulations that are impacted by decentralized distributed ledger technology, Gryphon may be subject to investigation, administrative or court proceedings, and civil or criminal monetary fines and penalties, all of which could harm Gryphon’s reputation.

Increased scrutiny and changing expectations from stockholders with respect to our environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) practices and the impacts of climate change may result in additional costs or risks.

Companies across many industries are facing increasing scrutiny related to their ESG practices. Investor advocacy groups, certain institutional investors, investment funds and other influential investors are also increasingly focused on ESG practices and in recent years have placed increasing importance on the non-financial impacts of their investments. Conversely, so-called “anti-ESG” and “anti-DEI” sentiment has also gained momentum across the United States, with several state and federal authorities having enacted or proposed “anti-ESG” policies or legislation, issued executive orders and legal opinions and engaged in related investigations and litigation. If our policies or practices are viewed as being in contradiction of such “anti-ESG” or “anti-DEI” policies, legislation executive orders or legal opinions, our reputation may be harmed and our business or financial condition may be adversely affected.

The SEC adopted a rule that requires climate disclosures in periodic and other filings with the SEC covering fiscal years beginning in 2025, which rule has been stayed pending the completion of a judicial review. To comply with this SEC rule, if the rule goes into effect in its current form, we will be required to establish additional internal controls, engage additional consultants and incur additional costs related to evaluating, managing and reporting on our environmental impact and climate-related risks and opportunities. If we fail to implement sufficient oversight or accurately capture and disclose on environmental matters, our reputation, business, operating results and financial condition may be materially adversely affected. Furthermore, increased public awareness and concern regarding environmental risks, including global climate change, may result in increased public scrutiny of our business and our industry, and our management team may divert significant time and energy away from our operations and towards responding to such scrutiny.

*** Targeted energy regulations and taxes could increase our costs and adversely affect our business.***

Bitcoin mining requires significant energy consumption, and our operations could be negatively impacted by government regulations or taxes specifically targeting energy usage in digital asset mining. Federal, state or local authorities may impose restrictions on energy consumption, mandate the use of renewable energy sources or implement higher electricity rates for mining operations, increasing our operating costs. Additionally, governments may introduce taxes on energy usage or carbon emissions that disproportionately affect bitcoin miners, further reducing our profitability. If regulatory or tax burdens make mining economically unviable in certain jurisdictions, we may be forced to relocate operations, secure alternative power sources at higher costs or scale back our mining activities, all of which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Gryphon’s management and compliance personnel have limited experience handling a listed cryptocurrency mining-related services company.

Gryphon’s management and compliance personnel have limited experience in handling regulatory and compliance matters relating to a listed cryptocurrency mining-related services company. Gryphon’s key compliance documents and compliance programs, such as AML and KYC procedures, also have a recent history only. Gryphon believes that its measures designed to limit its counterparty risks are appropriate. While Gryphon has been devoting a substantial amount of time and resources to various compliance initiatives and risk management measures, including but not limited to, developing a dedicated internal compliance function, Gryphon cannot assure you the practical application and effectiveness of its compliance program and risk management measures, nor that there will not be a failure in detecting regulatory compliance issues or managing risk exposure, which may adversely affect its reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations

Risks Related to Pending Acquisitions

If completed, the Captus Acquisition may not achieve its intended results and may result in us assuming unanticipated liabilities.

We entered into the Captus Agreement with the expectation that the Captus Acquisition would result in various benefits and growth opportunities. Achieving the anticipated benefits of the transaction is subject to a large number of risks and uncertainties, including our ability to raise the substantial capital required to begin operations at the site and risks related to construction, contracting, insurance, management, community, environmental, operations, foreign relations and others highlighted in thisRisk Factors section. . Additionally, the success of the Captus Acquisition depends on, among other things, the accuracy of our assessment of the assets associated with the acquired properties, operating costs and various other factors. These assessments are necessarily inexact. As a result, we may not recover the purchase price for the acquisition or recognize an acceptable return on sales.

The transactions contemplated by the Captus Agreement are subject to conditions that may not be satisfied on a timely basis or at all. Failure to complete the transactions contemplated by the Captus Agreement could have material and adverse effects on us.

Completion of the Captus Acquisition is subject to a number of conditions, including the accuracy of the parties’ representations in the Captus Agreement and the receipt of certain governmental approvals. Such conditions, some of which are beyond our control, may not be satisfied or waived in a timely manner or at all and therefore make the completion and timing of the completion of the Captus Acquisition uncertain. In addition, the Captus Agreement contains certain termination rights for both the Vendors and us, which if exercised will also result in the Captus Acquisition not being consummated. Furthermore, the governmental authorities from which regulatory approvals are required may impose conditions on the completion of the Captus Acquisition or require changes to the terms of the acquisition or the Captus Agreement.

If the transactions contemplated by the Captus Agreement are not completed, our business may be adversely affected and, without realizing any of the benefits of having completed the Captus Acquisition, we will be required to pay our costs relating to the Captus Acquisition, such as legal, accounting, and financial advisory fees. In addition, time and resources committed by our management to matters relating to the Captus Acquisition could otherwise have been devoted to pursuing other beneficial opportunities; and the market price of our common stock could be impacted to the extent that the current market price reflects a market assumption that the Captus Acquisition will be completed.

We will be subject to business uncertainties while the Captus Acquisition is pending, which could adversely affect our business.

It is possible that certain persons with whom we have a business relationship may delay certain business decisions relating to us, or seek to terminate, change or renegotiate their relationships with us, in connection with the pendency of the Captus Acquisition. This could negatively affect our revenues, earnings and cash flows, as well as the market price of our common stock, regardless of whether the Captus Acquisition is completed.

We expect to incur significant transaction costs in connection with the Captus Acquisition.

We expect to incur a number of non-recurring costs associated with negotiating and completing the Captus Acquisition. These fees and costs have been, and will continue to be, substantial and, in many cases, will be borne by us whether or not the Captus Acquisition is completed. A substantial majority of our non-recurring expenses will consist of transaction costs related to the Captus Acquisition and include, among others, fees paid to financial, legal, accounting and other advisors. We will continue to assess the magnitude of these costs, and we may incur additional unanticipated costs. The costs described above and any unanticipated costs and expenses, many of which will be borne by us even if the Captus Acquisition is not completed, could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results.

Risks Related to Gryphon’s Securities

Our stock price is volatile and subject to significant fluctuations.

The market price of our common stock is highly volatile and may fluctuate widely due to factors beyond our control, including:

Additionally, securities markets have historically experienced substantial price and volume fluctuations unrelated to specific companies’ performance. Such market fluctuations could materially and adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

The stock price of the Company’s common stock may be volatile or may decline regardless of its operating performance and you may not be able to resell your shares at or above the purchase price.

An active trading market for Gryphon’s common stock may not be sustained. The lack of an active market may impair your ability to sell your shares at the time you wish to sell them or at a price that you consider reasonable. An inactive market may also impair Gryphon’s ability to raise capital by selling shares of common stock and may impair Gryphon’s ability to acquire other businesses or technologies using Gryphon’s shares of common stock as consideration, which, in turn, could materially adversely affect Gryphon’s business. The market price of Gryphon’s common stock may fluctuate significantly in response to numerous factors, many of which are beyond Gryphon’s control, including:

In addition, the equity markets have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected and continue to affect the market prices of equity securities of many data mining and cryptocurrency companies. Stock prices of many data mining and cryptocurrency companies have fluctuated in a manner unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies. The trading prices for common stock of other cryptocurrency mining companies have also been highly volatile. In the past, stockholders have filed securities class action litigation following periods of market volatility. If Gryphon were to become involved in securities litigation, it could subject Gryphon to substantial costs, divert resources and the attention of management from Gryphon’s business and adversely affect its business.

Gryphon’s operating results may fluctuate significantly or may fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, each of which may cause the Company’s stock price to fluctuate or decline.

Gryphon’s operating results will be subject to annual and quarterly fluctuations. Gryphon’s net income and other operating results will be affected by numerous factors, including:

If Gryphon’s operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of Gryphon’s common stock could decline substantially. Furthermore, any fluctuations in Gryphon’s operating results may, in turn, cause the price of its stock to fluctuate substantially.

Gryphon’s executive officers, directors and principal stockholders, if they choose to act together, will continue to control or significantly influence all matters submitted to stockholders for approval.

As of March 31, 2025, Gryphon’s executive officers, directors and greater than 5% stockholders owned, in the aggregate, approximately 25.11% of the combined company’s outstanding common stock (assuming no exercise of outstanding warrants). As a result, such persons acting together, have the ability to control or significantly influence all matters submitted to Gryphon’s board of directors or stockholders for approval, including the appointment of Gryphon’s management, the election and removal of directors and approval of any significant transaction, as well as Gryphon’s management and business affairs. This concentration of ownership may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control, impeding a merger, consolidation, takeover or other business combination involving Gryphon, or discouraging a potential acquiror from making a tender offer or otherwise attempting to obtain control of Gryphon’s business, even if such a transaction would benefit other stockholders.

Current or future litigation may harm our financial condition or results of operations.

As described in the section entitled “Gryphon’s Business - Legal Proceedings” in this Report, Gryphon is engaged in litigation, and such proceedings may be uncertain, and adverse rulings could occur, resulting in significant liabilities, penalties or damages. Such current or future substantial legal liabilities or regulatory actions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and reputation.

We have received a civil investigative demand from the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and a notice from the Small Business Administration (the “SBA”) relating to our PPP Loan under the CARES Act related to COVID-19, that the DOJ is reviewing documents related to the PPP Loan and the SBA is reviewing their prior decision to forgive our PPP Loan and may reverse that determination, and a reversal of the determination that we are eligible for forgiveness of the PPP Loan could negatively impact the Company.

On April 21, 2020, the Company, while operating the business of Akerna, obtained a loan from KeyBank National Association (“Key Bank”) in the principal aggregate amount of $2.2 million (the “PPP Loan”) pursuant to the Paycheck Protection Program under the CARES Act. The PPP Loan had a two-year term bearing interest at a rate of 1% per annum with principal and interest payments to be paid monthly beginning seven months from the date of the PPP Loan. In August 2021, the Company submitted its application for forgiveness for repayment of the PPP Loan, and on September 3, 2021, repayment of the PPP Loan was forgiven, in full, by the SBA.

On February 5, 2024, the Company received a letter, dated January 25, 2024, from the SBA, on behalf of Key Bank, in which the SBA indicated that, notwithstanding its prior notification of forgiveness, in full, of repayment of the PPP Loan, it was reviewing its prior determination of forgiveness for potential reversal. Specifically, the SBA indicated that based on its preliminary findings, the SBA is considering a full denial of the previously received forgiven amount based on the purported ineligibility of the Company to have received the PPP Loan under the SBA loan programs because the Company, operating the business of Akerna at the time of the PPP Loan, provided software support to the cannabis industry. The Company responded to the SBA on February 6, 2024, providing reasons as to why it believes it was eligible for the PPP Loan, but has not received any further correspondence from the SBA, since that date, and the SBA has not made any financial demands. The Company plans to continue to cooperate with any further inquiry from the SBA.

In January 2024, the Company received a civil investigative demand from the DOJ seeking information and documents about the PPP Loan. The Company is cooperating with the inquiry. At this time, there has been no formal demand for return of the PPP Loan proceeds, and no formal claim or lawsuit has been initiated against the Company.

While no formal determination has been made regarding the SBA review of forgiveness of the PPP Loan, there currently exists a risk that the SBA or the DOJ could determine that we do not qualify in whole or in part for such forgiveness and demand repayment of the PPP Loan. In addition, it is unknown what type of penalties could be assessed against us, if any. Any obligation for us to repay the PPP Loan and any penalties in addition to such repayment could negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations and prospects.

The issuance of shares of our common stock pursuant to the New Loan Agreement, Notes and Advisory Agreement may result in significant dilution to our stockholders.

In addition to the Note Warrants, the Notes are convertible into shares of Common Stock at a price of $0.21 per share, subject to adjustments. Under the Advisory Agreement, in addition to the Advisory Warrants, within ten days of the closing of the Captus Acquisition, we will be required to issue the Advisor six million shares of Common Stock, Finally, in addition to the Anchorage Warrants, the New Loan Agreement includes a conversion provision whereby Anchorage may convert half of the outstanding principal at a price of $1.10 per share of Common Stock and the remaining half at a price of $1.50 per share of Common Stock. Sales of substantial amounts of common stock in the public market, or the perception that such sales could occur, could materially adversely affect the market price of the common stock and may make it more difficult for you to sell your securities at a time and price which you deem appropriate.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of Gryphon’s common stock by Gryphon’s stockholders in the public market could cause Gryphon’s stock price to fall.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of Gryphon’s common stock in the public market or the perception that these sales might occur could significantly reduce the market price of Gryphon’s common stock and impair Gryphon’s ability to raise adequate capital through the sale of additional equity securities.

As of March 31, 2025, Gryphon had outstanding a total of approximately 69,346,005 shares of common stock. Of these shares, approximately 51.3 million shares of common stock are freely tradable, without restriction, in the public market, unless they are purchased by one of Gryphon’s affiliates.

Sales of these shares, or perceptions that they will be sold, could cause the trading price of Gryphon’s common stock to decline.

Future sales and issuances of Gryphon’s common stock or rights to purchase common stock, including in connection with pending acquisitions or pursuant to Gryphon’s equity incentive plan, could result in dilution of the percentage ownership of its stockholders and could cause Gryphon’s stock price to fall.

Additional capital will be needed in the future to continue Gryphon’s planned operations, entry into the AI and HPC industries and to pursue pending acquisitions. To the extent Gryphon raises additional capital by issuing equity securities, its stockholders may experience substantial dilution. Gryphon may sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner it determines from time to time. If Gryphon sells common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in more than one transaction, investors may be materially diluted by subsequent sales. These sales may also result in material dilution to Gryphon’s existing stockholders, and new investors could gain rights superior to existing stockholders.

Pursuant to the 2024 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “2024 Plan”), Gryphon’s board of directors is authorized to grant stock options and other equity-based awards to its employees, directors and consultants, which equity-based awards would also cause dilution to its stockholders. The number of shares of Gryphon’s common stock reserved for issuance under the 2024 Plan was originally set at 15% of the total number of the shares of common stock outstanding at the closing of the Merger, or 5,810,033 shares of common stock. If the board of directors of Gryphon elects to increase the number of shares available for future grant by the maximum amount each year, stockholders may experience additional dilution, which could cause Gryphon’s stock price to fall.

Delaware law and provisions in Gryphon’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws could make a merger, tender offer or proxy contest difficult, thereby depressing the trading price of Gryphon’s common stock.

Gryphon’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation (as amended) and bylaws contain provisions that could depress the trading price of Gryphon’s common stock by acting to discourage, delay or prevent a change of control of Gryphon or changes in its management that the stockholders of Gryphon may deem advantageous. These provisions include the following:

Any provision of Gryphon’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation (as amended) or bylaws or Delaware law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for Gryphon’s stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of Gryphon’s common stock, and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for Gryphon’s common stock.

Gryphon’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation designate a state or federal court located within the state of Delaware as the exclusive forum for substantially all disputes between Gryphon and its stockholders, which could limit Gryphon’s stockholders’ ability to choose the judicial forum for disputes with Gryphon or its directors, officers or employees.

Gryphon’s amended and restated bylaws provide that, unless it consents in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the sole and exclusive forum for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of Gryphon, (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any director, officer or other employee of Gryphon to Gryphon or Gryphon’s stockholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL or the amended and restated certificate of incorporation or amended and restated bylaws, or (iv) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine will be the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or if the Court of Chancery does not have jurisdiction, another state court located within the State of Delaware, or if no state court located within the State of Delaware has jurisdiction, the federal district court for the District of Delaware) in all cases subject to the court’s having personal jurisdiction over the indispensable parties named as defendants. These exclusive forum provisions do not apply to claims under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act.

To the extent that any such claims may be based upon federal law claims, 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.

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. However, Gryphon’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation contains a federal forum provision which provides that unless Gryphon consents in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act.

Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in any of Gryphon’s securities will be deemed to have notice of and consented to this provision. This exclusive forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum of its choosing for disputes with Gryphon or its directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits against Gryphon or its directors, officers and other employees. If a court were to find the exclusive forum provision in Gryphon’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, Gryphon may incur additional costs associated with resolving the dispute in other jurisdictions, which could harm Gryphon’s results of operations.

Gryphon does not currently intend to pay dividends on its common stock, and, consequently, your ability to achieve a return on your investment will depend on appreciation, if any, in the price of Gryphon’s common stock.

Gryphon has never declared or paid any cash dividend on Gryphon’s common stock. The expectation is that Gryphon will retain future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of Gryphon’s business and Gryphon does not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. In addition, the New Loan Agreement with Anchorage prohibits Gryphon from declaring or paying any cash dividends without Anchorage’s prior written consent, and the terms of any future debt agreements may preclude Gryphon from paying dividends. Any return to stockholders will therefore be limited to the appreciation of their stock. There is no guarantee that shares of Gryphon’s common stock will appreciate in value or even maintain the price at which stockholders have purchased their shares.

There can be no assurance that we will continue to be able to comply with the continued listing standards of Nasdaq.

Our continued eligibility to maintain the listing of our Common Stock on Nasdaq depends on a number of factors, including the price of our Common Stock and the number of persons that hold our Common Stock. If Nasdaq delists our securities from trading on its exchange for failure to meet its listing standards, such as the corporate governance requirements or the minimum closing bid price requirement, and we are not able to list such securities on another national securities exchange, then our Common Stock could be quoted on an over-the-counter market. If this were to occur, we and our stockholders could face significant material adverse consequences, including:

On September 5, 2024, we received written notice from Nasdaq indicating that the bid price for our common stock for the last 30 consecutive business days, had closed below the minimum $1.00 per share and, as a result, we are not in compliance with the $1.00 minimum bid price requirement for the continued listing on Nasdaq, as set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2). In accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), we had a period of 180 calendar days, or until March 4, 2025, to regain compliance with the minimum bid price requirement. The Company was provided with an initial compliance period of 180 calendar days, oruntil March 4, 2025, to regain compliance with the Minimum Bid Price Rule. The Company did not regain compliance with the Minimum Bid Price Rule during the allotted time period. Accordingly, on March 5, 2025, the Company received a staff delist determination letter from the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Department, as a result of its failure to regain compliance with the Minimum Bid Price Rule. The Company was not automatically eligible for a second 180-day compliance period because it did not meet the initial listing requirement of $5.0 million of stockholders’ equity, or other listing alternatives, for Nasdaq Capital Market as set forth under Nasdaq Listing Rule 5505(b)(1).

On September 13, 2024, we received another notice from Nasdaq notifying us that we are not in compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(b)(2) as a result of our Market Value of Listed Securities (the “MVLS”) falling below the minimum of $35 million required for continued listing on Nasdaq (the “MVLS Requirement”) from July 31, 2024 to September 12, 2024. The Company was provided with an initial compliance period of 180 calendar days, oruntil March 12, 2025, to regain compliance with the MVLS Requirement. The Company did not regain compliance with the MVLS Requirement during the allotted time period. Accordingly, on March 13, 2025, the Company received a letter from the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Department, as a result of its failure to regain compliance with the Minimum Bid Price Rule, that this matter serves as an additional basis for delisting the Company’s securities from Nasdaq.

The Company intends to timely request a hearing before a Nasdaq Hearings Panel (the “Panel”). This hearing request will stay Nasdaq’s delisting of the Company’s common stock pending the Panel’s decision and any extension provided by the Panel. The Company intends to present its plan of compliance and will seek approval for an extension to execute and demonstrate compliance. The Company has retained Donohoe Advisory Associates LLC to assist the Company in its preparation for the hearing and developing its compliance plan. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to regain compliance.

***Uncertainty in accounting standards for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies may lead to financial restatements and business disruptions.

Limited precedent exists for the financial accounting of bitcoin and other cryptocurrency assets. Future changes in regulatory or accounting standards could require us to alter our accounting practices and restate financial statements, potentially affecting how we account for newly mined cryptocurrency rewards. Such changes could materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition, and operating results. A restatement may also raise concerns about our ability to continue as a going concern, negatively affecting investor confidence and the value of cryptocurrencies we hold or acquire.

Gryphon’s management is required to devote a substantial amount of time to comply with public company regulations.

As a public company, Gryphon incurs significant legal, accounting and other expenses that Gryphon did not incur as a private company. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act as well as rules implemented by the SEC and Nasdaq, impose various requirements on public companies, including those related to corporate governance practices. Gryphon’s management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to these requirements. Certain members of Gryphon’s management do not have significant experience in addressing these requirements. Moreover, these rules and regulations increase Gryphon’s legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly.

Among other things, Gryphon’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act. Gryphon’s compliance with these requirements requires that it incur substantial accounting and related expenses and expend significant management efforts. Gryphon will need to hire additional accounting and financial staff to comply with public company regulations. The costs of hiring such staff may be material and there can be no assurance that such staff will be immediately available to Gryphon.

Moreover, if Gryphon identifies deficiencies in its internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses, investors could lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of Gryphon’s financial reports, the market price of Gryphon’s common stock could decline and Gryphon could be subject to sanctions or investigations by Nasdaq, the SEC or other regulatory authorities. As of December 31, 2024, we and our independent registered public accounting firm identified two material weaknesses, as defined in the standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board of the United States. A material weakness is 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 our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

As of December 31, 2024, we identified the material weakness related to failure to ensure that (i) information required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file or submit to the SEC under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in applicable rules and forms and (ii) material information required to be disclosed in our reports filed under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow for accurate and timely decisions regarding required disclosure. We are in the process of developing a more comprehensive risk assessment process to identify emerging risks while working with outside counsel and third-party vendors. We have implemented dual authorization controls for high-value transactions. We are in the process of developing additional policies and procedures for key processes while hiring additional full time employees to mitigate any segregation of duties risks for critical functions. Measures that we implement may not fully address the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting and we may not be able to conclude that the material weakness has been fully remedied.