Aether Holdings, Inc.

As a “smaller reporting company” as defined by Item 10 of Regulation S-K, we are not required to provide information required by this Item. However, we are voluntarily providing risk factor updates as described in this Item 1A.

For our current risk factors relating to our operations, other than as set forth below, see the section entitled “Risk Factors” contained in our Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-284081), as amended and declared effective by the SEC on April 9, 2025.

Our management is currently in a dispute with one of our directors. If he were to bring legal action against us, and we were to receive an adverse ruling, it could materially and adversely affect our reputation, dilute our shareholders’ equity interests in the Company, and adversely affect our stock price.

Our management is currently engaged in an evolving disagreement with Mr. David Mandel, a member of our board of directors, relating to Mr. Mandel allegedly having been promised the position of Chief Executive Officer of the Company with associated compensation of an annual salary of $220,000 and seven percent (7%) of the outstanding common stock of the Company, subject to a vesting schedule over a three-year period. Our management firmly denies these allegations, rejects the premise that any agreement related to the subject matter of the allegations was ever entered into, and does not believe that any related legal claim, if brought, would hold merit or be valid. If a legal claim is brought against us by Mr. Mandel, defending such a claim could cause us to incur significant expenses and consume large amounts of our management’s time and attention. If Mr. Mandel were to prevail, an adverse ruling on such a claim could materially and adversely affect our reputation, dilute our shareholders’ equity interests in the Company and could adversely affect our stock price. See the section below entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Recent Developments – Dispute with Director David Mandel” for additional information regarding the dispute.

Our board of directors has initiated an internal investigation to review assertions that our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Nicolas Lin, did not disclose an affiliation with a stockholder of our Company. As a result of or in connection with the matters that are the subject of the investigation, we may become subject to certain regulatory scrutiny or legal claims. We also may incur substantial costs in connection with the internal investigation, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations*.*

On July 23, 2025, our board of directors (the “Board”) was made aware of certain assertions that Nicolas Lin, our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, did not disclose an affiliation with one of our shareholders, 28 Ventures Aether, A Series of 28 Ventures Master Fund LLC (“28 Ventures Aether”). In response, the Board, through the Company’s counsel, initiated an investigation (the “Investigation”) into, among other things, whether Mr. Lin has beneficial ownership of, or voting or dispositive control over, the shares of our common stock held by 28 Ventures Aether.

The Investigation is ongoing. The Board has received confirmation that all the shares of our common stock held by 28 Ventures Aether as of the date of our IPO are still owned by 28 Ventures Aether and are held in its brokerage account. The Board has not yet reached conclusions and has not obtained sufficient executed documentation to verify ownership or control of 28 Ventures Aether or 28 Ventures Master Fund LLC. The Board has formed a special committee comprised of two non-management directors, Justin Molander and Timothy Murphy, to oversee and continue the Investigation. The Investigation has caused us to incur, and for so long as it is ongoing we expect to continue to incur, increased professional costs and has diverted our management resources. If during the course of the Investigation, it is found that Mr. Lin is an affiliate of 28 Ventures Aether, or that he otherwise has dispositive control over the shares of our common stock owned by 28 Ventures Aether, we may be exposed to regulatory scrutiny by Nasdaq or the SEC, including, but not limited to, possible inquiries, investigations or enforcement actions, which could be costly, burdensome to our management, and could adversely impact our business, prospects, reputation, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations or cash flows. Even if an inquiry or investigation does not result in any adverse determinations, it potentially could create negative publicity and give rise to third-party litigation or other actions, which also could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Risks Related to our Bitcoin Treasury Strategy and Holdings

Our bitcoin treasury strategy exposes us to various risks associated with bitcoin.

Our bitcoin treasury strategy exposes us to various risks associated with bitcoin, including the following:

*Bitcoin is a highly volatile asset.*Bitcoin is a highly volatile asset that has traded below $50,000 per bitcoin and above $110,000 per bitcoin on the Coinbase exchange in the 12 months preceding the date of this Quarterly Report. The trading price of bitcoin significantly decreased during prior periods, and such declines may occur again in the future. We intend to engage in hedging strategies from time to time as part of our treasury management operations if deemed appropriate.

Our bitcoin holdings may significantly impact our financial results and the market price of our common stock.Our bitcoin holdings may significantly affect our financial results and if we continue to increase our overall holdings of bitcoin in the future, they will have an even greater impact on our financial results and the market price of our common stock. See “—Our historical financial statements do not reflect our acquisition of bitcoin, the fact the our bitcoin holdings will be the substantial majority of our assets, or the potential variability in earnings that we may experience in the future relating to our bitcoin holdings” below.

*Our bitcoin treasury strategy has not been tested over an extended period of time or under different market conditions.*We will need to continually examine the risks and rewards of our recently adopted bitcoin treasury strategy. This new strategy has not been tested over an extended period of time or under different market conditions. For example, although we believe bitcoin, due to its limited supply, has the potential to serve as a hedge against inflation in the long term, the short-term price of bitcoin declined in recent periods during which the inflation rate increased. Some investors and other market participants may disagree with our bitcoin treasury strategy or actions we undertake to implement it. If bitcoin prices were to decrease or our bitcoin treasury strategy otherwise proves unsuccessful, our financial condition, results of operations, and the market price of our common stock could be materially adversely affected.

*Changes in our ownership of bitcoin could have accounting, regulatory and other impacts.*While we currently plan to own bitcoin directly, we may investigate other potential approaches to owning bitcoin, including indirect ownership (for example, through ownership interests in a fund that owns bitcoin). If we were to own all or a portion of our bitcoin in a different manner, the accounting treatment for our bitcoin, our ability to use our bitcoin as collateral for additional borrowings, and the regulatory requirements to which we are subject, may correspondingly change. For example, the volatile nature of bitcoin may force us to liquidate our holdings to use it as collateral, which could be negatively affected by any disruptions in the crypto market and, if liquidated, the value of the collateral would not reflect potential gains in the market value of bitcoin, all of which could negatively affect our business and implementation of our bitcoin strategy.

Changes in the accounting treatment of our bitcoin holdings could have significant accounting impacts, including increasing the volatility of our results. In December 2023, the FASB issued ASU 2023-08, which upon our adoption will require us to measure in-scope crypto assets (including our bitcoin holdings) at fair value in our statement of financial position, and to recognize gains and losses from changes in the fair value of our bitcoin in net income each reporting period. ASU 2023-08 will also require us to provide certain interim and annual disclosures with respect to our bitcoin holdings. Due to the volatility in the price of bitcoin, the adoption of ASU 2023-08 could have a material impact on our financial results in future periods, increase the volatility of our financial results, affect the carrying value of our bitcoin on our balance sheet, and could result in tax-related adjustments, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our financial results and the market price of our common stock.

Bitcoin is a highly volatile asset, and fluctuations in the price of bitcoin are likely to influence our financial results and the market price of our common stock.

Bitcoin is a highly volatile asset, and fluctuations in the price of bitcoin are likely to influence our financial results and the market price of our common stock. Our financial results and the market price of our common stock would be adversely affected, and our business and financial condition would be negatively impacted, if the price of bitcoin decreased substantially (as it has in the past, such as during 2022), including as a result of:

The U.S. federal government, states, regulatory agencies, and foreign countries may also enact new laws and regulations, or pursue regulatory, legislative, enforcement or judicial actions, that could materially impact the price of bitcoin or the ability of individuals or institutions such as us to own or transfer bitcoin. For example, the U.S. executive branch, SEC, the European Union’s Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation, among others have been active in recent years, and in the U.K., the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, or FSMA 2023 became law. It is not possible to predict whether, or when, any of these developments will lead to Congress granting additional authorities to the SEC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), or other regulators, or whether, or when, any other federal, state or foreign legislative bodies will take any similar actions. It is also not possible to predict the nature of any such additional authorities, how additional legislation or regulatory oversight might impact the ability of digital asset markets to function or the willingness of financial and other institutions to continue to provide services to the digital assets industry, nor how any new regulations or changes to existing regulations might impact the value of digital assets generally and bitcoin specifically. The consequences of increased regulation of digital assets and digital asset activities could adversely affect the market price of bitcoin and in turn adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Because bitcoin has no physical existence beyond the record of transactions on the bitcoin blockchain, a variety of technical factors related to the bitcoin blockchain could also impact the price of bitcoin. For example, malicious attacks by miners, inadequate mining fees to incentivize validating of bitcoin transactions, hard “forks” of the bitcoin blockchain into multiple blockchains, and advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry, and quantum computing could undercut the integrity of the bitcoin blockchain and negatively affect the price of bitcoin. The liquidity of bitcoin may also be reduced and damage to the public perception of bitcoin may occur, if financial institutions were to deny or limit banking services to businesses that hold bitcoin, provide bitcoin-related services or accept bitcoin as payment, which could also decrease the price of bitcoin. Similarly, the open-source nature of the bitcoin blockchain means the contributors and developers of the bitcoin blockchain are generally not directly compensated for their contributions in maintaining and developing the blockchain, and any failure to properly monitor and upgrade the bitcoin blockchain could adversely affect the bitcoin blockchain and negatively affect the price of bitcoin.

The liquidity of bitcoin may also be impacted to the extent that changes in applicable laws and regulatory requirements negatively impact the ability of exchanges and trading venues to provide services for bitcoin and other digital assets.

Our historical financial statements do not reflect our acquisition of bitcoin, the fact the our bitcoin holdings may be the substantial majority of our assets, or the potential variability in earnings that we may experience in the future relating to our bitcoin holdings.

Our historical financial statements do not reflect our intended acquisition of bitcoin, that our bitcoin holdings may comprise a majority of our total assets, or the potential variability in earnings that we may experience in the future from holding or selling significant amounts of bitcoin, given our possible asset concentration. The price of bitcoin has historically been subject to dramatic price fluctuations and is highly volatile. We expect to determine the fair value of our bitcoin based on quoted (unadjusted) prices on the Coinbase exchange, and will be required to measure our bitcoin holdings at fair value in our statement of financial position, and to recognize gains and losses from changes in the fair value of our bitcoin in net income each reporting period, which may create significant volatility in our reported earnings, amplified by our asset concentration in bitcoin, and decrease the carrying value of our digital assets, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on the market price of our common stock. Conversely, any sale of bitcoins at prices above our carrying value for such assets creates a gain for financial reporting purposes even if we would otherwise incur an economic or tax loss with respect to such transaction, which also may result in significant volatility in our reported earnings.

Because we intend to purchase bitcoin in future periods and increase our overall holdings of bitcoin over time, we expect that the proportion of our total assets that will be represented by our bitcoin holdings will increase over time. As a result, and in particular with respect to the quarterly periods and full fiscal year with respect to which ASU 2023-08 will apply, and for all future periods, volatility in our earnings may be significantly more than what we experienced in prior periods.

The availability of spot bitcoin ETPs may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

On January 10, 2024, the SEC approved the listing and trading of spot bitcoin ETPs, the shares of which can be sold in public offerings and are traded on U.S. national securities exchanges. The approved ETPs commenced trading directly to the public on January 11, 2024, with a trading volume of approximately $4.6 billion on the first trading day. To the extent investors view our common stock as providing exposure to bitcoin, it is possible that the value of our common stock may also have included a premium over the value of our bitcoin due to the prior scarcity of traditional investment vehicles providing investment exposure to bitcoin, and that the value declined due to investors now having a greater range of options to gain exposure to bitcoin and investors choosing to gain such exposure through ETPs rather than our common stock.

Although we are an operating company providing financial technology tools and newsletters, and we believe we offer a different value proposition than a passive bitcoin investment vehicle such as a spot bitcoin ETP, investors may nevertheless view our common stock as an alternative to an investment in an ETP and choose to purchase shares of a spot bitcoin ETP instead of our common stock. They may do so for a variety of reasons, including if they believe that ETPs offer a “pure play” exposure to bitcoin that is generally not subject to federal income tax at the entity level as we are, or the other risk factors applicable to an operating business, such as ours. Additionally, unlike spot bitcoin ETPs, we (i) do not seek for our shares of common stock to track the value of the underlying bitcoin we hold before payment of expenses and liabilities, (ii) do not benefit from various exemptions and relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, including Regulation M, and other securities laws, which enable spot bitcoin ETPs to continuously align the value of their shares to the price of the underlying bitcoin they hold through share creation and redemption, (iii) are a Delaware corporation rather than a statutory trust, and do not operate pursuant to a trust agreement that would require us to pursue one or more stated investment objectives, and (iv) are not required to provide daily transparency as to our bitcoin holdings or our daily NAV. Furthermore, recommendations by broker-dealers to buy, hold, or sell complex products and non-traditional ETPs, or an investment strategy involving such products, may be subject to additional or heightened scrutiny that would not be applicable to broker-dealers making recommendations with respect to our common stock. Based on how we are viewed in the market relative to ETPs, and other vehicles that offer economic exposure to bitcoin, such as bitcoin futures ETFs and leveraged bitcoin futures ETFs, any premium or discount in our common stock relative to the value of our bitcoin holdings may increase or decrease in different market conditions.

As a result of the foregoing factors, availability of spot bitcoin ETPs on U.S. national securities exchanges could have a material adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

Our bitcoin treasury strategy subjects us to enhanced regulatory oversight.

In addition, there has been increasing focus on the extent to which digital assets can be used to launder the proceeds of illegal activities, fund criminal or terrorist activities, or circumvent sanctions regimes, including those sanctions imposed in response to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. While we take care to only acquire our bitcoin through entities subject to anti-money laundering regulation and related compliance rules in the United States, if we are found to have purchased any of our bitcoin from bad actors that have used bitcoin to launder money or persons subject to sanctions, we may be subject to regulatory proceedings and any further transactions or dealings in bitcoin by us may be restricted or prohibited.

We may consider issuing debt or other financial instruments that may be collateralized by our bitcoin holdings. We may also consider pursuing strategies to create income streams or otherwise generate funds using our bitcoin holdings. These types of bitcoin-related transactions are the subject of enhanced regulatory oversight. These and any other bitcoin-related transactions we may enter into, beyond simply acquiring and holding bitcoin, may subject us to additional regulatory compliance requirements and scrutiny, including under federal and state money services regulations, money transmitter licensing requirements and various commodity and securities laws and regulations.

In addition, private actors that are wary of bitcoin or the regulatory concerns associated with bitcoin may in the future take further actions that may have an adverse effect on our business or the market price of our common stock.

Bitcoin trading venues are relatively new and, in many cases, currently unregulated. Even if regulated, such venues may not be complying with such regulations. Furthermore, there are many bitcoin trading venues that do not provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management teams, corporate practices and regulatory compliance. As a result, the marketplace may lose confidence in bitcoin trading venues, including prominent exchanges that handle a significant volume of bitcoin trading and/or are subject to regulatory oversight, in the event one or more bitcoin trading venues cease or pause for a prolonged period the trading of bitcoin or other digital assets, or experience fraud, significant volumes of withdrawal, security failures or operational problems.

In 2019 there were reports claiming that 80-95% of bitcoin trading volume on trading venues was false or non-economic in nature, with specific focus on currently unregulated exchanges located outside of the United States. The SEC also alleged as part of its June 2023, complaint that Binance Holdings Ltd. committed strategic and targeted “wash trading” through its affiliates to artificially inflate the volume of certain digital assets traded on its exchange. Such reports and allegations may indicate that the bitcoin market is significantly smaller than expected and that the United States makes up a significantly larger percentage of the bitcoin market than is commonly understood. Any actual or perceived false trading in the bitcoin market, and any other fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the value of our bitcoin. Negative perception, a lack of stability in the broader bitcoin markets and the closure, temporary shutdown or operational disruption of bitcoin trading venues, lending institutions, institutional investors, institutional miners, custodians, or other major participants in the bitcoin ecosystem, due to fraud, business failure, cybersecurity events, government-mandated regulation, bankruptcy, or for any other reason, may result in a decline in confidence in bitcoin and the broader bitcoin ecosystem and greater volatility in the price of bitcoin. For example, in 2022, each of Celsius Network, Voyager Digital, Three Arrows Capital, FTX Trading, and BlockFi filed for bankruptcy, following which the market prices of bitcoin and other digital assets significantly declined. In addition, in June 2023, the SEC announced enforcement actions against Coinbase, Inc., and Binance Holdings Ltd., two providers of large trading venues for digital assets, which similarly was followed by a decrease in the market price of bitcoin and other digital assets. These were followed in November 2023, by an SEC enforcement action against Kraken, another large trading venue for digital assets. As the price of our common stock may be affected by the value of our bitcoin holdings, the failure of a major participant in the bitcoin ecosystem could have a material adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

The concentration of our bitcoin holdings will enhance the risks inherent in our bitcoin treasury strategy.

If we complete our planned acquisition of bitcoin, we expect that a substantial majority of our treasury holdings will be bitcoin, and that we may increase our overall holdings of bitcoin in the future. The concentration of our bitcoin holdings will limit the risk mitigation that we could take advantage of by purchasing a more diversified portfolio of treasury assets, and the absence of diversification enhances the risks inherent in our bitcoin treasury strategy. Any significant future declines in the price of bitcoin would have a more pronounced impact on our financial condition than if we used our cash to purchase a more diverse portfolio of assets.

The emergence or growth of other digital assets, including those with significant private or public sector backing, could have a negative impact on the price of bitcoin and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

As a result of our bitcoin treasury strategy, the substantial majority of our cash may be concentrated in our bitcoin holdings. Accordingly, the emergence or growth of digital assets other than bitcoin may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. While bitcoin is the largest digital asset by market capitalization as of the date of this Quarterly Report, there are numerous alternative digital assets and many entities, including consortiums and financial institutions, are researching and investing resources into private or permissioned blockchain platforms or digital assets that do not use proof-of-work mining like the bitcoin network. For example, in late 2022, the ethereum network transitioned to a “proof-of-stake” mechanism for validating transactions that requires significantly less computing power than proof-of-work mining. The ethereum network has completed another major upgrade since then and may undertake additional upgrades in the future. If the mechanisms for validating transactions in ethereum and other alternative digital assets are perceived as superior to proof-of-work mining, those digital assets could gain market share relative to bitcoin.

Other alternative digital assets that compete with bitcoin in certain ways include “stablecoins,” which are designed to maintain a constant price because of, for instance, their issuers’ promise to hold high-quality liquid assets (such as U.S. dollar deposits and short-term U.S. treasury securities) equal to the total value of stablecoins in circulation. Stablecoins have grown rapidly as an alternative to bitcoin and other digital assets as a medium of exchange and store of value, particularly on digital asset trading platforms. As of the date of this Quarterly Report, two of the seven largest digital assets by market capitalization are U.S. dollar-backed stablecoins.

Additionally, central banks in some countries have started to introduce digital forms of legal tender. For example, China’s CBDC project was made available to consumers in January 2022, and governments including the United States, the European Union, and Israel have been discussing the potential creation of new CBDCs. Whether or not they incorporate blockchain or similar technology, CBDCs, as legal tender in the issuing jurisdiction, could also compete with, or replace, bitcoin and other digital assets as a medium of exchange or store of value. As a result, the emergence or growth of these or other digital assets could cause the market price of bitcoin to decrease, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, and operating results.

Substantially all of the bitcoin we will own will be held in custody accounts at U.S.-based institutional-grade digital asset custodians. Security breaches and cyberattacks are of particular concern with respect to our bitcoin. Bitcoin and other blockchain-based cryptocurrencies and the entities that provide services to participants in the bitcoin ecosystem have been, and may in the future be, subject to security breaches, cyberattacks, or other malicious activities. For example, in October 2021 it was reported that hackers exploited a flaw in the account recovery process and stole from the accounts of at least 6,000 customers of the Coinbase exchange, although the flaw was subsequently fixed and Coinbase reimbursed affected customers. Similarly, in November 2022, hackers exploited weaknesses in the security architecture of the FTX Trading digital asset exchange and reportedly stole over $400 million in digital assets from customers. A successful security breach or cyberattack could result in:

We will hold our bitcoin with regulated custodians that have duties to safeguard our private keys. Our custodial services contracts will not restrict our ability to reallocate our bitcoin among our custodians, and our bitcoin holdings may be concentrated with a single custodian from time to time, including upon our initial acquisition of bitcoin. In light of the significant amount of bitcoin we intend to hold, we will continually evaluate the need to engage additional custodians. Additional custodians could achieve a greater degree of diversification in the custody of our bitcoin as the extent of potential risk of loss is dependent, in part, on the degree of diversification. If there is a decrease in the availability of digital asset custodians that we believe can safely custody our bitcoin, for example, custodians discontinue or limit their services in the United States, we may need to enter into agreements that are less favorable than our currently anticipated agreements or take other measures to custody our bitcoin, and our ability to seek a greater degree of diversification in the use of custodial services would be materially adversely affected. In addition, holding our bitcoin with regulated custodians could affect the availability of receiving digital assets that may result from “forks” of the bitcoin blockchain if our custodians are unable to support or otherwise provide us with such digital assets, thereby reducing the amount of digital assets we may hold as a result. While our custodians will carry insurance policies to cover losses for commercial crimes and cyber and tech errors or omissions, the policy limits vary per provider and would be shared among all of their customers, and subject to various limitations and exclusions (such as if a loss arises due to our failure to protect our login credentials and devices). The insurance that covers losses of our bitcoin holdings may cover only a small fraction of the value of the entirety of our bitcoin holdings, and there can be no guarantee that such insurance will be maintained as part of the custodial services we will have or that such coverage will cover losses with respect to our bitcoin. Moreover, our use of custodians exposes us to the risk that the bitcoin our custodians hold on our behalf could be subject to insolvency proceedings and we could be treated as a general unsecured creditor of the custodian, inhibiting our ability to exercise ownership rights with respect to such bitcoin. Any loss associated with such insolvency proceedings is unlikely to be covered by any insurance coverage we maintain related to our bitcoin.

Regulatory change reclassifying bitcoin as a security could lead to our classification as an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, or the 1940 Act, and could adversely affect the market price of bitcoin and the market price of our common stock.

While senior SEC officials have stated their view that bitcoin is not a “security” for purposes of the federal securities laws, a contrary determination by the SEC could lead to our classification as an “investment company” under the 1940 Act, if the portion of our assets consists of investments in bitcoins exceeds 40% safe harbor limits prescribed in the 1940 Act, which would subject us to significant additional regulatory controls that could have a material adverse effect on our business and operations and may also require us to change the manner in which we conduct our business.

We monitor our assets and income for compliance under the 1940 Act and seek to conduct our business activities in a manner such that we do not fall within its definitions of “investment company” or that we qualify under one of the exemptions or exclusions provided by the 1940 Act and corresponding SEC regulations. If bitcoin is determined to constitute a security for purposes of the federal securities laws, we would take steps to reduce the percentage of bitcoins that constitute investment assets under the 1940 Act. These steps may include, among others, selling bitcoins that we might otherwise hold for the long term and deploying our cash in non-investment assets, and we may be forced to sell our bitcoins at unattractive prices. We may also seek to acquire additional non-investment assets to maintain compliance with the 1940 Act, and we may need to incur debt, issue additional equity or enter into other financing arrangements that are not otherwise attractive to our business. Any of these actions could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, we can make no assurance that we would successfully be able to take the necessary steps to avoid being deemed to be an investment company in accordance with the safe harbor. If we were unsuccessful, and if bitcoin is determined to constitute a security for purposes of the federal securities laws, then we would have to register as an investment company, and the additional regulatory restrictions imposed by 1940 Act could adversely affect the market price of bitcoin and in turn adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

As bitcoin and other digital assets are relatively novel and the application of state and federal securities laws and other laws and regulations to digital assets is unclear in certain respects, it is possible that regulators in the United States or foreign countries may interpret or apply existing laws and regulations in a manner that adversely affects the price of bitcoin. The U.S. federal government, states, regulatory agencies, and foreign countries may also enact new laws and regulations, or pursue regulatory, legislative, enforcement or judicial actions, that could materially impact the price of bitcoin or the ability of individuals or institutions such as us to own or transfer bitcoin. For examples, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Bitcoin Treasury Strategy and Holdings—Bitcoin and other digital assets are novel assets, and are subject to significant legal, commercial, regulatory and technical uncertainty” above.

We expect our primary counterparty risk with respect to our bitcoin will be custodian performance obligations under the various custody arrangements we enter into. A series of recent high-profile bankruptcies, closures, liquidations, regulatory enforcement actions and other events relating to companies operating in the digital asset industry, the closure or liquidation of certain financial institutions that provided lending and other services to the digital assets industry, SEC enforcement actions against other providers, or placement into receivership or civil fraud lawsuit against digital asset industry participants have highlighted the perceived and actual counterparty risk applicable to digital asset ownership and trading. Legal precedent created in these bankruptcy and other proceedings may increase the risk of future rulings adverse to our interests in the event one or more of our custodians becomes a debtor in a bankruptcy case or is the subject of other liquidation, insolvency or similar proceedings.

While our custodians will be subject to regulatory regimes intended to protect customers in the event of a custodial bankruptcy, receivership or similar insolvency proceeding, no assurance can be provided that our custodially-held bitcoin will not become part of the custodian’s insolvency estate if one or more of our custodians enters bankruptcy, receivership or similar insolvency proceedings. Additionally, if we pursue any strategies to create income streams or otherwise generate funds using our bitcoin holdings, we would become subject to additional counterparty risks. We will need to carefully evaluate market conditions, including price volatility as well as service provider terms and market reputations and performance, among others, prior to implementing any such strategy, all of which could affect our ability to successfully implement and execute on any such future strategy. These risks, along with any significant non-performance by counterparties, including in particular the custodian or custodians with which we will custody substantially all of our bitcoin, could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

If bitcoin is determined to constitute a security for purposes of the federal securities laws, the additional regulatory restrictions imposed by such a determination could adversely affect the market price of bitcoin and in turn adversely affect the market price of our common stock. See “Risk Factors—Regulatory change reclassifying bitcoin as a security could lead to our classification as an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, or the 1940 Act, and could adversely affect the market price of bitcoin and the market price of our common stock” above. Moreover, the risks of us engaging in a bitcoin treasury strategy could create complications due to the lack of experience that third parties have with companies engaging in such a strategy, such as increased costs of director and officer liability insurance or the potential inability to obtain such coverage on acceptable terms in the future.

Our custodially-held bitcoin may become part of the custodian’s insolvency estate if one or more of our custodians enters bankruptcy, receivership or similar insolvency proceedings.

If our custodially-held bitcoin are considered to be the property of our custodians’ estates in the event that any such custodians were to enter bankruptcy, receivership or similar insolvency proceedings, we could be treated as a general unsecured creditor of such custodians, inhibiting our ability to exercise ownership rights with respect to such bitcoin and this may ultimately result in the loss of the value related to some or all of such bitcoin. A series of recent high-profile bankruptcies, closures, liquidations, regulatory enforcement actions and other events relating to companies operating in the digital asset industry, including the filings for bankruptcy protection by Three Arrows Capital, Celsius Network, Voyager Digital, FTX Trading and Genesis Global Capital, the closure or liquidation of certain financial institutions that provided lending and other services to the digital assets industry, including Signature Bank and Silvergate Bank, SEC enforcement actions against Coinbase, Inc. and Binance Holdings Ltd., the placement of Prime Trust, LLC into receivership following a cease-and-desist order issued by Nevada’s Department of Business and Industry, and the filing and subsequent settlement of a civil fraud lawsuit by the New York Attorney General against Genesis Global Capital, its parent company Digital Currency Group, Inc., and former partner Gemini Trust Company, have highlighted the counterparty risks applicable to owning and transacting in digital assets. Although these bankruptcies, closures, liquidations and other events have not resulted in any loss or misappropriation of our bitcoin, nor have such events adversely impacted our access to our bitcoin, they have, in the short-term, likely negatively impacted the adoption rate and use of bitcoin. Additional bankruptcies, closures, liquidations, regulatory enforcement actions or other events involving participants in the digital assets industry in the future may further negatively impact the adoption rate, price, and use of bitcoin, limit the availability to us of financing collateralized by bitcoin, or create or expose additional counterparty risks. Any loss associated with such insolvency proceedings is unlikely to be covered by any insurance coverage we maintain related to our bitcoin. Even if we are able to prevent our bitcoin from being considered the property of a custodian’s bankruptcy estate as part of an insolvency proceeding, it is possible that we would still be delayed or may otherwise experience difficulty in accessing our bitcoin held by the affected custodian during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings. Any such outcome could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and the market price of our common stock.

A temporary or permanent blockchain “fork” to bitcoin or other crypto assets could adversely affect our business.

Blockchain protocols, including bitcoin, are open source. Any user can download the software, modify it, and then propose that bitcoin or other blockchain protocols users and miners adopt the modification. When a modification is introduced and a substantial majority of users and miners consent to the modification, the change is implemented and the bitcoin or other blockchain protocol networks, as applicable, remain uninterrupted. However, if less than a substantial majority of users and miners consent to the proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the software prior to its modification, the consequence would be what is known as a “fork”,i.e., “split” of the impacted blockchain protocol network and respective blockchain, with one prong running the pre-modified software and the other running the modified software. The effect of such a fork would be the existence of two parallel versions of the bitcoin or other blockchain protocol network, as applicable, running simultaneously, but with each split network’s crypto asset lacking interchangeability. A “hard fork” – where there is disagreement among the users about the rules of the network – can have a significant negative impact on value of the crypto asset.

The bitcoin has been subject to “forks” that resulted in the creation of new networks, including bitcoin cash ABC, bitcoin cash SV, bitcoin diamond, bitcoin gold and others. Some of these forks have caused fragmentation among platforms as to the correct naming convention for forked crypto assets. Due to the lack of a central registry or rulemaking body, no single entity has the ability to dictate the nomenclature of forked crypto assets, causing disagreements and a lack of uniformity among platforms on the nomenclature of forked crypto assets, and which results in further confusion to customers as to the nature of assets they hold on platforms, and which can negatively impact the value of the crypto assets. In addition, several of these forks were contentious and as a result, participants in certain communities may harbor ill will towards other communities. As a result, certain community members may take actions that adversely impact the use, adoption, and price of bitcoin, or any of their forked alternatives.

We intend to recognize forked and airdropped assets consistent with our custodians. We may not immediately or ever have the ability to withdraw a forked or airdropped bitcoin by virtue of bitcoins that we hold with our custodians. Future forks may occur at any time. A fork can lead to a disruption of networks and our information technology systems, cybersecurity attacks, replay attacks, or security weaknesses, any of which can further lead to temporary or even permanent loss of our and our assets.

From time to time, we may enter into certain hedging transactions to mitigate our exposure to fluctuations in the price of bitcoin, which may expose us to risks associated with such transactions, including counterparty risk.

From time to time, we may enter into certain hedging transactions to mitigate our exposure to the market price of bitcoin. Engaging in hedging transactions may expose us to risks associated with such transactions, including counterparty risk. Hedging against a decline in the values of portfolio investments caused by volatile bitcoin market prices does not eliminate the possibility of fluctuations in the values of such positions or prevent losses if the values of such positions decline for other reasons. Such hedging transactions may also limit the opportunity for gain if the values of the portfolio investments should increase. Moreover, it may not be possible to hedge against a particular fluctuation that is so generally anticipated by the markets that a hedging transaction at an acceptable price is unavailable. In light of these and other factors, we may not be successful in mitigating our exposure to volatile bitcoin prices through any hedging transactions we undertake.

The due diligence procedures conducted by us and our liquidity providers to mitigate transaction risk may fail to prevent transactions with a sanctioned entity.

We will execute trades through U.S.-based liquidity providers and rely on these third parties to implement controls and procedures to mitigate the risk of transacting with sanctioned entities. While we expect our third-party service providers to conduct their business in compliance with applicable laws and regulations and in accordance with our contractual arrangements, there is no guarantee that they will do so. Accordingly, we are exposed to risk that our due diligence procedures may fail. If we are found to have transacted in bitcoin with bad actors that have used bitcoin to launder money or with persons subject to sanctions, we may be subject to regulatory proceedings and any further transactions or dealings in bitcoin by us may be restricted or prohibited.