RISK FACTORS

There are numerous and varied risks, known and unknown, that may prevent us from achieving our goals. If any of these risks actually occur, our business, financial condition or results of operation may be materially adversely affected. In such case, the trading price of our common stock could decline and investors could lose all or part of their investment.

Risks Related to Our Company

We need to secure additional financing.

We require additional funds since we have very limited operating capital and negative working capital. As of August 26, 2019, we had approximately $482,060 in cash and 14.92 bitcoins. Our cash as of the date of this prospectus is expected, after repaying the $200,000 promissory note due September 18, 2019 which is held by the selling stockholder, to only be sufficient to cover our public company costs through December 2019 depending on expenses.

We anticipate that we will incur operating losses for the foreseeable future.

Our cash burn rate is approximately $80,000 per month, may increase as we continue to spend additional cash on legal and accounting expenses in connection with our public reporting requirements. If we are not successful in securing additional financing including toxic funding, we will likely be required to cease operations.

If we do not raise additional debt or equity capital, we may not be able to pay all of our indebtedness.

In May 2019, we signed a Purchase Agreement with Cavalry. We may direct Cavalry to purchase shares of our common stock up to $10,000,000 under the Purchase Agreement over a 36-month period assuming there is an effective registration statement covering the shares.

The extent we rely on Cavalry as a source of funding will depend on a number of factors including, the prevailing market price of our common stock and volume of trading and the extent to which we are able to secure working capital from other sources. If obtaining sufficient funding from Cavalry does not occur or is prohibitively dilutive, we will need to secure another source of funding in order to satisfy our working capital needs. Should the financing we require to sustain our working capital needs be unavailable or prohibitively expensive when we require it, the consequences could be a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition and prospects.

If we do not raise the necessary working capital, we will not be able to remain operational.

Our auditors have issued a “going concern” audit opinion.

Our independent auditors have indicated in their report on our December 31, 2018 and 2017 financial statements that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. A “going concern” opinion indicates that the financial statements have been prepared assuming we will continue as a going concern and do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets, or the amounts and classification of liabilities that may result if we do not continue as a going concern. Therefore, you should not rely on our consolidated balance sheet as an indication of the amount of proceeds that would be available to satisfy claims of creditors, and potentially be available for distribution to shareholders, in the event of liquidation.

We have a limited operating history and a history of operating losses, and expect to incur significant additional operating losses.

We have a limited operating history. Therefore, there is limited historical financial information upon which to base an evaluation of our performance. Our prospects must be considered in light of the uncertainties, risks, expenses, and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in their early stages of operations. We have generated net losses of $0.8 million and $45.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. We expect to incur additional net losses over the next several years as we seek to expand operations. The amount of future losses and when, if ever, we will achieve profitability are uncertain. If we are unsuccessful at executing on our business plan, our business, prospects, and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

We have an evolving business model.

As Digital Assets and blockchain technologies become more widely available, we expect the services and products associated with them to evolve. In 2017, the SEC issued a DAO Report that promoters that use initial coin offerings or token sales to raise capital may be engaged in the offer and sale of securities in violation of the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). This may cause us to potentially change our future business in order to comply fully with the federal securities laws as well as applicable state securities laws. As a result, to stay current with the industry, our business model may need to evolve as well. From time to time we may modify aspects of our business model relating to our product mix and service offerings. We cannot offer any assurance that these or any other modifications will be successful or will not result in harm to the business. We may not be able to manage growth effectively, which could damage our reputation, limit our growth and negatively affect our operating results.

Because we lack effective internal controls and disclosure controls we erroneously accounted for Digital Assets using a fair value methodology which was not consistent with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“US GAAP”) and required us to restate our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2017 and the three and six months ended March 31, 2018 and June 30, 2018, our failure to establish and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting could result in material misstatements in our financial statements and a failure to meet our reporting and financial obligations which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

Maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting is necessary for us to produce reliable financial statements. As discussed in this prospectus, our internal controls and disclosure controls were not effective as of December 31, 2018. Because of our ineffective controls and material weaknesses, we did not account for our Digital Assets correctly in our financial statements and recently restated our audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2017 and the unaudited financial statements for the quarters ended March 31, 2018 and June 30, 2018.

A material weakness is defined as a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

While the Company is now following U.S. GAAP in accounting for its Digital Assets, it has not remediated its material weaknesses. There can be no assurance as to when these material weaknesses will be remediated or that additional material weaknesses will not arise in the future. Any failure to remediate the material weaknesses, or the development of new material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, could result in material misstatements in our financial statements and cause us to fail to meet our reporting and financial obligations, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and the trading price of our common stock.

The loss of our executive officers Charles Allen, our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and Michal Handerhan, our Chief Operating Officer, could have a material adverse effect on us.

Our success depends solely on the continued services of our executive officers, particularly Charles Allen, our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and Michal Handerhan, our Chief Operating Officer, who have extensive market knowledge and long-standing industry relationships. In particular, our reputation among and our relationships with key Digital Asset industry leaders are the direct result of a significant investment of time and effort by these individuals to build our credibility in a highly specialized industry. The loss of services of either Charles Allen or Michal Handerhan, could diminish our business and growth opportunities and our relationships with key leaders in the Digital Asset industry and could have a material adverse effect on us.

In the past as we suffered liquidity concerns, we were unable to pay these officers. Neither exercised their right to terminate their employment agreement.

As a result of the Company’s past inability to compensate its officers at generally accepted market levels and its historic failure to either make payroll or make payroll on a timely basis, its officers choose to devote a substantial amount of their time to involvement with other companies or on other projects. Although our officers are now receiving compensation their services, we can provide no assurances that we will not suffer liquidity issues in the near future as we implement our business plan. If the Company is unable to pay our officers their compensation, they may again devote time to other projects which may have a material adverse effect on us.

The loss of Charles Allen, our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and Michal Handerhan, our Chief Operating Officer, would have a material adverse effect on us.

The simultaneous loss of services of both Charles Allen and Michal Handerhan, would result in the Company having no officers or employees and would subsequently cease all operations which would have a material adverse effect on us. See the second risk factor below on the loss of our executive officers and employees.

Michal Handerhan our Chief Operating Officer has notified the Company that in the event of the departure of Charles Allen, our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer from the Company he may terminate his employment and may resign as an officer and director of the Company, which would have a material adverse effect on us.

We have no other officers and only one other director. The simultaneous loss of Charles Allen, our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and Michal Handerhan, our Chief Operating Officer, would have a material adverse effect on us. Their Employment Agreements permit them to resign for Good Reason which includes non-payment of salaries. In the event both of officers terminate their Employment Agreements for Good Reason, this would result in the Company owing them $560,000 and would leave the Company without officers or employees which may have a material adverse effect upon us.

Any inability to attract and retain additional personnel could affect our ability to successfully grow our business.

Our future success depends on our ability to identify, attract, hire, train, retain and motivate other highly-skilled technical, managerial, editorial, merchandising, marketing and customer service personnel. Competition for such personnel is intense. Our failure to retain and attract the necessary technical, managerial, editorial, merchandising, marketing, and customer service personnel could harm our business.

We may need to implement additional finance and accounting systems, procedures and controls as we grow our business and organization and to satisfy new reporting requirements.

We are required to comply with a variety of reporting, accounting and other rules and regulations. Compliance with existing requirements is expensive. We may need to implement additional finance and accounting systems, procedures and controls to satisfy our reporting requirements and such further requirements may increase our costs and require additional management time and resources. Our internal control over financial reporting is determined to be ineffective. Such failure could cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, negatively affect the market price of our common stock, subject us to regulatory investigations and penalties, and adversely impact our business and financial condition.

Changes in accounting standards and subjective assumptions, estimates and judgments by management related to complex accounting matters could significantly affect our financial results.

Generally accepted accounting principles and related accounting pronouncements, implementation guidelines and interpretations with regard to a wide range of matters that are relevant to our business, including but not limited to revenue recognition, estimating valuation allowances and accrued liabilities (including allowances for returns, credit card chargebacks, doubtful accounts and obsolete and damaged inventory), internal use software and website development (acquired and developed internally), accounting for income taxes, valuation of long-lived and intangible assets and goodwill, stock-based compensation and loss contingencies, are highly complex and involve many subjective assumptions, estimates and judgments by our management. Changes in these rules or their interpretation or changes in underlying assumptions, estimates or judgments by our management could significantly change our reported or expected financial performance.

Natural disasters and geo-political events could adversely affect our business.

Natural disasters, including hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons, tropical storms, floods, earthquakes and tsunamis, weather conditions, including winter storms, droughts and tornados, whether as a result of climate change or otherwise, and geo-political events, including civil unrest or terrorist attacks, that affect us or other service providers could adversely affect our business.

Since there has been limited precedence set for financial accounting of Digital Assets other than Digital Securities, it is unclear how we will be required to account for Digital Asset transactions in the future.

Since there has been limited precedence set for the financial accounting of Digital Assets other than Digital Securities, it is unclear how we will be required to account for Digital Asset transactions or assets. Furthermore, a change in regulatory or financial accounting standards could result in the necessity to restate our financial statements. Such a restatement could negatively impact our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operation.

We are subject to the information and reporting requirements of the Exchange Act), and other federal securities laws, including compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”).

The costs of preparing and filing annual and quarterly reports and other information with the SEC and furnishing audited reports to shareholders will cause our expenses to be higher than they would have been if we were privately held. It may be time consuming, difficult and costly for us to develop, implement and maintain the internal controls and reporting procedures required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We may need to hire additional financial reporting, internal controls and other finance personnel in order to develop and implement appropriate internal controls and reporting procedures.

If we fail to establish and maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may not be able to report our financial results accurately or to prevent fraud. Any inability to report and file our financial results accurately and timely could harm our reputation and adversely impact the trading price of our common stock. During our assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2018, management identified a significant deficiency in our disclosure controls and procedures which may lead to a failure to prevent or detect misstatements.

Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and prevent fraud. If we cannot provide reliable financial reports or prevent fraud, we may not be able to manage our business as effectively as we would if an effective control environment existed, and our business and reputation with investors may be harmed. As a result, our small size and any current internal control deficiencies may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operation and access to capital. During our assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2018, management identified a significant deficiency related to presence of weakness in our disclosure control and procedure resulting from limited internal audit functions. Because of our inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with any policies and procedures may deteriorate.

Public company compliance may make it more difficult to attract and retain officers and directors.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and rules implemented by the Securities and Exchange Commission have required changes in corporate governance practices of public companies. As a public company, we expect these rules and regulations to increase our compliance costs in 2019 and beyond and to make certain activities more time consuming and costly. The impact of the SEC’s July 25, 2017 report on Digital Securities (the “DAO Report”) as well as recent enforcement actions and speeches made by the SEC’s Chairman will increase our compliance and legal costs. More recently, the SEC’s Chairman commented that most initial coin offerings (a type of Digital Asset) involve the offer of a Digital Security. As a public company, we also expect that these rules and regulations will make it more difficult and expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance in the future and we may be required to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. As a result, it may be more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors or as executive officers, and to maintain insurance at reasonable rates, or at all.

Our stock price may be volatile.

The market price of our common stock is likely to be highly volatile and could fluctuate widely in price in response to various factors, many of which are beyond our control, including the following:

In addition, the securities markets have from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that are unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. These market fluctuations may also materially and adversely affect the market price of our common stock. As a result, you may be unable to resell your shares at a desired price.

We have not paid cash dividends in the past and do not expect to pay dividends in the future. Any return on investment may be limited to the value of our common stock.

We have never paid cash dividends on our common stock and do not anticipate doing so in the foreseeable future. The payment of dividends on our common stock will depend on earnings, financial condition and other business and economic factors affecting us at such time as our board of directors may consider relevant. If we do not pay dividends, our common stock may be less valuable because a return on your investment will only occur if our stock price appreciates.

There is currently a limited trading market for our common stock and we cannot ensure that one will be sustained.

Our shares of common stock are not traded on a national securities exchange, and the price, may not reflect our actual or perceived value. There can be no assurance that there will be an active market for our shares of common stock in the future. The market liquidity will be dependent on the perception of our operating business, among other things. We may, in the future, take certain steps, including utilizing investor awareness campaigns, press releases, road shows and conferences to increase awareness of our business and any steps that we might take to bring us to the awareness of investors may require we compensate consultants with cash and/or stock. There can be no assurance that there will be any awareness generated or the results of any efforts will result in any impact on our trading volume. Consequently, investors may not be able to liquidate their investment at a price that reflects the value of the business and trading may be at an inflated price relative to the performance of our company due to, among other things, availability of sellers of our shares. The price of our common stock has been highly volatile. Because there may be a low price for our shares of common stock and because of our involvement in the Digital Asset business, many brokerage firms or clearing firms may not be willing to effect transactions in the securities or accept our shares for deposit in an account. Even if an investor finds a broker willing to effect a transaction in the shares of our common stock, the combination of brokerage commissions, transfer fees, taxes, if any, and any other selling costs may exceed the selling price. Further, many lending institutions will not permit the use of low priced shares of common stock as collateral for any loans.

Because our common stock does not trade on a national securities exchange, the prices of our common stock may be more volatile and lower than if we were listed.

Our common stock trades on the OTCQB operated by OTC Markets Group Inc. This market is not a national securities exchange. While our common stock trading has been relatively active, generally the OTCQB does not have the same level of activity as a national securities exchange like Nasdaq. Most institutions will not purchase a security unless it is on a national securities exchange. In addition, they do not purchase stocks that trade below $5 per share. We may, in the future, take certain steps, including utilizing investor awareness campaigns, press releases, road shows and conferences to increase awareness of our business and any steps that we might take to bring us to the awareness of investors may require we compensate consultants with cash and/or stock. There can be no assurance that there will be any awareness generated or the results of any efforts will result in any impact on our trading volume. Consequently, investors may not be able to liquidate their investment or liquidate it at a price that reflects the value of the business and trading may be at an inflated price relative to the performance of our company due to, among other things, availability of sellers of our shares.

Our common stock is deemed a “penny stock,” which would make it more difficult for our investors to sell their shares.

Our common stock is subject to the “penny stock” rules adopted under Section 15(g) of the Exchange Act. The penny stock rules generally apply to companies whose common stock is not listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market or other national securities exchange or trades at less than $5.00 per share. These rules require, among other things, that brokers who trade penny stock to persons other than “established customers” complete certain documentation, make suitability inquiries of investors and provide investors with certain information concerning trading in the security, including a risk disclosure document and quote information under certain circumstances. Many brokers have decided not to trade penny stocks because of the requirements of the penny stock rules and, as a result, the number of broker-dealers willing to act as market makers in such securities is limited. If we remain subject to the penny stock rules for any significant period, it could have an adverse effect on the market, if any, for our securities. Because our common stock is subject to the penny stock rules, investors will find it more difficult to dispose of our securities.

Our articles of incorporation allow for our board to create new series of preferred stock without further approval by our shareholders, which could adversely affect the rights of the holders of our common stock.

Our board of directors has the authority to fix and determine the relative rights and preferences of preferred stock. Our board of directors also has the authority to issue preferred stock without further shareholder approval. As a result, our board of directors could authorize the issuance of a series of preferred stock that would grant to holders the preferred right to our assets upon liquidation, the right to receive dividend payments before dividends are distributed to the holders of common stock and the right to the redemption of the shares, together with a premium, prior to the redemption of our common stock. In addition, our board of directors could authorize the issuance of a series of preferred stock that has greater voting power than our common stock or that is convertible into our common stock, which could decrease the relative voting power of our common stock or result in dilution to our existing shareholders.

Substantial future sales of our common stock by us or by our existing shareholders (including the selling stockholder) could cause our stock price to fall.

Additional equity financings (in addition to the shares issued under the Purchase Agreement) or other share issuances by us, including shares issued in connection with strategic alliances and corporate partnering transactions, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Sales by existing shareholders (including the selling stockholder) of a large number of shares of our common stock in the public market or the perception that additional sales could occur could cause the market price of our common stock to drop.

We may be accused of infringing intellectual property rights of third parties.

We may be subject to legal claims of alleged infringement of the intellectual property rights of third parties. The ready availability of damages, royalties and the potential for injunctive relief has increased the defense litigation costs of patent infringement claims, especially those asserted by third parties whose sole or primary business is to assert such claims. Such claims, even if not meritorious, may result in significant expenditure of financial and managerial resources, and the payment of damages or settlement amounts. Additionally, we may become subject to injunctions prohibiting us from using software or business processes we currently use or may need to use in the future, or requiring us to obtain licenses from third parties when such licenses may not be available on financially feasible terms or terms acceptable to us or at all. In addition, we may not be able to obtain on favorable terms, or at all, licenses or other rights with respect to intellectual property we do not own in providing ecommerce services to other businesses and individuals under commercial agreements.

Risks Related to the Bitcoin Network and Bitcoins

The following risks relate to our proposed business and the effects upon us assume we obtain financing in a sufficient amount to re-enter this business.

The further development and acceptance of the Bitcoin Network and other Digital Asset systems, 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 the Bitcoin Network may adversely affect an investment in our Company.

Digital Assets such as bitcoins that may be used, among other things, to buy and sell goods and services are a new and rapidly evolving industry of which the Bitcoin Network is a prominent, but not unique, part. The growth of the Digital Assets industry in general, and the Bitcoin Network in particular, is subject to a high degree of uncertainty. The factors affecting the further development of the Digital Assets industry, as well as the Bitcoin Network, include:

A decline in the popularity or acceptance of the Bitcoin Network could adversely affect an investment in us.

Because Digital Assets may be determined to be Digital Securities, we may inadvertently violate the 1940 Act and incur large losses as a result and potentially be required to register as an investment company or terminate operations.

Digital Assets we may own in the future may be determined to be Digital Securities by the SEC or a court. If a Digital Asset we were to hold was later determined to be a Digital Security, we could inadvertently become an investment company, as defined by the 1940 Act, if the value of the Digital Securities we owned exceeded 40% of our assets excluding cash. We are subject to the following risks:

If we exceed the test, we will have one-year to reduce our holdings of securities below the 40% threshold. However, that can only occur once during a three-year period. Accordingly, if changes in the classification of Digital Assets causes us to exceed the 40% threshold, we may experience large losses when we liquidate securities as a result of continued volatility. Further, if we elect to sell a private investment, not only may it be difficult to find a buyer but we could incur a significant loss on the sale of a private investment due to not only the lack of liquidity but also the entity’s poor performance. If we are able to come below the 40% threshold and again face the same problem, it is likely we will be forced to terminate operations, sell all assets and distribute cash to our shareholders who will likely suffer very large losses. Further, the cost of distributing cash to our shareholders may exceed the amount of cash on hand in which case we would use our remaining funds to wind down the Company.

If we acquire Digital Securities, even unintentionally, we may violate the Investment Company Act and incur potential third-party liabilities.

We expect that if we obtain sufficient financing, we will acquire a portfolio of Digital Assets including bitcoins, ether and Digital Securities. There is an increased regulatory examination of Digital Assets and Digital Securities. This has led to regulatory and enforcement activities. In order to limit our acquisition of Digital Securities to stay within the 40% threshold, we will examine the manner in which Digital Assets were initially marketed to determine if they may be deemed Digital Securities and subject to federal and state securities laws. Even if we conclude that a particular Digital Asset is not a security under the Securities Act, certain states including California take a stricter view of the term “investment contract” which means the Digital Asset may have violated applicable state securities laws. This will result in increased compliance costs and legal fees. If our examination of a Digital Asset is incorrect, we may incur regulatory penalties and private investor liabilities since Section 5 of the Securities Act is a strict liability statute much like selling spoiled milk and state securities laws generally impose liability for negligence for misrepresentations.

Currently, there is relatively small use of bitcoins in the retail and commercial marketplace in comparison to relatively large use by speculators, thus contributing to price volatility that could adversely affect an investment in us.

As relatively new products and technologies, bitcoins and the Bitcoin Network have only recently become widely accepted as a means of payment for goods and services by many major retail and commercial outlets, and use of bitcoins by consumers to pay such retail and commercial outlets remains limited. Conversely, a significant portion of bitcoin demand is generated by speculators and investors seeking to profit from the short- or long-term holding of bitcoins. A lack of expansion by bitcoins into retail and commercial markets, or a contraction of such use, may result in increased volatility or a reduction in the price of bitcoin, either of which could adversely impact an investment in us.

Because Facebook is seeking to develop a cryptocurrency, it may adversely affect the value of bitcoins and Digital Assets.

In May 2019, Facebook announced its plans for a cryptocurrency called Libra. The massive social network and 27 other partners are touting the Libra digital coin and Facebook’s corresponding digital wallet, Calibra, as a way to make sending payments around the world as easy as it is to send a photo. Because Facebook is a leader in social media, when it launches its coins, it could adversely affect the value of bitcoins and Digital Assets.

Significant Bitcoin Network contributors could propose amendments to the Bitcoin Network’s protocols and software that, if accepted and authorized by the Bitcoin Network, could adversely affect an investment in us.

A small group of individuals contribute to the Bitcoin Core project on Github. This group of contributors is currently headed by Wladimir J. van der Laan, the current lead maintainer. These individuals can propose refinements or improvements to the Bitcoin Network’s source code through one or more software upgrades that alter the protocols and software that govern the Bitcoin Network and the properties of bitcoin, including the irreversibility of transactions and limitations on the mining of new bitcoin. Proposals for upgrades and discussions relating thereto take place on online forums. For example, there is an ongoing debate regarding altering the Blockchain by increasing the size of blocks to accommodate a larger volume of transactions. Although some proponents support an increase, other market participants oppose an increase to the block size as it may deter miners from confirming transactions and concentrate power into a smaller group of miners. To the extent that a significant majority of the users and miners on the Bitcoin Network install such software upgrade(s), the Bitcoin Network would be subject to new protocols and software that may adversely affect an investment in the Shares. In the event a developer or group of developers proposes a modification to the Bitcoin Network that is not accepted by a majority of miners and users, but that is nonetheless accepted by a substantial plurality of miners and users, two or more competing and incompatible Blockchain implementations could result. This is known as a “hard fork.” In such a case, the “hard fork” in the Blockchain could materially and adversely affect the perceived value of bitcoin as reflected on one or both incompatible Blockchains, which may adversely affect an investment in us.

Bitcoin has forked three times and additional forks may occur in the future which may affect the value of bitcoin held by the Company.

Since August 1, 2017, bitcoin’s blockchain was forked three times creating Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin SV. The forks resulted in a new blockchain being created with a shared history, and a new path forward. The value of the newly created Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin SV may or may not have value in the long run and may affect the price of bitcoin if interest is shifted away from bitcoin to the newly created Digital Assets. The value of bitcoin after the creation of a fork is subject to many factors including the value of the fork product, market reaction to the creation of the fork product, and the occurrence of forks in the future. As such, the value of bitcoin could be materially reduced if existing and future forks have a negative effect on bitcoin’s value.

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 us.

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. Although the MIT Media Lab’s Digital Currency Initiative funds the current maintainer Wladimir J. van der Laan, among others, this type of financial incentive is not typical. 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. This may adversely affect an investment in us.

If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control in excess of 50% of the processing power active on the Bitcoin Network, it is possible that such actor or botnet could manipulate the Blockchain in a manner that adversely affects an investment in us.

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 the Bitcoin Network, it may be able to alter the Blockchain on which the Bitcoin Network and all bitcoin transactions rely by constructing alternate blocks if it is able to solve for such blocks faster than the remainder of the miners on the Bitcoin Network 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 bitcoins or transactions using such control. Using alternate blocks, the malicious actor could “double-spend” its own bitcoins (i.e., spend the same bitcoins 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 on the Bitcoin Network or the bitcoin 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 us.

In late May and early June 2014, a mining pool known as GHash.io approached and, during a 24- to 48-hour period in early June 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 to and possible crossing of the 50% threshold indicate a greater risk that a single mining pool could exert authority over the validation of bitcoin transactions. To the extent that the bitcoin ecosystem, including the Core Developers and the administrators of mining pools, do not act to ensure greater decentralization of bitcoin mining processing power, the feasibility of a malicious actor obtaining in excess of 50% of the processing power on the Bitcoin 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 us.

If the award of bitcoin for solving blocks and transaction fees for recording transactions are not sufficiently high to incentivize miners, miners may cease expending hashrate to solve blocks and confirmations of transactions on the Blockchain could be slowed temporarily. A reduction in the hashrate expended by miners on the Bitcoin Network could increase the likelihood of a malicious actor obtaining control in excess of 50) of the aggregate hashrate active on the Bitcoin Network or the Blockchain, potentially permitting such actor to manipulate the Blockchain in a manner that adversely affects an investment in us.

As the award of new bitcoin for solving blocks declines, and if transaction fees are not sufficiently high, miners may not have an adequate incentive to continue mining and may cease their mining operations. The current fixed reward for solving a new block is 12.5 bitcoin per block; the reward decreased from 25 bitcoin in July 2016. It is estimated that it will halve again in about four years. This reduction may result in a reduction in the aggregate hashrate of the Bitcoin Network as the incentive for miners will decrease. Moreover, miners ceasing operations would reduce the aggregate hashrate on the Bitcoin Network, which would adversely affect the confirmation process for transactions (i.e., temporarily decreasing the speed at which blocks are added to the Blockchain until the next scheduled adjustment in difficulty for block solutions) and make the Bitcoin Network more vulnerable to a malicious actor obtaining control in excess of 50% of the aggregate hashrate on the Bitcoin Network. Periodically, the Bitcoin Network has adjusted the difficulty for block solutions so that solution speeds remain in the vicinity of the expected ten minute confirmation time targeted by the Bitcoin Network protocol. The Company believes that from time to time there will be further considerations and adjustments to the Bitcoin Network regarding the difficulty for block solutions. More significant reductions in aggregate hashrate on the Bitcoin Network could result in material, though temporary, delays in block solution confirmation time. Any reduction in confidence in the confirmation process or aggregate hashrate of the Bitcoin Network may negatively impact the value of bitcoin, which will adversely impact an investment in us.

To the extent that the profit margins of Bitcoin mining operations are not high, operators of Bitcoin mining operations are more likely to immediately sell bitcoins earned by mining in the Bitcoin Exchange Market, resulting in a reduction in the price of bitcoins that could adversely impact an investment in us.

Over the past three years, Bitcoin Network mining operations have evolved from individual users mining with computer processors, graphics processing units and first-generation ASIC servers. Currently, new processing power brought onto the Bitcoin Network is predominantly added by incorporated and unincorporated “professionalized” mining operations. Professionalized mining operations may use proprietary hardware or sophisticated ASIC machines acquired from ASIC manufacturers. They require the investment of significant capital for the acquisition of this hardware, the leasing of operating space (often in data centers or warehousing facilities), incurring of electricity costs and the employment of technicians to operate the mining farms. As a result, professionalized mining operations are of a greater scale than prior Bitcoin Network miners and have more defined, regular expenses and liabilities. These regular expenses and liabilities require professionalized mining operations to more immediately sell bitcoins earned from mining operations on the Bitcoin Exchange Market, whereas it is believed that individual miners in past years were more likely to hold newly mined bitcoins for more extended periods. The immediate selling of newly mined bitcoins greatly increases the supply of bitcoins on the Bitcoin Exchange Market, creating downward pressure on the price of bitcoins.

The extent to which the value of bitcoin mined by a professionalized mining operation exceeds the allocable capital and operating costs determines the profit margin of such operation. A professionalized mining operation may be more likely to sell a higher percentage of its newly mined bitcoin rapidly if it is operating at a low profit margin-and it may partially or completely cease operations if its profit margin is negative. In a low profit margin environment, a higher percentage could be sold into the Bitcoin Exchange Market more rapidly, thereby potentially reducing bitcoin prices. Lower bitcoin prices could result in further tightening of profit margins, particularly for professionalized mining operations with higher costs and more limited capital reserves, creating a network effect that may further reduce the price of bitcoin until mining operations with higher operating costs become unprofitable and remove mining power from the Bitcoin Network. The network effect of reduced profit margins resulting in greater sales of newly mined bitcoin could result in a reduction in the price of bitcoin that could adversely impact an investment in us.

To the extent that any miners cease to record transactions in solved blocks, transactions that do not include the payment of a transaction fee will not be recorded on the Blockchain until a block is solved by a miner who does not require the payment of transaction fees. Any widespread delays in the recording of transactions could result in a loss of confidence in the Bitcoin Network, which could adversely impact an investment in us.

To the extent that any miners cease to record transactions in solved blocks, such transactions will not be recorded on the Blockchain. Currently, there are no known incentives for miners to elect to exclude the recording of transactions in solved blocks; however, to the extent that any such incentives arise (e.g., a collective movement among miners or one or more mining pools forcing bitcoin users to pay transaction fees as a substitute for or in addition to the award of new bitcoins upon the solving of a block), actions of miners solving a significant number of blocks could delay the recording and confirmation of transactions on the Blockchain. Any systemic delays in the recording and confirmation of transactions on the Blockchain could result in greater exposure to double-spending transactions and a loss of confidence in the Bitcoin Network, which could adversely impact an investment in us.

The acceptance of Bitcoin Network software patches or upgrades by a significant, but not overwhelming, percentage of the users and miners in the Bitcoin Network could result in a “fork” in the Blockchain, resulting in the operation of two separate networks until such time as the forked Blockchains are merged. The temporary or permanent existence of forked Blockchains could adversely impact an investment in us.

Bitcoin is an open source project and, although there is an influential group of leaders in the Bitcoin Network community including the Core Developers, there is no official developer or group of developers that formally controls the Bitcoin Network. 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, 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 Bitcoin Network have been accepted by the vast majority of users and miners, ensuring that the Bitcoin Network remains a coherent economic system; however, a developer or group of developers could potentially 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 and/or not backwards compatible with the prior version of Bitcoin Network software, a fork in the Blockchain could develop and two separate Bitcoin Networks could result, one running the pre-modification software program and the other running the modified version (i.e., a second “Bitcoin” network). Such a fork in the Blockchain typically would be addressed by community-led efforts to merge the forked Blockchains, and several prior forks have been so merged. This kind of split in the Bitcoin Network could materially and adversely impact an investment in us and, in the worst case scenario, harm the sustainability of the Bitcoin Network’s economy.

Intellectual property rights claims may adversely affect the operation of the Bitcoin Network.

Third parties may assert intellectual property claims relating to the holding and transfer of Digital Assets and their source code. Regardless of the merit of any intellectual property or other legal action, any threatened action that reduces confidence in the Bitcoin Network’s long-term viability or the ability of end-users to hold and transfer bitcoins may adversely affect an investment in us. Additionally, a meritorious intellectual property claim could prevent us and other end-users from accessing the Bitcoin Network or holding or transferring their bitcoins. As a result, an intellectual property claim against us or other large Bitcoin Network participants could adversely affect an investment in us.

The Bitcoin Exchanges on which bitcoins trade are relatively new and, in most cases, largely unregulated and may therefore be more exposed to fraud and failure than established, regulated exchanges for other products. To the extent that the Bitcoin Exchanges representing a substantial portion of the volume in bitcoin trading are involved in fraud or experience security failures or other operational issues, such Bitcoin Exchanges’ failures may result in a reduction in the price of bitcoin and can adversely affect an investment in us.

The Bitcoin Exchanges on which the bitcoins trade are new and, in most cases, largely unregulated. Furthermore, many Bitcoin Exchanges (including several of the most prominent US Dollar denominated Bitcoin 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, Bitcoin Exchanges, including prominent exchanges handling a significant portion of the volume of bitcoin trading.

Over the past four years, a number of Bitcoin Exchanges have been closed due to fraud, failure or security breaches. In many of these instances, the customers of such Bitcoin Exchanges were not compensated or made whole for the partial or complete losses of their account balances in such Bitcoin Exchanges. While smaller Bitcoin Exchanges are less likely to have the infrastructure and capitalization that make larger Bitcoin Exchanges more stable, larger Bitcoin Exchanges are more likely to be appealing targets for hackers and “malware” (i.e., software used or programmed by attackers to disrupt computer operation, gather sensitive information or gain access to private computer systems). Further, the collapse of the largest Bitcoin Exchange in 2014 suggests that the failure of one component of the overall Bitcoin ecosystem can have consequences for both users of a Bitcoin Exchange and the Bitcoin industry as a whole.

In 2018, China shut down Bitcoin Exchanges and other virtual currency trading platforms. A Wall Street Journal article reported that China accounted for the bulk of global bitcoin trading as of early 2018. Further, in late January 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that $530 million of cryptocurrency was missing from a Japanese exchange. On May 7, 2019, Coindesk reported that approximately $41 million in Bitcoin was stolen from crypto exchange Binance.

It has been reported that Bithumb, a South Korea exchange was hacked, resulting in a $180 million loss. This followed its reported loss of $350 million in 2018. In 2019, the Chief Executive Officer of Quadriga, the largest exchange in Canada, died without providing for an alternative way to access its systems causing a reported $200 million loss.

A lack of stability in the Bitcoin Exchange Market and the closure or temporary shutdown of Bitcoin Exchanges due to fraud, business failure, hackers or malware, or government-mandated regulation may reduce confidence in the Bitcoin Network and result in greater volatility in bitcoin value. These potential consequences of a Bitcoin Exchange’s failure could adversely affect an investment in us.

Political or economic crises may motivate large-scale sales of Bitcoins, which could result in a reduction in Bitcoin value and adversely affect an investment in us.

As an alternative to fiat currencies that are backed by central governments, Digital Assets such as bitcoins, which are relatively new, are subject to supply and demand forces based upon the desirability of an alternative, decentralized means of buying and selling goods and services, and it is unclear how such supply and demand will be impacted by geopolitical events. Nevertheless, political or economic crises may motivate large-scale acquisitions or sales of bitcoins either globally or locally. Large-scale sales of bitcoins would result in a reduction in bitcoin value and could adversely affect an investment in us.

Demand for bitcoin is driven, in part, by its status as the most prominent and secure Digital Asset. It is possible that a Digital Asset other than bitcoins could have features that make it more desirable to a material portion of the Digital Asset user base, resulting in a reduction in demand for bitcoins, which could have a negative impact on the price of bitcoins and adversely affect an investment in us.

The Bitcoin Network and bitcoins, as an asset, hold a “first-to-market” advantage over other Digital Assets. This first-to-market advantage is driven in large part by having the largest user base and, more importantly, the largest combined mining power in use to secure the Blockchain and transaction verification system. Having a large mining network results in greater user confidence regarding the security and long-term stability of a Digital Asset’s network and its block chain; as a result, the advantage of more users and miners makes a Digital Asset more secure, which makes it more attractive to new users and miners, resulting in a network effect that strengthens the first-to-market advantage.

As of August 26, 2019, there were approximately 2,300 alternate Digital Assets (or altcoins) tracked by CoinMarketCap, having a total market capitalization (including the market capitalization of bitcoin) of approximately $272 billion, using market prices and total outstanding supply of each Digital Asset. This included altcoins using a “proof of work” mining structure similar to Bitcoin, and those using a “proof of stake” transaction verification system that is different than Bitcoin’s mining system (e.g., Peercoin, Bitshares and NXT). As of August 26, 2019, bitcoin’s $185 billion market capitalization was approximately nine times the size of the $20 billion market cap of ETH, the second largest Digital Asset. Despite the marked first-mover advantage of the Bitcoin Network over other Digital Assets, it is possible that another Digital Asset could become materially popular due to either a perceived or exposed shortcoming of the Bitcoin Network protocol that is not immediately addressed by the Bitcoin contributor community or a perceived advantage of an altcoin that includes features not incorporated into Bitcoin. If a Digital Asset obtains significant market share (either in market capitalization, mining power or use as a payment technology), this could reduce bitcoin’s market share as well as other Digital Assets we may become involved in and have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, such Digital Assets and could adversely affect an investment in us.

Our ability to adopt technology in response to changing security needs or trends poses a challenge to the safekeeping of our Digital Assets.

The history of the Bitcoin Exchange Market has shown that Bitcoin Exchanges and large holders of bitcoins must adapt to technological change in order to secure and safeguard their bitcoins and other Digital Assets. We rely on Bitgo Inc.’s multi-signature enterprise storage solution to safeguard our bitcoins 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 Inc. or we are unable to identify and mitigate or stop new security threats, our bitcoins may be subject to theft, loss, destruction or other attack, which could adversely affect an investment in us.

Security threats to us could result in, a loss of Company’s Digital Assets, or damage to the reputation and our brand, each of which could adversely affect an investment in us.

Security breaches, computer malware and computer hacking attacks have been a prevalent concern in the Bitcoin Exchange Market since the launch of the Bitcoin Network. Any security breach caused by hacking, which involves efforts to gain unauthorized access to information or systems, or to cause intentional malfunctions or loss or corruption of data, software, hardware or other computer equipment, and the inadvertent transmission of computer viruses, could harm our business operations or result in loss of our bitcoins and other Digital Assets. Any breach of our infrastructure could result in damage to our reputation which could adversely affect an investment in us. Furthermore, we believe that, as our assets grow, it may become a more appealing target for security threats such as hackers and malware.

We will primarily rely on Bitgo Inc.’s multi-signature enterprise storage solution to safeguard our bitcoins from theft, loss, destruction or other issues relating to hackers and technological attack. Nevertheless, Bitgo Inc.’s security system may not be impenetrable and may not be free from defect or immune to acts of God, and any loss due to a security breach, software defect or act of God will be borne by us. In January 2018, the Japanese cryptocurrency exchange Coincheck reported that hackers breached Coincheck’s security and stole approximately $530 million worth of cryptocurrency. Our bitcoins and other Digital Assets are also stored with exchanges such as Itbit, Kraken and Coinbase and others prior to selling them.

On February 1, 2019, a 20 year old hacker pled guilty to stealing more than $5,000,000 worth of crypto currency from 40 victims through SIM swapping. The hacker is the first individual convicted of a crime for SIM swapping, which is growing increasingly popular with criminals as a way to steal crypto currency. In SIM swapping, hackers call a telecoms company posing as their target and claim that their SIM card has been lost, and that they would like their number to be ported to a new card. The criminals can convince phone companies that they are who they claim to be by providing social security numbers or addresses. Once the telecoms company transfers the number to a new SIM, hackers can bypass two-step authentication measures for accounts by using the phone as a recovery method. By using this method and acquiring someone’s phone number, a hacker can get into every account the person owns within minutes and that person cannot do anything about it.

The security system and operational infrastructure may be breached due to the actions of outside parties, error or malfeasance of an employee of ours, or otherwise, and, as a result, an unauthorized party may obtain access to our, private keys, data or bitcoins. Additionally, outside parties may attempt to fraudulently induce employees of ours to disclose sensitive information in order to gain access to our infrastructure. As the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access, disable or degrade service, or sabotage systems change frequently, or may be designed to remain dormant until a predetermined event and often are not recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. If an actual or perceived breach of our security system occurs, the market perception of the effectiveness of our security system could be harmed, which could adversely affect an investment in us.

In the event of a security breach, we may be forced to cease operations, or suffer a reduction in assets, the occurrence of each of which could adversely affect an investment in us.

A loss of confidence in our security system, or a breach of our security system, may adversely affect us and the value of an investment in us.

We will take measures to protect us and our bitcoins and other Digital Assets from unauthorized access, damage or theft; however, it is possible that the security system may not prevent the improper access to, or damage or theft of our bitcoins. A security breach could harm our reputation or result in the loss of some or all of our bitcoins. A resulting perception that our measures do not adequately protect our Digital Assets could result in a loss of current or potential shareholders, reducing demand for our common stock and causing our shares to decrease in value.

Bitcoin transactions are irrevocable and stolen or incorrectly transferred bitcoins may be irretrievable. As a result, any incorrectly executed Bitcoin transactions could adversely affect an investment in us.

Bitcoin (and other Digital Asset) transactions are not, from an administrative perspective, reversible without the consent and active participation of the recipient of the transaction or, in theory, control or consent of a majority of the processing power on the Bitcoin Network. Once a transaction has been verified and recorded in a block that is added to the Blockchain, an incorrect transfer of Digital Assets or a theft of Digital Assets generally will not be reversible and we may not be capable of seeking compensation for any such transfer or theft. Although our transfers of bitcoins will regularly be made to or from vendors, consultants, services providers, etc. it is possible that, through computer or human error, or through theft or criminal action, our bitcoins could be transferred from us in incorrect amounts or to unauthorized third parties. To the extent that we are unable to seek a corrective transaction with such third party or is incapable of identifying the third party which has received our bitcoins through error or theft, we will be unable to revert or otherwise recover incorrectly transferred Company Digital Assets. To the extent that we are unable to seek redress for such error or theft, such loss could adversely affect an investment in us.

Our bitcoins and other Digital Assets may be subject to loss, damage, theft or restriction on access.

There is a risk that part or all of our bitcoins we acquire could be lost, stolen or destroyed. We believe that our bitcoins and other Digital Assets will be an appealing target to hackers or malware distributors seeking to destroy, damage or steal our bitcoin and other Digital Assets. Although we primarily utilize Bitgo Inc.’s enterprise multi-signature storage solution for our bitcoins, to minimize the risk of loss, damage and theft, we cannot guarantee that it will prevent such loss, damage or theft, whether caused intentionally, accidentally or by act of God. Access to our Digital Assets could also be restricted by natural events (such as an earthquake or flood) or human actions (such as a terrorist attack). Any of these events may adversely affect our operations and, consequently, an investment in us.

The limited rights of legal recourse against us, and our lack of insurance protection expose us and our shareholders to the risk of loss of our bitcoins and other Digital Assets for which no person is liable.

The bitcoins and other Digital Assets held by us are not insured. Therefore, a loss may be suffered with respect to our bitcoins which is not covered by insurance and for which no person is liable in damages which could adversely affect our operations and, consequently, an investment in us.

Bitcoins and other Digital Assets held by us are not subject to FDIC or SIPC protections.

We will not hold our bitcoins and other Digital Assets with a banking institution or a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) or the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) and, therefore, our Digital Assets are not subject to the protections enjoyed by depositors with FDIC or SIPC member institutions.

We may not have adequate sources of recovery if our bitcoins and other Digital Assets are lost, stolen or destroyed.

If our bitcoins or other Digital Assets are lost, stolen or destroyed under circumstances rendering a party liable to us, the responsible party may not have the financial resources sufficient to satisfy our claim. For example, as to a particular event of loss, the only source of recovery for us might be limited, to the extent identifiable, other responsible third parties (e.g., a thief or terrorist), any of which may not have the financial resources (including liability insurance coverage) to satisfy a valid claim of ours.

The sale of our bitcoins or other Digital Assets to pay expenses at a time of low prices could adversely affect an investment in us.

We may sell bitcoins or other Digital Assets to pay expenses on an as-needed basis, irrespective of then-current prices. The extreme volatility of bitcoin and other Digital Assets could mean that prices are low when we need to sell. Consequently, our Digital Assets may be sold at a time when the prices are low, which could adversely affect an investment in us.

Intellectual property rights claims may adversely affect an investment in us.

We are not aware of any intellectual property claims that may prevent us from operating and holding bitcoins or other Digital Assets; however, third parties may assert intellectual property claims relating to the operation of us and the mechanics instituted for the investment in, holding of and transfer of bitcoins or other Digital Assets. Regardless of the merit of an intellectual property or other legal action, any legal expenses to defend or payments to settle such claims would be extraordinary expenses and be borne by us through the sale of our bitcoins and other Digital Assets. Additionally, a meritorious intellectual property claim could prevent us from operating and force us to liquidate our bitcoins and other Digital Assets. As a result, an intellectual property claim against us could adversely affect an investment in us.

Regulatory changes or actions may restrict the use of Digital Assets or the operation of trading markets in a manner that adversely affects an investment in us.

Until a few years ago, little or no regulatory attention has been directed toward bitcoin, other Digital Assets and the markets where they trade by U.S. federal and state governments, foreign governments and self-regulatory agencies. As bitcoin has grown in popularity and in market size and initial coin offerings which tend to be Digital Securities, the SEC, Federal Reserve Board, U.S. Congress and certain other U.S. agencies (e.g., the CFTC, FinCEN and the Federal Bureau of Investigation) have begun to examine the operations of the initial coin offerings, Bitcoin Network, bitcoin users and the Bitcoin Exchange Market.

On July 25, 2017, the SEC issued its DAO Report which concluded that Digital Assets or tokens issued for the purpose of raising funds may be securities within the meaning of the federal securities laws. The DAO Report focused on the activities of a virtual organization which offered tokens in exchange for ether which is the second largest reported digital currency. The DAO Report emphasized that whether Digital Asset is a security is based on the facts and circumstances. Although the Company’s activities are not focused on raising capital or assisting others that do so, the federal securities laws are very broad, and there can be no assurances that the SEC will not take enforcement action against the Company in the future including for the sale of unregistered securities in violation of the Securities Act or acting as an unregistered investment company in violation of the Investment Company Act. The SEC has taken various actions against persons or entities misusing bitcoin in connection with fraudulent schemes (i.e., Ponzi scheme), inaccurate and inadequate publicly disseminated information, and the offering of unregistered securities. More recently, the SEC suspended trading in three Digital Asset public companies. Since issuing the DAO Report the SEC Chairman has stated that the SEC is carefully examining initial coin offerings and similar areas involving Digital Assets for their compliance with the Securities Act. On November 16, 2018, the SEC announced its first civil penalties solely targeting ICO securities registration violators in reference to settled charges against ICO issuers CarrierEQ, Inc., (“Airfox”) and Paragon Coin, Inc. (“Paragon”). Stephanie Avakian, Co-Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, stated that “we have made it clear that companies who issue securities through ICOs are required to comply with existing statutes and rules governing the registration of securities.” Unlike Slock.It, which faced no penalty, Airfox and Paragon were each ordered to: 1) pay $250,000 in penalties, 2) register their tokens pursuant to the Exchange Act, and 2) to file periodic reports with the SEC for at least a year.

Very recently, it has been publicly reported that the SEC staff has been issuing subpoenas seeking information about initial coin offerings. Although we have never invested in initial coin offering, lawsuits filed by the SEC claiming that initial coin offering issuers and cryptocurrency public companies violate the Securities Act and the Exchange Act and the resulting publicity may have a material adverse effect on the prices of Digital Assets we own and otherwise adversely affect opportunities in the Blockchain industry, which in turn will have an adverse impact on our business and prospects.

The CFTC has determined that bitcoin and other virtual currencies are commodities and the sale of derivatives based on digital currencies must be done in accordance with the provisions of the CEA and CFTC regulations. Also of significance, is that the CFTC appears to have taken the position that bitcoin is not encompassed by the definition of currency under the CEA and CFTC regulations. The CFTC defined bitcoin and other “virtual currencies” as “a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and/or a store of value, but does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are distinct from ‘real’ currencies, which are the coin and paper money of the United States or another country that are designated as legal tender, circulate, and are customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance.” To the extent that bitcoin itself is determined to be a security, commodity future or other regulated asset, or to the extent that a US or foreign government or quasi-governmental agency exerts regulatory authority over the Bitcoin Network or bitcoin trading and ownership, trading or ownership in bitcoin or an investment in us may be adversely affected.

The CFTC affirmed its approach to the regulation of bitcoin and bitcoin-related enterprises on June 2, 2016, when the CFTC settled charges against Bitfinex, a Bitcoin Exchange based in Hong Kong. In its Order, the CFTC found that Bitfinex engaged in “illegal, off-exchange commodity transactions and failed to register as a futures commission merchant” when it facilitated borrowing transactions among its users to permit the trading of bitcoin on a “leveraged, margined or financed basis” without first registering with the CFTC. In 2017 the CFTC stated that it would consider bitcoin and other virtual currencies as commodities or derivatives depending on the facts of the offering. In December 2017, bitcoin futures trading commenced on two CFTC regulated futures markets. In 2018 two federal district courts determined that Digital Assets were commodities and can be regulated by the CFTC as such.

Local state regulators such as the NYSDFS have also initiated examinations of bitcoin, the Bitcoin Network and the regulation thereof. The NYSDFS began requiring New York based companies to have a “BitLicense” in June 2015. The “BitLicense” regulates the conduct of businesses that are involved in “virtual currencies” in New York or with New York customers, and prohibits any person or entity involved in such activity to conduct activities without a license. Out of concern of over regulating cryptocurrency, New York has formed a task force to further study the scope of its regulation.

Additionally, a U.S. federal magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has ruled that “Bitcoin is a currency or form of money,” a Florida circuit court judge determined that bitcoin did not qualify as money or “tangible wealth,” and an opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois identified bitcoin as “virtual currency.” Additionally, two CFTC commissioners publicly expressed a belief that derivatives based on bitcoin are subject to the same regulation as those based on commodities, and the IRS released guidance treating bitcoin as property that is not currency for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Taxing authorities of a number of U.S. states have also issued their own guidance regarding the tax treatment of bitcoin for state income or sales tax purposes. On June 28, 2014, the Governor of the State of California signed into law a bill that removed state-level prohibitions on the use of alternative forms of currency or value (including bitcoin). The bill indirectly authorizes bitcoin’s use as an alternative form of money in the state. In February 2015, a bill was introduced in the California State Assembly to establish a licensing regime for businesses engaging in “virtual currencies.” In September 2015, the bill was ordered to become an inactive file and as of the date of this prospectus there hasn’t been further consideration by the California State Assembly. As of August 2016, the bill was withdrawn from consideration for vote for the remainder of the year. In March of 2019, California Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon introduced Assembly Bill 1489, which would govern virtual currency business activity that takes place with or on behalf of California residents. The proposes to require companies to go through a regulatory approval process to conduct crypto-related activities in the state by requiring licensure with stipulations on net worth, security, and reserves. Entities would be subject to examination, consolidations and data sharing to maintain compliance. As presently drafted, Bill 1489 does not consider virtual currencies (also known as cryptocurrencies and digital assets) to be legal tender, whether or not it is denominated in legal tender. It states that virtual currency is a representation of value for exchange, storage of value, or unit of account.

Bitcoin currently faces an uncertain regulatory landscape in not only the United States but also in many foreign jurisdictions such as the European Union, China and Russia. While certain governments such as Germany, where the Ministry of Finance has declared bitcoin to be “Rechnungseinheiten” (a form of private money that is recognized as a unit of account, but not recognized in the same manner as fiat currency), have issued guidance as to how to treat bitcoin, most regulatory bodies have not yet issued official statements regarding intention to regulate or determinations on regulation of bitcoin, the Bitcoin Network and bitcoin users.

Among those for which preliminary guidance has been issued in some form, Canada and Taiwan have labeled bitcoin as a digital or virtual currency, distinct from fiat currency, while Sweden and Norway are among those to categorize bitcoin as a form of virtual asset or commodity. In Australia, a GST (similar to the European value added tax (“VAT”)) is currently applied to bitcoin, forcing a ten (10) percent markup on top of market price, essentially preventing the operation of any Bitcoin Exchange. This may be undergoing a change, however, since the Senate Economics References Committee and the Productivity Commission recommended that digital currency be treated as money for GST purposes to remove the double taxation. The United Kingdom determined that the VAT will not apply to bitcoin sales. Since December 2013, China, Iceland, Vietnam and Russia have taken a more restrictive stance toward bitcoin and, thereby, have reduced the rate of expansion of bitcoin use in each country. In May 2014, the Central Bank of Bolivia banned the use of bitcoin as a means of payment. In the summer and fall of 2014, Ecuador announced plans for its own state-backed electronic money, while passing legislation that prohibits the use of decentralized Digital Assets such as bitcoin. In July 2016, economists at the Bank of England advocated that central banks issue their own digital currency, and the House of Lords and Bank of England started discussing the feasibility of creating a national virtual currency, the BritCoin. As of July 2016, Iceland was studying how to create a system in which all money is created by a central bank, and Canada was beginning to experiment with a digital version of its currency called CAD-COIN, intended to be used exclusively for interbank payments. On August 24, 2017, Canada issued guidance stating the sale of cryptocurrency may constitute an investment contract in accordance with Canadian law for determining if an investment constitutes a security. In July 2016, the Russian Ministry of Finance indicated it supports a proposed law that bans bitcoin domestically but allows for its use as a foreign currency. Russia recently issued several releases indicating they may begin regulating bitcoin and licensing miners and entities engaging in initial coin offerings. Conversely, regulatory bodies in some countries such as India and Switzerland have declined to exercise regulatory authority when afforded the opportunity. In April 2015, the Japanese Cabinet approved proposed legal changes that would reportedly treat bitcoin and other Digital Assets as included in the definition of currency. These regulations would, among other things, require market participants, including exchanges, to meet certain compliance requirements and be subject to oversight by the Financial Services Agency, a Japanese regulator. In September 2017 Japan began regulating Bitcoin Exchanges and registered several such exchanges to operate within Japan. In July 2016, the European Commission released a draft directive that proposed applying counter-terrorism and anti-money laundering regulations to virtual currencies, and, in September 2016, the European Banking authority advised the European Commission to institute new regulation specific to virtual currencies, with amendments to existing regulation as a stopgap measure. Various foreign jurisdictions may, in the near future, adopt laws, regulations or directives that affect the Bitcoin Network and its users, particularly Bitcoin Exchanges and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. Such laws, regulations or directives may conflict with those of the United States and may negatively impact the acceptance of bitcoin by users, merchants and service providers outside of the United States and may therefore impede the growth of the bitcoin economy. On September 4, 2017, reports were published that China may begin prohibiting the practice of using cryptocurrency for capital fundraising. Additional reports have surfaced that China is considering regulating Bitcoin Exchanges by enacting a licensing regime wherein Bitcoin Exchanges may legally operate. In April 2019, China’s National Development Reform Commission listed crypto-mining among a variety of industries it intends to eliminate. In October 2018, The Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration of China published a case analysis on contract disputes between parties to a share transfer agreement involving cryptocurrencies and held that cryptocurrency was protected as property in China. In September 2017, the Financial Services Commission of South Korea released a statement that initial coin offerings would be prohibited as a fundraising tool. In December of 2018, the South Korea’s Financial Services Commission, the country’s top financial regulator, stated that six bills related to the regulation of cryptocurrencies had been submitted to the National Assembly. One of the bills would require all persons in charge of a cryptocurrency transfer business - including trading, brokerage and management – to register with the Financial Services Commission. In June 2017, India’s government ruled in favor of regulating bitcoin. In December 2017, India’s finance minister told the media that the government does not consider bitcoin a legal tender. In April 2018, the Reserve Bank of India issued a statement to all entities regulated by the Reserve Bank, stating that they must cease all activities related to cryptocurrency. The Internet and Mobile Association of India challenged the ban via petition to the Supreme Court of India, which ordered the Reserve Bank of India to devise a clear regulation regarding cryptocurrency. The Supreme Court of India will resume hearing the case in July 2019. In 2018, Australia passed legislation which requires digital currency exchange providers to register with AUSTRAC (the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre). In its budget summary for 2017-2018, the Australian government stated that, as part of its plan to make it easier for digital currency businesses to operate in the country, purchases of digital currency will no longer be subject to the general sales tax.

The effect of any future regulatory change on us, bitcoins, or other Digital Assets is impossible to predict, but such change could be substantial and adverse to us and could adversely affect an investment in us.

It may be illegal now, or in the future, to acquire, own, hold, sell or use bitcoins or other Digital Assets in one or more countries, and ownership of, holding or trading in our Company’s securities may also be considered illegal and subject to sanction.

Although currently bitcoins and other Digital Assets are not regulated or are lightly regulated in most countries, including the United States, one or more countries such as China and Russia may take regulatory actions in the future that severely restricts the right to acquire, own, hold, sell or use bitcoins or other Digital Assets or to exchange Digital Assets for currency. Such an action may also result in the restriction of ownership, holding or trading in our securities. Such restrictions may adversely affect an investment in us.

If we become an inadvertent investment company in violation of the 1940 Act, our failure to register under the 1940 Act will adversely affect us and you will likely lose your entire investment.

Under the 1940 Act, a company may be deemed an investment company under if the value of its investment securities is more than 40% of its total assets (exclusive of government securities and cash items) on a consolidated basis.

In the event that the Digital Assets held by us exceed 40% of our total assets, exclusive of cash, we may inadvertently become an investment company. While we are putting in place policies that we expect will work to keep the investment securities held by us at less than 40% of our total assets, which may include actively monitoring the value of our investment securities, acquiring assets bitcoin with our cash, or liquidating our investment securities.

The Rules under the 1940 Act permit a company to breach the 40% threshold once every three years assuming it reduces its investment securities below 40% within one year. Otherwise registration under the 1940 Act would be required.

The 40% requirement may limit our ability to make certain investments or enter into joint ventures that could otherwise have a positive impact on our earnings. In any event, we do not intend to become an investment company engaged in the business of investing and trading securities. The failure to register when required would likely make our common stock worthless.

If we become an investment company and fail to register, we would have to stop doing almost all business. Registration is time consuming and restrictive and would require a restructuring of our operations, and we would be very constrained in the kind of business we could do as a registered investment company. Further, we would become subject to substantial regulation concerning management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons and portfolio composition, and would need to file reports under the 1940 Act regime. The cost of such compliance would result in the Company incurring substantial additional expenses, and the failure to register if required would have a materially adverse impact to conduct our operations.

If regulatory changes or interpretations of our activities require our registration as a MSB under the regulations promulgated by FinCEN under the authority of the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act, we may be required to register and comply with such regulations. If regulatory changes or interpretations of our activities require the licensing or other registration of us as a money transmitter (or equivalent designation) under state law in any state in which we operate, we 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 the Company decides to continue, the required registrations, licensure and regulatory compliance steps may result in extraordinary, non-recurring expenses to us. We may also decide to cease the Company’s operations. Any termination of certain Company operations in response to the changed regulatory circumstances may be at a time that is disadvantageous to investors.

To the extent that the activities of the Company cause it to be deemed a MSB under the regulations promulgated by FinCEN under the authority of the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act, the Company may be required to comply with FinCEN regulations, including those that would mandate the Company to implement anti-money laundering programs, make certain reports to FinCEN and maintain certain records.

To the extent that the activities of the Company cause it to be deemed a “money transmitter” (or equivalent designation) under state law in any state in which the Company operates, the Company may be required to seek a license or otherwise register with a state regulator and comply with state regulations that may including the implementation of anti-money laundering programs, maintenance of certain records and other operational requirements. Currently, the NYSDFS has finalized its “BitLicense” framework for businesses that conduct “virtual currency business activity,” the Conference of State Bank Supervisors has proposed a model form of state level “virtual currency” regulation and additional state regulators including those from California, Idaho, Virginia, Kansas, Texas, South Dakota and Washington have made public statements indicating that virtual currency businesses may be required to seek licenses as money transmitters. In July 2016, North Carolina updated the law to define “virtual currency” and the activities that trigger licensure in a business friendly approach that encourages companies to use virtual currency and blockchain technology. Specifically, the North Carolina law does not require miners or software providers to obtain a license for multi-signature software, smart contract platforms, smart property, colored coins and non-hosted, non-custodial wallets. Starting January 1, 2016, New Hampshire requires anyone exchanges a digital currency for another currency must become a licensed and bonded money transmitter. In numerous other states, including Connecticut and New Jersey, legislation is being proposed or has been introduced regarding the treatment of bitcoin and other Digital Assets. The Company will continue to monitor for developments in such legislation, guidance or regulations.

Such additional federal or state regulatory obligations may cause the Company to incur extraordinary expenses, possibly affecting an investment in the Resale Shares in a material and adverse manner. Furthermore, the Company and its service providers may not be capable of complying with certain federal or state regulatory obligations applicable to MSBs and MTs. If the Company is deemed to be subject to and determines not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, we may act to dissolve and liquidate the Company. Any such action may adversely affect an investment in us.

Current interpretations require the regulation of bitcoins and other Digital Assets under the CEA by the CFTC, we may be required to register and comply with such regulations. To the extent that we decide to continue operations, the required registrations and regulatory compliance steps may result in extraordinary, non-recurring expenses to us. We may also decide to cease certain operations. Any disruption of our operations in response to the changed regulatory circumstances may be at a time that is disadvantageous to investors.

Current and future legislation, CFTC and other regulatory developments, including interpretations released by a regulatory authority, may impact the manner in which bitcoins and other Digital Assets are treated for classification and clearing purposes. In particular, derivatives on these assets are not excluded from the definition of “commodity future” by the CFTC. We cannot be certain as to how future regulatory developments will impact the treatment of bitcoins and other Digital Assets under the law.

Bitcoins have been deemed to fall within the definition of a commodity and, we may be required to register and comply with additional regulation under the CEA, including additional periodic report and disclosure standards and requirements. Moreover, we may be required to register as a commodity pool operator and to register us as a commodity pool with the CFTC through the National Futures Association. Such additional registrations may result in extraordinary, non-recurring expenses, thereby materially and adversely impacting an investment in us. If we determine not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, we may seek to cease certain of our operations. Any such action may adversely affect an investment in us. No CFTC orders or rulings are applicable to our business.

If regulatory changes or interpretations require the regulation of bitcoins and other Digital Assets (in contrast to Digital Securities) under the Securities Act and Investment Company Act by the SEC, we may be required to register and comply with such regulations. To the extent that we decide to continue operations, the required registrations and regulatory compliance steps may result in extraordinary, non-recurring expenses to us. We may also decide to cease certain operations. This would likely have a material adverse effect on us and investors may lose their investment.

Current and future legislation and SEC rulemaking and other regulatory developments, including interpretations released by a regulatory authority, may impact the manner in which bitcoins are treated for classification and clearing purposes. The SEC’s July 25, 2017 DAO Report expressed its view that Digital Assets may be securities depending on the facts and circumstances. As of the date of this prospectus, we are not aware of any rules that have been proposed to regulate the Digital Assets we hold as securities. We cannot be certain as to how future regulatory developments will impact the treatment of bitcoins and other Digital Assets under the law. Such additional registrations may result in extraordinary, non-recurring expenses, thereby materially and adversely impacting an investment in us. If we determine not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, we may seek to cease certain of our operations. Any such action may adversely affect an investment in us.

To the extent that Digital Assets including bitcoins are deemed by the SEC to fall within the definition of a security, we may be required to register and comply with additional regulation under the Investment Company Act, including additional periodic reporting and disclosure standards and requirements and the registration of our Company as an investment company. Additionally, one or more states may conclude bitcoins are a security under state securities laws which would require registration under state laws including merit review laws which would adversely impact us since we would likely not comply. As stated earlier in this prospectus, some states including California define the term “investment contract” more strictly than the SEC. Such additional registrations may result in extraordinary, non-recurring expenses of our Company, thereby materially and adversely impacting an investment in our Company. If we determine not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, we may seek to cease all or certain parts of our operations. Any such action would likely adversely affect an investment in us and investors may suffer a complete loss of their investment.

The Company does not currently have any mining operations but may resume its mining operations through outsourced data centers if it receives additional capital. To the extent that the Company resumes mining operations and acquires Digital Assets as a result of mining, we do not intend to trade the Digital Assets until we determine, with the assistance of legal counsel, that the Digital Assets are not securities, the Digital Assets would only be used for our own account.

As discussed at page 43 and 44 we do not think that bitcoin and ether are securities. As such, we do not intend to acquire securities in amounts that are equal to or greater than 40% of our assets. Should the total value of securities which we hold rise to more than 40% of our assets (exclusive of cash) we note that SEC Rule 3a-2 under the 1940 Act allows an issuer to prevent itself from being deemed an investment company if it reduces its holdings of securities to less than 40% of its assets (exclusive of cash) and does not go above the 40% threshold more than once every three years. In order to comply with the 1940 Act, we anticipate having increased management time and legal expenses in order to analyze which Digital Assets are securities and periodically analyze our total holdings to ensure that we do not maintain more than 40% of our total assets (exclusive of cash) as securities. If our view that ether is not a security is challenged by the SEC and courts uphold the challenge, we may inadvertently violate the 1940 Act and incur substantial legal fees in defending our position. In such case the legal fees may exceed our available assets which could adversely affect an investment in us.

If federal or state legislatures or agencies initiate or release tax determinations that change the classification of bitcoins or other Digital Assets as property for tax purposes (in the context of when such Digital Assets are held as an investment), such determination could have a negative tax consequence on our Company or our shareholders.

Current IRS guidance indicates that Digital Assets such as bitcoins should be treated and taxed as property, and that transactions involving the payment of bitcoins for goods and services should be treated as barter transactions. While this treatment creates a potential tax reporting requirement for any circumstance where the ownership of a bitcoin passes from one person to another, usually by means of bitcoin transactions (including off-Blockchain transactions), it preserves the right to apply capital gains treatment to those transactions which may have adversely affect an investment in our Company.

On December 5, 2014, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance issued guidance regarding the application of state tax law to Digital Assets such as bitcoins. The agency determined that New York State would follow IRS guidance with respect to the treatment of Digital Assets such as bitcoins for state income tax purposes. Furthermore, they defined Digital Assets such as bitcoin to be a form of “intangible property,” meaning the purchase and sale of bitcoins for fiat currency is not subject to state income tax (although transactions of bitcoin for other goods and services maybe subject to sales tax under barter transaction treatment). It is unclear if other states will follow the guidance of the IRS and the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance with respect to the treatment of Digital Assets such as bitcoins for income tax and sales tax purposes. If a state adopts a different treatment, such treatment may have negative consequences including the imposition of greater a greater tax burden on investors in bitcoin or imposing a greater cost on the acquisition and disposition of bitcoins, generally; in either case potentially having a negative effect on prices in the Bitcoin Exchange Market and may adversely affect an investment in our Company.

Foreign jurisdictions may also elect to treat Digital Assets such as bitcoins differently for tax purposes than the IRS or the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. To the extent that a foreign jurisdiction with a significant share of the market of bitcoin users imposes onerous tax burdens on bitcoin users, or imposes sales or value added tax on purchases and sales of bitcoins for fiat currency, such actions could result in decreased demand for bitcoins in such jurisdiction, which could impact the price of bitcoins and negatively impact an investment in our Company.

Risks Related to Our Digital Assets Holdings

The loss or destruction of a private key required to access a Digital Assets such as bitcoin may be irreversible. Our loss of access to our private keys or our experience of a data loss relating to our Company’s Digital Assets could adversely affect an investment in our Company.

Bitcoins are controllable only by the possessor of both the unique public key and private key relating to the local or online digital wallet in which the bitcoins are held. We are required by the operation of the Bitcoin Network to publish the public key relating to a digital wallet in use by us when it first verifies a spending transaction from that digital wallet and disseminates such information into the Bitcoin Network. We safeguard and keep private the private keys relating to our bitcoins by primarily utilizing Bitgo Inc.’s enterprise multi-signature storage solution; to the extent a private key is lost, destroyed or otherwise compromised and no backup of the private key is accessible, we will be unable to access the bitcoins held by it and the private key will not be capable of being restored by the Bitcoin Network. Any loss of private keys relating to digital wallets used to store our bitcoins could adversely affect an investment in us.

To the extent that any of our Digital Assets are held by Exchanges, we may face heightened risks from cybersecurity attacks and financial stability of the Exchanges.

The Company will use Digital Asset exchanges to hold certain of the its Digital Assets; the Company’s bitcoin will either be held directly by the Company in a bitcoin wallet utilizing Bitgo Inc.’s enterprise multi-signature storage solution or at Digital Asset exchanges. All Digital Assets not held in the Company’s Bitgo wallets will be subject to the risks encountered by a Digital Asset exchange including a DDoS Attack or other malicious hacking, a sale of the Digital Asset exchange, loss of the Digital Assets by the Digital Asset exchange and other risks similar to those described on page 18 in a risk factor entitled “Security threats to us could result in, a loss of Company’s Digital Assets, or damage to the reputation and our brand, each of which could adversely affect an investment in us.” The Company may not maintain a custodian agreement with the Digital Asset exchange that holds the Company’s Digital Assets. Exchange typically do not provide insurance and may lack the resources to protect against hacking and theft. In the future we may acquire other Digital Assets that are held by Exchanges. If a material amount of our Digital Assets are held by Exchanges, we may be materially and adversely affected if the Exchanges suffer cyberattacks or incur financial problems.

Risks Related to Our Future Transaction Verification Business

If the award of bitcoins for solving blocks and transaction fees for recording transactions are not sufficiently high to cover expenses related to running data center operations it may have adverse affects on an investment in us.

If the award of new bitcoins for solving blocks declines and transaction fees are not sufficiently high, we may not have an adequate incentive to restart our mining operations, which may adversely impact an investment in us.

As the number of bitcoins awarded for solving a block in the Blockchain decreases, the incentive for miners to continue to contribute processing power to the Bitcoin Network will transition from a set reward to transaction fees. Either the requirement from miners of higher transaction fees in exchange for recording transactions in the Blockchain or a software upgrade that automatically charges fees for all transactions may decrease demand for bitcoins and prevent the expansion of the Bitcoin Network to retail merchants and commercial businesses, resulting in a reduction in the price of bitcoins that could adversely impact an investment in us.

In order to incentivize miners to continue to contribute processing power to the Bitcoin Network, the Bitcoin 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 Bitcoin Network adopting software upgrades that require the payment of a minimum transaction fee for all transactions. If transaction fees paid for Bitcoin transactions become too high, the marketplace may be reluctant to accept bitcoins as a means of payment and existing users may be motivated to switch from bitcoins to another Digital Asset or back to fiat currency. Decreased use and demand for bitcoins may adversely affect their value and may adversely impact an investment in us.

Risks Related to the Purchase Agreement with Cavalry

The sale or issuance of our common stock to Cavalry may cause dilution and the sale of the shares of common stock acquired by Cavalry, or the perception that such sales may occur, could cause the price of our common stock to fall.

On May 13, 2019, we entered into the Purchase Agreement with Cavalry, pursuant to which Cavalry has committed to purchase up to $10,000,000 of our common stock. As of the date of this prospectus, we have directed Cavalry to purchase 3,973,809 shares (excluding the 67,598 pro rata commitment shares) and have received approximately $1,158,639. The purchase shares that may be sold pursuant to the Purchase Agreement may be sold by us to Cavalry at our discretion from time to time over a 36-month period commencing after the SEC has declared effective the registration statement that includes this prospectus. The purchase price for the shares that we may sell to Cavalry under the Purchase Agreement will fluctuate based on the price of our common stock. Depending on market liquidity at the time, sales of such shares may cause the trading price of our common stock to fall. Additionally, the amount that we may sell to Cavalry will be limited to the Daily Trading Dollar Volume on the day of, or day before, the Put. If the trading volume and/or price of our common stock is low, our ability to raise capital under the Purchase Agreement will be limited and/or take an extensive time to raise capital.

We generally have the right to control the timing and amount of any sales of our shares to Cavalry, except that, pursuant to the terms of our agreements with Cavalry, we would be unable to sell shares to Cavalry on any day when the closing sale price of our common stock is below $0.005 per share, subject to adjustment as set forth in the Purchase Agreement. Cavalry may ultimately purchase all, some or none of the shares of our common stock that may be sold pursuant to the Purchase Agreement in connection with our rights to direct Cavalry’s purchases at our discretion and, after it has acquired shares, Cavalry may sell all, some or none of those shares. Therefore, sales to Cavalry by us could result in substantial dilution to the interests of other holders of our common stock. Additionally, the sale of a substantial number of shares of our common stock to Cavalry, or the anticipation of such sales, could make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and at a price that we might otherwise wish to effect sales.

We may not be able to access sufficient funds under the Purchase Agreement with Cavalry when needed.

Our ability to sell shares to Cavalry and obtain funds under the Purchase Agreement is limited by the terms and conditions in the Purchase Agreement, including restrictions on when we may sell shares to Cavalry, restrictions on the amounts we may sell to Cavalry at any one time, and a limitation on our ability to sell shares to Cavalry to the extent that it would cause Cavalry to beneficially own more than 4.99% of our outstanding common stock. In addition, any amounts we sell under the Purchase Agreement may not satisfy all of our funding needs, even if we are able and choose to sell all $10,000,000 under the Purchase Agreement. Assuming all 5.6 million additional Purchase Shares of our common stock being offered under this prospectus that may be purchased by Cavalry are sold at $0.005 per share (the floor price mentioned herein), we would receive approximately $27,985. If we elect to issue and sell more than the shares offered under this prospectus to Cavalry, which we have the right, but not the obligation, to do, we must first register for resale under the Securities Act any such additional shares.

We elected to enter into the Purchase Agreement with Cavalry as we expect that amount of capital over the next 12 months will be required for us to fully implement our business, operating and development plans. The extent we rely on Cavalry as a source of funding will depend on a number of factors including, the prevailing market price and trading volume of our common stock and the extent to which we are able to secure working capital from other sources. If obtaining sufficient funding from Cavalry were to prove unavailable or prohibitively dilutive, we will need to secure another source of funding in order to satisfy our working capital needs. Even if we sell all 5.6 million remaining Purchase Shares to Cavalry, we may still need additional capital to fully implement our business, operating and development plans. Should the financing we require to sustain our working capital needs be unavailable or prohibitively expensive when we require it, the consequences could be a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition and prospects.

The sale of our common stock to Cavalry will cause dilution and the sale of the shares by Cavalry could cause the price of our common stock to decline.

The number of shares ultimately offered for sale by Cavalry is dependent upon the number of shares sold to Cavalry under the Purchase Agreement. The purchase price for the common stock to be sold to Cavalry pursuant to the Purchase Agreement will fluctuate based on the price of our common stock. Depending upon market liquidity at the time, a sale of shares by Cavalry at any given time could cause the trading price of our common stock to decline. After it has acquired such shares, Cavalry may sell all, some or none of such shares. Therefore, sales to Cavalry by us under the Purchase Agreement will result in substantial dilution to the interests of other holders of our common stock. The sale of a substantial number of shares of our common stock, or anticipation of such sales, could make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and at a price that we might otherwise wish to effect sales. However, we have the right to control the timing and amount of any sales of our shares to Cavalry.