BTCS Inc. - Annual Report: 2016 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016

or

For the transition period from _____________ to ______________

Commissions file number 000-55141

BTCS Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (202) 430-6576

Securities registered under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act: None.

Securities registered under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act:

Common Stock, $0.001 par value

(Title of class)

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes [  ] No [X]

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes [  ] No [X]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [  ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes [X] No [  ]

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers in response to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendments to this From 10-K. [X]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. [  ]

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter

As of June 30, 2016, the aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the closing sales price of Common Stock of $0.73 on June 30, 2016 (giving effect to a 1-for-60 reverse stock split effected by the registrant on February 13, 2017), was approximately $1,961,320. As of June 8, 2017, the registrant had 87,990,107 shares of Common Stock outstanding.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BTCS INC.

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K and other written and oral statements made from time to time by us may contain forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “expects,” “plans,” “will,” “forecasts,” “projects,” “intends,” “estimates,” and other words of similar meaning. One can identify them by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. These statements are likely to address our growth strategy, financial results and product and development programs. One must carefully consider any such statement and should understand that many factors could cause actual results to differ from our forward looking statements. These factors may include inaccurate assumptions and a broad variety of other risks and uncertainties, including some that are known and some that are not. No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed and actual future results may vary materially.

These statements are only predictions and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, including the risks in the section entitled “Risk Factors” and the risks set out below, any of which may cause our or our industry’s actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. These risks include, by way of example and not in limitation:

This list is not an exhaustive list of the factors that may affect any of our forward-looking statements. These and other factors should be considered carefully and readers should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Forward looking statements are made based on management’s beliefs, estimates and opinions on the date the statements are made and we undertake no obligation to update forward-looking statements if these beliefs, estimates and opinions or other circumstances should change. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. Except as required by applicable law, including the securities laws of the United States we do not intend to update any of the forward-looking statements to conform these statements to actual results.

Information regarding market and industry statistics contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K is included based on information available to us that we believe is accurate. It is generally based on industry and other publications that are not produced for purposes of securities offerings or economic analysis. We have not reviewed or included data from all sources. Forecasts and other forward-looking information obtained from these sources are subject to the same qualifications and the additional uncertainties accompanying any estimates of future market size, revenue and market acceptance of products and services. As a result, investors should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.

As used in this annual report, the terms “we”, “us”, “our”, “BTCS” and the “Company” mean BTCS Inc. and its subsidiaries, unless otherwise indicated.

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

GLOSSARY OF DEFINED TERMS

In this Annual Report, each of the following quoted terms has the meanings set forth after such term:

“bitcoin” — A type of a Digital Asset based on an open source math-based protocol existing on the Bitcoin Network and utilizing cryptographic security.

“Bitcoin Exchange”— An electronic marketplace where exchange participants may trade, buy and sell bitcoins based on bid-ask trading. The largest Bitcoin Exchanges are online and typically trade on a 24-hour basis, publishing transaction price and volume data.

“Bitcoin Exchange Market” — The global bitcoin exchange market for the trading of bitcoins, which consists of transactions on electronic Bitcoin Exchanges.

“Bitcoin Network” — The online, end-user-to-end-user network hosting the public transaction ledger, known as the Blockchain, and the source code comprising the basis for the math-based protocols and cryptographic security governing the Bitcoin Network.

“Blockchain” — The public transaction ledger of the Bitcoin Network on which miners or mining pools solve algorithmic equations allowing them to add records of recent transactions (called “blocks”) to the chain of transactions in exchange for an award of bitcoins from the Bitcoin Network and the payment of transaction fees, if any, from users whose transactions are recorded in the block being added.

“CEA” — Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, as amended.

“CFTC” — The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an independent agency with the mandate to regulate commodity futures and option markets in the United States.

“Code” — The US Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

“Digital Asset” — Collectively, all digital assets based upon a computer-generated math-based and/or cryptographic protocol that may, among other things, be used to buy and sell goods or pay for services. Bitcoins represent one type of Digital Asset.

“DDoS Attack” — Distributed denial of service attacks are coordinated hacking attempts to disrupt websites, web servers or computer networks in which an attacker bombards an online target with a large quantity of external requests, thus precluding the target from processing requests from genuine users.

“Exchange Act” — The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

“FDIC” — The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

“FinCEN” — The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, a bureau of the US Department of the Treasury.

“FINRA” — The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., which is the primary regulator in the United States for broker-dealers.

“Fiat Currency” — Currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, but is not backed by a physical commodity. The value of fiat money is derived from the relationship between supply and demand rather than the value of the material that the money is made of.

“IRS” — The US Internal Revenue Service, a bureau of the US Department of the Treasury.

“Mining” — The process by which Bitcoins are created involving programmers solving complex math problems with the computers in the Bitcoin Network.

“SEC” — The US Securities and Exchange Commission.

“Securities Act” — The Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

“SIPC” — The Securities Investor Protection Corporation.

“Transaction Verification Services” — Is equivalent to Mining

INTRODUCTION

We are an early entrant in the Digital Asset market and one of the first U.S. publicly traded companies to be involved with Digital Assets and blockchain technologies.

OUR BUSINESS

Subject to additional financing, the Company plans to create a portfolio of digital assets including bitcoin and other “protocol tokens” to provide investors a diversified pure-play exposure to the bitcoin and blockchain industries. The Company intends to acquire digital assets through: open market purchases, participating in initial digital asset offerings (often referred to as initial coin offerings). Additionally, the Company may acquire digital assets by resuming its transaction verification services business through outsourced data centers and earning rewards in digital assets by securing their respective blockchains.

Digital asset blockchains are typically maintained by a network of participants which run servers which secure their blockchain. The market is rapidly evolving and there can be no assurances that we will remain competitive with industry participants that have or may have greater resources than us.

Blockchain Technology and Digital Asset Initiatives

We are also focused on digital assets and blockchain technologies. Subject to additional financing, we plan to continue to evaluate other strategic opportunities in this rapidly evolving sector in an effort to enhance shareholder value.

Transaction Verification Service Business (digital asset mining e.g. bitcoin, Suspended)

We believe that with additional funding we may be able to resume our transaction verification services business (digital asset mining e.g. bitcoin) and believe this may provide revenue growth. If we are successful in resuming our transaction verification services business, we anticipate utilizing outsourced data centers and may diversify operations by securing other blockchains in addition to bitcoins blockchain.

Transaction verification entails running ASIC (application-specific integrated circuit) servers or other specialized servers which solve a set of prescribed complex mathematical calculations in order to add a block to a blockchain and thereby confirm digital asset transactions. When we are successful in adding a block to the blockchain, we are awarded a fixed number of digital assets for our effort.

E-commerce Marketplace (Discontinued)

We believe our e-commerce marketplace was the first such site to accept bitcoin. However, many new businesses (such as Dell, Microsoft, Overstock, NewEgg and TigerDirect) opted to accept bitcoin as a form of payment. This posed serious competition for our marketplace efforts and resulted in reduced consumer interest in our e-commerce marketplace. Although our ecommerce marketplace is still online we have ceased all development efforts, are no longer marketing it, and do not currently support it.

INDUSTRY AND MARKET OVERVIEW (BITCOIN AND BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGIES)

Introduction to Bitcoins and the Bitcoin Network

A bitcoin is one type of a Digital Asset that is issued by, and transmitted through, an open source, math-based protocol platform using cryptographic security that is known as the “Bitcoin Network.” The Bitcoin Network is an online, peer-to-peer user network that hosts the public transaction ledger, known as the “Blockchain,” and the source code that comprises the basis for the cryptography and math-based protocols governing the Bitcoin Network. No single entity owns or operates the Bitcoin Network, the infrastructure of which is collectively maintained by a decentralized user base. Bitcoins can be used to pay for goods and services or can be converted to fiat currencies, such as the US Dollar, at rates determined on Bitcoin Exchanges or in individual end-user-to-end-user transactions under a barter system.

Bitcoins are “stored” or reflected on the digital transaction ledger known as the “Blockchain,” which is a digital file stored in a decentralized manner on the computers of each Bitcoin Network user. The Blockchain records the transaction history of all bitcoins in existence and, through the transparent reporting of transactions, allows the Bitcoin Network to verify the association of each bitcoin with the digital wallet that owns them. The Bitcoin Network and Bitcoin software programs can interpret the Blockchain to determine the exact bitcoin balance, if any, of any digital wallet listed in the Blockchain as having taken part in a transaction on the Bitcoin Network.

The Blockchain is comprised of a digital file, downloaded and stored, in whole or in part, on all bitcoin users’ software programs. The file includes all blocks that have been solved by miners and is updated to include new blocks as they are solved. As each newly solved block refers back to and “connects” with the immediately prior solved block, the addition of a new block adds to the Blockchain in a manner similar to a new link being added to a chain. Each new block records outstanding bitcoin transactions, and outstanding transactions are settled and validated through such recording, the Blockchain represents a complete, transparent and unbroken history of all transactions on the Bitcoin Network.

The Bitcoin Network is decentralized and does not rely on either governmental authorities or financial institutions to create, transmit or determine the value of bitcoins. Rather, bitcoins are created and allocated by the Bitcoin Network protocol through a “mining” process subject to a strict, well-known issuance schedule. The value of bitcoins is determined by the supply of and demand for bitcoins in the Bitcoin Exchange Market (and in private end-user-to-end-user transactions), as well as the number of merchants that accept them. As bitcoin transactions can be broadcast to the Bitcoin Network by any user’s bitcoin software and bitcoins can be transferred without the involvement of intermediaries or third parties, there are little or no transaction costs in direct peer-to-peer transactions on the Bitcoin Network. Third party service providers such as Bitcoin Exchanges and bitcoin third party payment processing services may charge significant fees for processing transactions and for converting, or facilitating the conversion of, bitcoins to or from fiat currency.

Overview of the Bitcoin Network’s Operations

In order to own, transfer or use bitcoins, a person generally must have Internet access to connect to the Bitcoin Network. Bitcoin transactions between parties occur very rapidly (within several seconds) and may be made directly between end-users without the need for a third-party intermediary, although there are entities that provide third-party intermediary services. To prevent the possibility of double-spending a single bitcoin, a user must notify the Bitcoin Network of the transaction by broadcasting the transaction data to its network peers. The Bitcoin Network provides confirmation against double-spending by memorializing every transaction in the Blockchain, which is publicly accessible and transparent. This memorialization and verification against double-spending is accomplished through the bitcoin mining process, which adds “blocks” of data, including recent transaction information, to the Blockchain.

Brief Description of Bitcoin Transfers

Prior to engaging in bitcoin transactions, a user generally must first install on its computer or mobile device a bitcoin software program that will allow the user to generate a digital “wallet” (analogous to a bitcoin account). Alternatively, a user may retain a third party to create a digital wallet to be used for the same purpose. Each such wallet includes one or more unique digital addresses and verification system consisting of a “public key” and a “private key,” which are mathematically related.

In a bitcoin transaction, the bitcoin recipient must provide its digital address, which serves as a routing number to the recipient’s digital wallet on the Blockchain, to the party initiating the transfer. The recipient, however, does not make public or provide to the sender its related private key. The payor, or “spending” party, does reveal its public key in signing and verifying its spending transaction to the Blockchain.

Neither the recipient nor the sender reveal their digital wallet’s private key in a transaction, because the private key authorizes access to, and transfer of, the funds in that digital wallet to other users. In the data packets propagated from a user’s bitcoin software program onto the Bitcoin Network to allow transaction confirmation, the sending party must “sign” its transaction with a data code derived from entering the private key into a “hashing algorithm.” The hashing algorithm converts the private key into a digital signature, which signature serves as validation that the transaction has been authorized by the holder of the digital wallet’s private key.

Transaction Verification (Bitcoin Mining) & Creation of New Bitcoins

Transaction Verification Process (Mining Process)

The process by which bitcoins are “mined” results in new blocks being added to the Blockchain and new bitcoins being issued to the miners. Miners engage in a set of prescribed complex mathematical calculations in order to add a block to the Blockchain and thereby confirm bitcoin transactions included in that block’s data. Miners that are successful in adding a block to the Blockchain are automatically awarded a fixed number of bitcoins for their effort; we also refer to this process of receiving the aforementioned award as transaction verification services. This reward system is the method by which new bitcoins enter into circulation to the public and is accomplished in the added block through the notation of the new bitcoin creation and their allocation to the successful miner’s digital wallet. To begin mining, a user can download and run Bitcoin Network mining software, which, like regular Bitcoin Network software programs, turns the user’s computer into a “node” on the Bitcoin Network that validates blocks.

All bitcoin transactions are recorded in blocks added to the Blockchain. Each block contains the details of some or all of the most recent transactions that are not memorialized in prior blocks, a reference to the most recent prior block, and a record of the award of bitcoins to the miner who added the new block. In order to add blocks to the Blockchain, a miner must map an input data set (i.e., a reference to the immediately preceding block in the Blockchain, plus a block of the most recent Bitcoin Network transactions and an arbitrary number called a “nonce”) to a desired output data set of predetermined length (“hash value”) using the SHA-256 cryptographic hash algorithm. To “solve” or “calculate” a block, a miner must repeat this computation with a different nonce until the miner generates a SHA-256 hash of a block’s header that has a value less than or equal to the current target set by the Bitcoin Network. Each unique block can only be solved and added to the Blockchain by one miner; therefore, all individual miners and mining pools on the Bitcoin Network are engaged in a competitive process and are incentivized to increase their computing power to improve their likelihood of solving for new blocks.

The cryptographic hash function that a miner uses is one-way only and is, in effect, irreversible: hash values are easy to generate from input data (i.e., valid recent network transactions, Blockchain and nonce), but neither a miner nor participant is able to determine the original input data solely from the hash value. As a result, generating a new valid block with a header less than the target prescribed by the Bitcoin Network is initially difficult for a miner, yet other nodes can easily confirm a proposed block by running the hash function just once with the proposed nonce and other input data. A miner’s proposed block is added to the Blockchain once a majority of the nodes on the Bitcoin Network confirms the miner’s work, and the miner that solved such block receives the reward of a fixed number of bitcoins (plus any transaction fees paid by transferors whose transactions are recorded in the block). Therefore, “hashing” is akin to a mathematical lottery, and miners that have devices with greater processing power (i.e., the ability to make more hash calculations per second) are more likely to be successful miners because they can generate more hashes or “entries” into that lottery.

As more miners join the Bitcoin Network and its processing power increases, the Bitcoin Network automatically adjusts the complexity of the block-solving equation in an effort to set distribution such that newly-created blocks will be added to the Blockchain, on average, approximately every ten minutes. Processing power is added to the Bitcoin Network at irregular rates that have grown rapidly from early 2013 through 2016.

Incentives for Transaction Verification (Mining)

Miners dedicate substantial resources to mining. Given the increasing difficulty of the target established by the Bitcoin Network, current miners must invest in expensive mining devices with adequate processing power to hash at a competitive rate. The first mining devices were standard home computers; however, mining computers are currently designed solely for mining purposes. Such devices included ASIC machines built by specialized companies like BitFury, Bitmain Technologies, 21 Inc., Avalon, and BW. Miners also incur substantial electricity costs in order to continuously power and cool their devices while solving for a new block.

The Bitcoin Network is designed in such a way that the reward for adding new blocks to the Blockchain decreases over time and the production (and reward) of bitcoins will eventually cease. Once such reward ceases, it is expected that miners will demand compensation in the form of transaction fees to ensure that there is adequate incentive for them to continue mining. The amount of transaction fees will be based upon the structural requirements necessary to provide sufficient revenue to incentivize miners, as counterbalanced by the need to retain sufficient bitcoin users (and transactions) to make mining profitable.

Though not free from doubt, bitcoin industry participants have expressed a belief that transaction fees would be enforced through (i) mining operators collectively refusing to record transactions that do not include a payment of a transaction fee or (ii) the updating of bitcoin software to require a minimum transaction fee payment. Under a regime whereby large miners require fees to record transactions, a transaction where the spending party did not include a payment of transaction fees would not be recorded on the Blockchain until a miner who does not require transaction fees solves for a new block (thereby recording all outstanding transaction records for which it has received data). If popular bitcoin software for digital wallets were to require a minimum transaction fee, users of such programs would be required to include such fees; however, because of the open-source nature of the Bitcoin Network, there may be no way to require that all digital wallets include minimum transaction fees for spending transactions. Alternatively, a future Bitcoin Network software update could simply build a small transaction fee payment into all spending transactions (e.g., by deducting a fractional number of bitcoins from all transactions on the Bitcoin Network as transaction fees).

The Bitcoin Network protocol already includes transaction fee rules and the mechanics for awarding transaction fees to the miners that solve for blocks in which the fees are recorded; however, users currently may opt not to pay transaction fees (depending on the bitcoin software they use) and miners may choose not to enforce the transaction fee rules since, at present, the bitcoin rewards are far more substantial than transaction fees. On June 8, 2017, transaction fees accounted for approximately 0.91 percent of miners’ total revenue, though the percentage of revenue represented by transaction fees is not static and fluctuates based on the number of transactions for which sending users include transaction fees, the levels of those transaction fees and the number of transactions a miner includes in its solved blocks. Typically, transactions do not have difficulty being recorded if transaction fees are not included.

Mining Pools

The Bitcoin Network’s mining protocol was created in a manner to make it more difficult to solve for new blocks as the processing power dedicated to mining increases (in order to maintain the 10 minute per block solution time average). Therefore, the difficulty of finding a valid hash value has grown exponentially since the first blocks were mined. Currently, the likelihood that an individual acting alone will be able to mine bitcoins is extremely low. As a result, mining “pools” have developed in which multiple miners act cohesively and combine their processing power to solve blocks. When a pool solves a new block, the participating mining pool members split the resulting reward based on the processing power they each contributed to solve for such block. Mining pools provide participants with access to smaller, but steadier and more frequent, bitcoin payouts. The Company monitors the Blockchain network and, based on the information we collected from our network access, as of June 8, 2017, the largest three mining pools were, AntPool, BTC.TOP, and an unknown pool, which, when aggregated, represented approximately 40.5 percent of the processing power on the Bitcoin Network (as calculated by determining the percentage of blocks mined by each such pool over the prior month).

Mathematically Controlled Supply

The method for creating new bitcoins is mathematically controlled in a manner so that the supply of bitcoins grows at a limited rate pursuant to a pre-set schedule. The number of bitcoins awarded for solving a new block is automatically halved every 210,000 blocks. Thus, the current fixed reward for solving a new block is 12.5 bitcoins per block and the reward will decrease by half to become 6.25 bitcoins around June 2020 (based on estimates of the rate of block solution calculated by BitcoinClock.com). This deliberately controlled rate of bitcoin creation means that the number of bitcoins in existence will never exceed 21 million and that bitcoins cannot be devalued through excessive production unless the Bitcoin Network’s source code (and the underlying protocol for bitcoin issuance) is altered. The Company monitors the Blockchain network and, as of June 8, 2017, based on the information we collected from our network access 16,380,000 bitcoins have been mined.

Modifications to the Bitcoin Protocol

Bitcoin is an open source project (i.e., a product whose source code is freely available to the public and that utilizes crowdsourcing to identify possible issues, problems and defects) and there is no official developer or group of developers that controls the Bitcoin Network. The Bitcoin Network’s development is overseen by a core group of developers, which varies from time to time (“Core Developers”). The Core Developers are able to access and can propose alterations to the Bitcoin Network source code hosted on GitHub, an online service and forum used to share and develop open source code. Other programmers have access to and can propose changes to the bitcoin source code on GitHub, but the Core Developers have an elevated level of influence over the process. As a result, the Core Developers are responsible for quasi-official releases of updates and other changes to the Bitcoin Network’s source code. Users and miners must accept any changes made to the Bitcoin Network (including those proposed by the Core Developers) by downloading the proposed modification of the source code.

A modification of the source code is only effective with respect to the bitcoin users and miners that download it. Consequently, as a practical matter, a modification to the source code (e.g., a proposal to increase the 21 million total limit on bitcoins or to reduce the average confirmation time target from 10 minutes per block) only becomes part of the Bitcoin Network if accepted by participants collectively having a substantial majority of the processing power on the Bitcoin Network. If a modification is accepted only by a percentage of users and miners, a division in the Bitcoin Network will occur such that one network will run the pre-modification source code and the other network will run the modified source code; such a division is known as a “fork” in the Bitcoin Network. It should be noted that, although their power to amend the source code is effectively subject to the approval of users and miners, the Core Developers have substantial influence over the development of the Bitcoin Network and the direction of the bitcoin community.

Other Blockchain Technologies

Core Development of the bitcoin source code has increasingly focused on modifications of the bitcoin protocol to allow non-financial and next generation uses (sometimes referred to as Bitcoin 2.0 projects). These uses include smart contracts and distributed registers built into, built atop or pegged alongside the Blockchain. For example, the white paper for Blockstream, a program of which Core Developers Jeff Garzik and Gregory Maxwell are a part, calls for the use of “pegged sidechains” to develop programming environments that are built within block chain ledgers that can interact with and rely on the security of the Bitcoin Network and Blockchain, while remaining independent thereof. We are actively evaluating other Blockchain technologies that relate to Bitcoin 2.0 projects. At this time, Bitcoin 2.0 projects remain in early stages and have not been materially integrated into the Blockchain or Bitcoin Network.

Bitcoin Value

Bitcoins are an example of a Digital Asset that is not a fiat currency (i.e., a currency that is backed by a central bank or a national, supra-national or quasi-national organization) and are not backed by hard assets or other credit. As a result, the value of bitcoins is determined by the value that various market participants place on bitcoins through their transactions.

Exchange Valuation

Due to the peer-to-peer framework of the Bitcoin Network and the protocols thereunder, transferors and recipients of bitcoins are able to determine the value of the bitcoins transferred by mutual agreement or barter with respect to their transactions. As a result, the most common means of determining the value of a bitcoin is by surveying one or more Bitcoin Exchanges where bitcoins are publicly bought, sold and traded (i.e., the Bitcoin Exchange Market).

On each Bitcoin Exchange, bitcoins are traded with publicly disclosed valuations for each transaction, measured by one or more fiat currencies such as the US Dollar, the Euro or the Chinese Yuan. Bitcoin Exchanges typically report publicly on their site the valuation of each transaction and bid and ask prices for the purchase or sale of bitcoins. Although each Bitcoin Exchange has its own market price, it is expected that most Bitcoin Exchanges’ market prices should be relatively consistent with the Bitcoin Exchange Market average since market participants can choose the Bitcoin Exchange on which to buy or sell bitcoins ( i.e. , exchange shopping). Arbitrage between the prices on various Bitcoin Exchanges is possible, but the imposition of fees and fiat currency deposit/withdrawal policies appears to have, at times, prevented an active arbitrage mechanism among users on some Bitcoin Exchanges. For example, delayed fiat currency withdrawals imposed by Mt. Gox resulted in Mt. Gox trading at a premium of up to 10 to 20 percent for several months through January 2014. In February 2014, Mt. Gox suspended trading, closed its website and exchange service, and filed for a form of bankruptcy protection from creditors called minjisaisei, or civil rehabilitation, to allow courts to seek a buyer. In April 2014, Mt. Gox began liquidation proceedings.

Even in the absence of large trading fees and fiat currency deposit/withdrawal policies, price differentials across Bitcoin Exchanges remain.

Forms of Attack Against the Bitcoin Network

Exploitation of Flaws in the Bitcoin Network’s Source Code

As with any other computer code, the Bitcoin Network source code may contain certain flaws. Several errors and defects have been found and corrected, including those that disabled some functionality for users, exposed users’ information, or allowed users to create multiple views of the Bitcoin Network. Such flaws have been discovered and quickly corrected by the Core Developers or the bitcoin community, thus demonstrating one of the advantages of open source codes that are available to the public: open source codes rely on transparency to promote community-sourced identification and solution of problems within the code.

Reports of flaws in or exploitations of the source code that allow malicious actors to take or create money in contravention of known Bitcoin Network rules have been exceedingly rare. For example, in 2010, a hacker or group of hackers exploited a flaw in the Bitcoin Network source code that allowed them to generate 184 billion bitcoins in a transaction and send them to two digital wallet addresses. However, the bitcoin community and developers identified and reversed the manipulated transactions within approximately five hours, and the flaw was corrected with an updated version of the bitcoin protocol. Another addressed issue with the Bitcoin Network source code, “transaction malleability” was addressed by the Core Developers in a March 2013 software update. The Core Developers, in conjunction with other developers and miners, work continuously to ensure that flaws are quickly fixed or removed.

Greater than Fifty Percent of Network Computational Power

Malicious actors can structure an attack whereby such actor gains control of more than half of the Bitcoin Network’s processing power or “hashrate.” Computer scientists and cryptographers believe that the immense collective processing power of the Bitcoin Network makes it impracticable for an actor to gain control of computers representing a majority of the processing power on the Bitcoin Network. During May and June 2014, mining pool GHash.io’s hashing power approached 50 percent of the processing power on the Bitcoin Network. During a brief period in early June 2014, the mining pool may have controlled in excess of one-half of the Bitcoin Network’s processing power. Although no malicious activity or abnormal transaction recording was observed, the incident establishes that it is possible that a substantial mining pool may accumulate close to or more than a majority of the processing power on the Bitcoin Network. As of June 5, 2017, no single pool controlled more than twenty one percent of the total processing power.

If a malicious actor acquired sufficient computational power necessary to control the Bitcoin Network (which amount would be well in excess of fifty percent), it would be able to engage in double-spending, or prevent some or all transactions from being confirmed, and prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid new blocks. The malicious actor or group of actors, however, would not be able to reverse other people’s transactions, change the fixed number of bitcoins generated per new block, or transfer previously existing bitcoins that belong to other users.

Cancer Nodes

This form of attack involves a malicious actor propagating “cancer nodes” to isolate certain users from the legitimate Bitcoin Network. A target user functionally surrounded by cancer nodes would be put on a separate “network,” allowing the malicious actor to relay only blocks created by the separate network and thus opening the target user to double-spending attacks. By using cancer nodes, a malicious actor also can disconnect the target user from the bitcoin economy entirely by refusing to relay any blocks or transactions. Bitcoin software programs make these attacks more difficult by limiting the number of outbound connections through which users are connected to the Bitcoin Network.

Manipulating Blockchain Formation

A malicious actor may attempt to double-spend bitcoins by manipulating the formation of the Blockchain rather than through control of the Bitcoin Network. In this type of attack, a miner creates a valid new block containing a double-spend transaction and schedules the release of such attack block so that it is added to the Blockchain before a target user’s legitimate transaction can be included in a block. Variations of this form of attack include the “Finney attack,” “race attack,” and “vector76 attack.” All double-spend attacks require that the miner sequence and execute the steps of its attack with sufficient speed and accuracy. Users and merchants can dramatically reduce the risk of a double-spend attack by waiting for multiple confirmations from the Bitcoin Network before settling a transaction. The Bitcoin Network still may be used to execute instantaneous, low-value transactions without confirmation to the extent the recipient of bitcoins determines that a malicious miner would be unwilling to carry out a double-spend attack for low-value transactions because the reward from mining would be higher than the small profit gained from double-spending. Users and merchants can take additional precautions by adjusting their Bitcoin Network software programs to connect only to other well-connected nodes and to disable incoming connections. These precautions reduce the risk of double-spend attacks involving manipulation of a target’s connectivity to the Bitcoin Network (as is the case with vector76 and race attacks).

Historical Chart of the Price of Bitcoins, 2016-2017

The price of bitcoins is volatile and fluctuations are expected. Movements may be influenced by various factors, including, but not limited to, government regulation, security breaches experienced by service providers, as well as political and economic uncertainties around the world. Since our Transaction Verification Services business records revenue based on the price of earned bitcoins and we may retain such bitcoins as an asset or as payment for future expenses, the relative value of such revenues may fluctuate, as will the value of any bitcoins we retain. The following chart illustrates the fluctuating value of the US Dollar exchange rate for bitcoins for the one-year period ending June 5, 2017, as reported by Blockchain.info:

Uses of Bitcoins

Global Bitcoin Market

Global trade in bitcoins consists of individual end-user-to-end-user transactions, together with facilitated exchange-based bitcoin trading. A limited market currently exists for bitcoin-based derivatives. There is currently no reliable data on the total number or demographic composition of users or miners on the Bitcoin Network.

Goods and Services

Bitcoins also can be used to purchase goods and services, either online or at physical locations, although reliable data is not readily available about the retail and commercial market penetration of the Bitcoin Network. In addition to our Company in January 2014, US national online retailers Overstock.com and TigerDirect began accepting bitcoin payments. Over the course of 2014, computer hardware and software company Microsoft began accepting bitcoins as online payment for certain digital content, online retailer NewEgg began accepting bitcoins, and computer hardware company Dell began accepting bitcoins. There are thousands of additional online merchants that accept bitcoins, and the variety of goods and services for which bitcoins can be exchanged is increasing. Currently, local, regional and national businesses, including Time Inc., Wikimedia, WordPress, Expedia and Foodler, accept bitcoin. Bitcoin service providers such as BitPay, Coinbase and GoCoin and online gift card retailer Gyft provide other means to spend bitcoin for goods and services at additional retailers. There are also many real-world locations that accept bitcoin throughout the world. In 2014, payments giant PayPal announced a partnership with BitPay, Coinbase and GoCoin to expand their bitcoin-related services to PayPal’s merchant customers, thereby significantly expanding the reach of bitcoin-accepting merchants. To date, the rate of consumer adoption and use of bitcoin in paying merchants has trailed the broad expansion of retail and commercial acceptance of bitcoin. Nevertheless, there will likely be a strong correlation between continued expansion of the Bitcoin Network and its retail and commercial market penetration.

Anonymity and Illicit Use

The Bitcoin Network was not designed to ensure the anonymity of users, despite a common misperception to the contrary. All bitcoin transactions are logged on the Blockchain and any individual or government can trace the flow of bitcoins from one address to another. Off-Blockchain transactions occurring off the Bitcoin Network are not recorded and do not represent actual bitcoin transactions or the transfer of bitcoins from one digital wallet address to another, though information regarding participants in an Off-Blockchain transaction may be recorded by the parties facilitating such Off-Blockchain transactions. Digital wallet addresses are randomized sequences of 27-34 alphanumeric characters that, standing alone, do not provide sufficient information to identify users; however, various methods may be used to connect an address to a particular user’s identity, including, among other things, simple Internet searching, electronic surveillance and statistical network analysis and data mining. Anonymity is also reduced to the extent that certain Bitcoin Exchanges and other service providers collect users’ personal information, because such Bitcoin Exchanges and service providers may be required to produce users’ information in order to comply with legal requirements. In many cases, a user’s own activity on the Bitcoin Network or on Internet forums may reveal information about the user’s identity.

Users may take certain precautions to enhance the likelihood that they and their transactions will remain anonymous. For instance, a user may send its bitcoins to different addresses multiple times to make tracking the bitcoins through the Blockchain more difficult or, more simply, engage a so-called “mixing” or “tumbling” service to switch its bitcoins with those of other users. However, these precautions do not guarantee anonymity and are illegal to the extent that they constitute money laundering or otherwise violate the law.

As with any other asset or medium of exchange, bitcoins can be used to purchase illegal goods or fund illicit activities. For example, Silk Road, an anonymous online marketplace that sold illegal substances prior to its seizure and the arrest of its founder and operator in October 2013, accepted only bitcoins. The use of bitcoins for illicit purposes, however, is not promoted by the Bitcoin Network or the user community as a whole. Furthermore, we do not believe our ecommerce platform, which we no longer support or are developing, has exposure to such uses because the products sold in our marketplace were curated by our management and the sellers of those products are big box retailers with credible products and retail operations.

Alternative Digital Assets

Bitcoins are not the only type of Digital Assets founded on math-based algorithms and cryptographic security, although it was considered the most prominent as of June 5, 2017. Over 700 other Digital Assets, (commonly referred to as “altcoins”, “tokens”, “protocol tokens”, or “digital assets”), have been developed since the Bitcoin Network’s inception, including Ethereum, Ripple, Litecoin, Dash, and Monero. The Bitcoin Network, however, possesses the “first-to-market” advantage and thus far has captured the majority of the industry’s market share and is secured by a mining network with significantly more processing power than that of any other Digital Asset.

GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT

The Bitcoin Network is a recent technological innovation and the regulatory schemes to which bitcoin and the Bitcoin Network may be subject have not been fully explored or developed. For example, the SEC has yet to issue an official statement describing how it will treat bitcoin for a variety of regulatory purposes, and the CFTC, despite issuing a settlement order determining that bitcoin is a commodity, has not adopted a policy statement or rule delineating its treatment of bitcoin.

Until February 2014, the only U.S. federal regulator to release official guidance on bitcoin and the Bitcoin Network was FinCEN, a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury responsible for the federal regulation of currency market participants. On March 18th, 2013, FinCEN issued interpretive guidance relating to the application of the Bank Secrecy Act to distributing, exchanging and transmitting “virtual currencies.” More specifically, it determined that a Bitcoin user will not be considered a money service business (“MSB”) or be required to register, report and perform recordkeeping; however, an administrator or exchanger of bitcoin must be a registered money services business under FinCEN’s money transmitter regulations. As a result, Bitcoin Exchanges that deal with U.S. residents or otherwise fall under U.S. jurisdiction are required to obtain licenses and comply with FinCEN regulations. FinCEN released additional guidance on January 30, 2014, April 29, 2014, October 27, 2014 and August 14, 2015, clarifying that most miners, software developers, hardware manufacturers, escrow service providers and investors in bitcoin would not be required to register with FinCEN on the basis of such activity alone, but that Bitcoin Exchanges, payment processors and convertible Digital Asset administrators would likely be required to register with FinCEN on the basis of the activities described in the October 2014 and August 2015 letters.

Although the SEC has not opined on the legal characterization of bitcoin as a security, it has taken various actions against persons or entities misusing bitcoin in connection with fraudulent schemes (i.e., Ponzi schemes), inaccurate and inadequate publicly disseminated information, and the offering of unregistered securities. Clarity regarding the treatment of bitcoin was obtained on September 17, 2015, when the CFTC instituted and settled the Coinflip case. The Coinflip order found that the respondents (i) conducted activity related to commodity options transactions without complying with the provisions of the CEA and CFTC regulations, and (ii) operated a facility for the trading of swaps without registering the facility as a SEF or DCM. The Coinflip order was significant as it is the first time the CFTC determined that bitcoin and other virtual currencies are properly defined as commodities under the CEA. Based on this determination, the CFTC applied CEA provisions and CFTC regulations that apply to transactions in commodity options and swaps to the conduct of the bitcoin derivatives trading platform. 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.”

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.

On March 25, 2014, the IRS released guidance on the treatment of virtual convertible currencies, such as bitcoin, for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The guidance, the first issued by a U.S. government agency regarding the asset classification of bitcoin, classified bitcoin as “property” that it is not currency for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The guidance clarified that bitcoin could be held as capital assets and that holders of bitcoin were required to track gains and losses relating to their cost basis at acquisition and their amount realized upon sale or other disposition of the bitcoin. The IRS also clarified that bitcoin received as payment (e.g., as wages or, in the case of a miner, as a reward for solving a block) is included in the recipient’s taxable income based on the fair market value of bitcoin when received. The IRS may revisit its treatment of Digital Assets, including seeking enforcement of existing guidance or issuing new guidance, in response to recommendations in a September 2016 report by the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.³¹ The asset classification of bitcoin by the IRS is not controlling on other government agencies for purposes other than those relating to U.S. federal income tax.

On June 26, 2014, the U.S. Government Accountability Office publicly released a report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs that summarized regulatory, law enforcement and consumer protection assessments regarding the Bitcoin economy and Bitcoin in general. The report recommended that the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau participate in inter-agency working groups on Bitcoin to assess how the agency might address Bitcoin-related consumer protection issues. The report echoed, in part, a May 7, 2014 investor alert published by the SEC that highlighted fraud and other concerns relating to certain investment opportunities denominated in bitcoin and fraudulent and unregistered investment schemes targeted at participants in online Bitcoin forums. In the fall of 2014, the SEC is reported to have initiated an inquiry into the sale of unregistered securities denominated in bitcoin or altcoins, and into the sale of “crypto-equity” (i.e., tokens for use on altcoin programming platforms), although the Company has not verified the scope or veracity of such reports due to the confidentiality of such inquiries.

As of April 2016, the U.S. Congress, U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, the CFTC, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYSDFS”), and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors had initiated formal inquiries into or held hearings on Digital Assets, including bitcoin, and possible regulation thereof. Members of the private sector and representatives of the Department of Justice, Secret Service and FinCEN (among other government agencies) had participated in such inquiries and hearings.

U.S. state regulators, including the California Department of Financial Institutions, NYSDFS, Virginia Corporation Commission, Idaho Department of Financial Services and Washington State Department of Financial Institutions, have similarly released interpretations or mandates that Bitcoin Exchanges and similar Bitcoin service providers register on a state-level as MTs or MSB. In June 2014, the State of California adopted legislation that would formally repeal laws that could be interpreted as making illegal the use of bitcoin or other Digital Assets as a means of payment. 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 registration statement 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 July 2014, the NYSDFS proposed the first US regulatory framework for licensing participants in “virtual currency business activity.” The proposed regulations, known as the “BitLicense,” are intended to focus on consumer protection and, after the closure of an initial comment period that yielded 3,746 formal public comments and a reproposal, the NYSDFS issued its final “BitLicense” regulatory framework 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. The “BitLicense” requires, among other things, that licensees are adequately capitalized, maintain detailed books and records, adopt anti-money laundering policies, ensure they have robust cyber security policies and incorporate a variety of other compliance policies. As of January 2017, the NYSDFS has granted a “BitLicense” to three (3) market participants.

On December 16, 2014, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors released for public comment a proposed model regulatory framework for state regulation of participants in “virtual currency activities.” Although similar in some regards, the proposed model framework does not track completely the BitLicense regulations in New York. The Conference of State Bank Supervisors proposed framework is a non-binding model and would have to be independently adopted, in sum or in part, by state legislatures or regulators on a case-by-case basis. In numerous other states, including Connecticut, North Carolina, New Hampshire and New Jersey, legislation is being proposed or has been introduced regarding the treatment of bitcoin and other Digital Assets.

In addition, various foreign jurisdictions may adopt laws, regulations or directives that affect Bitcoin. In October 2012, the European Central Bank issued a report on “virtual currency” schemes indicating that Bitcoin may become the subject of regulatory interest in the European Union. In August 2013, the German Ministry of Finance released an interpretation that labeled bitcoin to be a form of private money or a unit of account that is not recognized as a full currency, but is subject to German tax laws. A ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union on October 22, 2015 found that a bitcoin exchange’s trading of bitcoin for conventional currency (such as Euros or Swedish Krona) and vice versa was subject to value added tax (“VAT”) rules because it constituted the supply of services for consideration. However, the court also found that bitcoin could qualify for an exception reserved for transactions related to currency, bank notes, and other legal tender, and thus the bitcoin trading could be exempted from VAT. The ruling shows that bitcoin tax treatment in the European Union has moved more closely in-line with that of conventional currency. Foreign government bodies have also initiated public inquiries similar to those taken by US government bodies, including public hearings on Digital Assets, including bitcoin, held by both the French and Canadian Senates. In October 2015, the European Court of Justice determined that exchanging transactions in Digital Assets are exempt from value-added taxes in the same manner as traditional currencies. 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.

On December 5, 2013, the People’s Bank of China and five Chinese ministries released a notice that restricted Bitcoin activity among its financial and payment institutions while classifying bitcoin as a “virtual commodity” that was legal to own and speculate in. Over the subsequent six (6) months, news reports from China indicated that many banking institutions and third-party payment processors in China had received private guidance leading them to close Bitcoin Exchange bank accounts that held Chinese Yuan on behalf of exchange customers. As a result, though the Chinese government has not banned the use of bitcoin or the holding of bitcoin, the effective result of the public and private notices has been to severely restrict the operation of Chinese Bitcoin Exchanges through the limitation of customers’ ability to deposit or withdraw Chinese Yuan with or from the exchanges. During the second half of 2014, Chinese Bitcoin Exchanges again began to accept deposits of Chinese Yuan through the use of third-party payment providers, and trading activity returned to higher levels. In January 2016, the People’s Bank of China, China’s central bank, disclosed that it has been studying a state-backed electronic monetary system and potentially had plans for its own state-backed electronic money. In January 2017, the People’s Bank of China announced that it had found several violations, including margin financing and a failure to impose anti-money laundering controls, after on-site inspections of two China-based Bitcoin Exchanges. In response to the Chinese regulator’s oversight, the three largest China-based Bitcoin Exchanges, OKCoin, Huobi, and BTC China, started charging trading commission fees to suppress speculative trading and prevent price swings which resulted in a significant drop in volume on these exchanges.

In Russia, state agencies and prosecutors have released guidance or statements that have hampered the growth of Bitcoin. In January 2014, anonymous electronic transfers were restricted to de minimis sums; although Bitcoin transactions are not truly anonymous, this measure has been taken to apply to the Bitcoin Network. Additionally, a central bank statement warned of the association of Bitcoin and money laundering and terrorist activity. In early February, a prosecutor implied that the use of Bitcoin and bitcoin themselves were not legal tender and were illegal, although whether this amounted to a ban on Bitcoin has been questioned. In April 2016, it was reported that the Russian Finance Ministry was considering proposing regulations that would prohibit the issuance of all Digital Assets or their use in exchange for goods or services in Russia. However, in July 2016, in a significant change in tone, the Russian Ministry of Finance indicated it supports a proposed law that bans bitcoin domestically but allows for its use as a foreign currency.

After the United States, China and Russia were among the next tier of large Bitcoin-using jurisdictions as of late 2013. The impact of the restrictions has been seen in a decline of Chinese investment activity in bitcoin and a reduction in the number of Bitcoin nodes operating in Russia had continued into late 2014, despite a pickup in trading volume on Chinese Bitcoin Exchanges. Less active Bitcoin jurisdictions in Iceland (conversion between bitcoin and krona prohibited), Vietnam (financial services firms prohibited from interacting with Bitcoin) and Bolivia (use of bitcoin prohibited by the Central Bank of Bolivia) have more severely restricted the use of bitcoin with little impact on the global growth of Bitcoin. Similarly, the reported ban on decentralized Digital Assets in Ecuador (made in advance of plans to introduce a government backed electronic cash system) have had no visible impact on the Bitcoin Network due to limited use of bitcoin in Ecuador.

While jurisdictions such as Germany and China have taken a preliminary regulatory stance on Bitcoin, countries such as India have declined to apply regulation to Bitcoin when afforded the opportunity. In June 2014, the Swiss government elected not to regulate Bitcoin use and issued guidance on the further development and future application of laws to Bitcoin-related activity in Switzerland. Among others, Australia, Finland and the Netherlands have joined Canada and Germany among the foreign countries releasing formal or informal tax guidance regarding Bitcoin income or operations.

Due in part to its international nature and the nascent stage of regulation, along with the limited experience with Bitcoin of, and language barriers between, international journalists, information regarding the regulation of Bitcoin in various jurisdictions may be incomplete, inaccurate or unreliable. For example, news of the People’s Bank of China notice release on December 5, 2013 was followed by days of confusion relating to difficulty in interpreting and analyzing the content of the release. In another instance, on July 29, 2013, a Bitcoin service business in Thailand announced that, in a meeting with the Bank of Thailand, regulators from the Foreign Exchange Administration and Policy Department had functionally banned Bitcoin activity in the country, leading to widespread reporting of a blanket ban. Later reporting, however, questioned whether the Bank of Thailand regulators had the authority, or ever expressed the intention, to ban all Bitcoin use in Thailand. Additionally in the first quarter of 2014, the Bank of Thailand issued a warning to its citizens regarding the risks of Bitcoin and stated that it is not a currency. Despite these announcements, bitcoin exchanges continue to operate in Thailand converting bitcoin to and from Thai baht.

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. These changes were approved by the Japanese Diet in May 2016 and became effective in April 2017.

As both the regulatory landscape develops and journalistic familiarity with bitcoin increases, mainstream media’s understanding of Digital Assets and the regulation thereof may improve. Regulation of Digital Assets varies from country to country as well as within countries. An increase in the regulation of Digital Assets may affect our proposed business by increasing compliance costs or prohibiting certain or all of our proposed activities.

COMPETITION

Blockchain Technology and Digital Assets Initiatives

Subject to raising additional capital, the Company’s Digital Asset initiatives will compete with other industry participants that focus on investing in and securing the blockchains of bitcoin and other Digital Assets. Market and financial conditions, and other conditions beyond the Company’s control, may make it more attractive to invest in other entities, or to invest in bitcoin or Digital Assets directly.

Transaction Verification Service Business (digital asset mining e.g. bitcoin, Suspended)

While our current Transaction Verification Services business is suspended we anticipate that if we resuming our operations, which is subject to additional financing, our current and future competition is centered on the following areas:

Our potential competitors may have greater resources, longer histories, more intellectual property, greater hashing capacity, and lower cost operations. They may secure better terms from ASIC server suppliers, deploy ASIC servers faster than us, and devote more resources to technology infrastructure. Other companies also may enter into business combinations or alliances that strengthen their competitive positions.

ASSETS

The Company’s sole asset is its human capital specifically Mr. Allen and Mr. Handerhan, who have extensive market knowledge and long-standing business relationships within the industry. Our continued success depends solely on their continued service. See “Risk Factors” below.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TRADE SECRETS

We have no intellectual property assets or licenses and rely upon the experience of our two executive officers in the Digital Assets business as it has evolved.

GROWTH STRATEGY

Transaction Verification Services Growth Strategy

We believe that with additional funding we may be able to resume our transaction verification services business (digital asset mining e.g. bitcoin) and believe this may provide revenue growth. If we are successful in resuming our transaction verification services business, we anticipate utilizing outsourced data centers and may diversify operations by securing other blockchains in addition to bitcoins blockchain.

EMPLOYEES

We currently have 2 full-time employees, who have been compensated at below market levels since inception including fiscal year 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 (through May). As a condition to the April 2015 Subscription Agreement amendment, the Company could not pay each of its two officers and sole employees, Mr. Allen and Mr. Handerhan, cash compensation, whether in base salary or bonus, in excess of $50,000 per year until such time as the Company has paid the investors in the April 2015 financing $187,330. As a condition to the May 2017 financing, the Company may not pay each of its two officers and sole employees, Mr. Allen and Mr. Handerhan, cash compensation, whether in base salary or bonus, in excess of $50,000 per year, including accrued and unpaid salaries, until such time as the Company has filed this report. See “Risk Factors” below and Item 7. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

Not applicable to smaller reporting companies. However, our principal risk factors are described under “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES.

As of the date of this report the Company did not have any owned or leased properties.

Corporate Office Space

Our corporate headquarters was located at 1901 N Moore St, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22209; this space was being sub-let and was paid for in full through May 31, 2016 and subsequently extended on a month-to-month basis for $500 per month from June 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. After December 31, 2016 the Company was not party to any lease agreements for corporate office space and its employees have been working virtually. The Company is paying each of Mr. Allen and Mr. Handerhan $500 per month to cover out of pocket expenses associated with phone, internet and office space.

Transaction Verification Services Facility (Closed)

Our transaction verification services business was located in North Carolina where we leased space in an 83,000 square foot former hosiery manufacturing plant which we re-purposed for our transaction verification servers. The lease was cancelled on September 1, 2016 and we forfeited our security deposit of $10,000.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

From time to time, we are party to certain legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course and are incidental to our business. We know of no material, active or pending legal proceedings against us.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES.

Not applicable.

PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES.

MARKET INFORMATION

Our common stock is currently quoted on the OTCPINK and has been quoted under the symbol “BTCS”. Because we are quoted on the OTCPINK, our securities may be less liquid, receive less coverage by security analysts and news media, and generate lower prices than might otherwise be obtained if they were listed on a national securities exchange.

The following table sets forth the high and low bid quotations for our common stock as reported on the OTCPINK, on a split-adjusted basis accounting for our 1-for-60 reverse stock split effected on February 13, 2017, for the periods indicated.

HOLDERS

As of June 8, 2017, there were 131 stockholders of record of our common stock, one of which is Cede & Co., a nominee for Depository Trust Company, or DTC. Shares of common stock that are held by financial institutions as nominees for beneficial owners are deposited into participant accounts at DTC, and are considered to be held of record by Cede & Co. as one stockholder.

DIVIDENDS

We have not paid any cash dividends to date and do not anticipate or contemplate paying dividends in the foreseeable future. It is the present intention of management to utilize all available funds for the development of our business.

SECURITIES AUTHORIZED FOR ISSUANCE UNDER EQUITY COMPENSATION PLANS

On January 30, 2014, the Board of Directors approved the adoption of a 2014 Plan. The 2014 Plan provides for the grant of incentive stock options, nonqualified stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units, stock appreciation rights and other types of stock-based awards to our employees, officers, directors and consultants. Pursuant to the terms of the 2014 Plan, either the Board or a board committee is authorized to administer the plan, including by determining which eligible participants will receive awards, the number of shares of common stock subject to the awards and the terms and conditions of such awards. Up to 258,395 (after giving effect to the 60:1 reverse split completed on February 13, 2017) shares of common stock are issuable pursuant to awards under the 2014 Plan. Unless earlier terminated by the Board, the 2014 Plan shall terminate at the close of business on January 30, 2024.

As of December 31, 2016 there are no incentive stock options, nonqualified stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units, stock appreciation rights and other types of stock-based awards issued pursuant to the 2014 Plan.

The following table gives information about our common stock that may be issued upon the exercise of options granted to employees, directors and consultants under its 2014 Plan and outside of the 2014 Plan as of December 31, 2016.

EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION

RECENT SALES OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES

The sales of unregistered securities of our Company during the year ended December 31, 2016 are summarized below:

On June 6, 2016, the Company, entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with certain institutional investors pursuant to which the purchasers subscribed for up to $375,000 of a 20% Original Issue Discount Junior Secured Convertible Notes. The aggregate principal amount of the notes issued at the initial close was $125,000 and the Company received $100,000 after giving effect to the 20% original issue discount. The notes bear no interest except in the event of default which interest rate is 24% per annum upon the occurrence of an event of default, have a maturity date of December 5, 2016, and are convertible (principal, and interest) at any time after the issuance date of the notes into shares of the Company’s Common Stock at a conversion price equal to $18.00 per share, subject to adjustment upon an event of default and other events.

Between June 8, 2016 and June 28, 2016, the Company issued 68,750 shares of Common Stock for the cash exercise of warrants resulting in aggregate proceeds of $91,765.

Between June 8, 2016 and June 28, 2016, the Company issued a total of 1,039,013 shares of the Company’s Common Stock for: i) the conversion of $890,179 of principal and accrued interest on the Senior Notes, and ii) the cashless exercise of the 2016 Warrants.

Between July 1, 2016 and August 1, 2016, the Company issued a total of 12,146,824 shares of the Company’s Common Stock for: i) the conversion of $822,685 of principal and accrued interest on the Senior Notes, and ii) the cashless exercise of the 2016 Warrants.

On December 6, 2016, the Company issued a total of $220,002 Convertible Promissory Notes (the “December 2016 Notes”) to three accredited investors. The December 2016 Notes were issued in connection with a loan of $200,002 and the cancellation of two $10,000 promissory notes previously issued by the Company to two of the investors. The December 2016 Notes are due on June 6, 2017 and bear interest at 8% per annum payable on the maturity date. Further, the December 2016 Notes required the Company to designate a series of preferred stock with super voting power and issue it to an executive officer of the Company. In furtherance of that provision, the Company issued 100 shares of Series A Preferred Stock to Charles Allen, its Chief Executive Officer and a director, which provided Mr. Allen with a majority of the Company’s outstanding voting power with respect to increasing the Company’s authorized shares and effectuating a reverse split. See Item 5.03 below. Until such time as the Company effects a Charter Amendment, the December 2016 Notes are convertible into a preferred stock. After the Charter Amendment is effected, the December 2016 Notes will be convertible into Common Stock. The conversion price of the December 2016 Notes is $0.12 per share.

The sales of unregistered securities of our Company subsequent to the year ended December 31, 2016 are summarized below:

On February 28, 2017, the Company issued 4,370 shares of Common Stock in connection with the 60:1 reverse stock split resulting from the rounding up of fractional shares of Common Stock to the whole shares of Common Stock.

On March 9, 2017, the Company completed a securities exchange offer (the “Note Offer”) with its three convertible note holders (the “Note Holders”). Pursuant to the Note Offer the Note Holders agreed to exchange i) $868,897 of 5% Original Issue Discount 10% Senior Convertible Note Due September 16, 2016, originally issued in December 2015 and all accrued interest and liquidated damages owed (collectively the “Senior Notes”), ii) $175,000 of 20% Original Issue Discount Junior Convertible Notes Due December 5, 2016, originally issued in June 2016 and all accrued interest and liquidated damages owed (collectively the “Junior Notes”), iii) $220,002 of 8% Convertible Notes Due June 6, 2017, originally issued in December 2016 and all accrued interest owed (collectively the “Convertible Notes”), and iv) 97,423,579 warrants (the “Senior Warrants”) for 845,631 shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Preferred”). After giving effect to the Note Offer the Company no longer has any Senior Notes, Junior Notes or Convertible Notes outstanding. The Note Offer also provided the Note Holders with a three month right of first refusal to participate in the Company’s next financing and a one year participation right with respect to the Company next fully underwritten offering.

On March 9, 2017, as a result of the Note Offer becoming effective, a securities exchange offer made to the Company’s January 19, 2015 investors (the “January Offer”) was accepted by certain of those investors (the “January Investors”). Pursuant to the January Offer the January Investors agreed to exchange i) 12,052,344 shares of common stock owed pursuant to the favored nations provision of the January 19, 2015 subscription agreement (the “January Agreement”), and ii) 30,130,861 warrants owed pursuant to the favored nations provision of the January Agreement for 210,919 shares of Preferred.

On March 9, 2017, as a result of the Note Offer becoming effective, a securities exchange offer made to the Company’s April 19, 2015 investors (the “April Offer”) was accepted by certain of those investors (the “April Investors”). Pursuant to the April Offer, the April Investors agreed to exchange i) 20,110,699 shares of Common Stock owed pursuant to the favored nations provision of the April 19, 2015 subscription agreement (the “April Agreement”), and ii) 28,154,980 warrants owed pursuant to the favored nations provision of the April Agreement for 52,311 shares of Preferred.

The April Investors also agreed to: i) waive their right to their pro-rata portion of the remaining $240,216 payment under the May 27, 2016 amendment to the April Agreement (the “Payment”), ii) release the Company from its $50,000 management salary restriction as it relates to their pro-rata portion of the Payment, and iii) cancel their rights in the April Agreement to the favored nations provision. After giving effect to the April Investors release from the Payment, the Company is still obligated to pay those investors who participate in the April 2015 financing but did not accept the April Offer $187,330 prior to either Charles Allen, its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chairman and Michal Handerhan, its Chief Operating Officer and corporate secretary (collectively, the Company’s sole officers, directors and employees, the “Officers”) receiving disbursements towards their annual salaries or bonuses in excess of $50,000.

On March 15, 2017, the Company filed a Certificate of Designation for the Preferred with the Secretary of State of the State of Nevada. The Preferred Certificate of Designation provides authorization for the issuance of 1,108,861 shares of Preferred, par value $0.001. Each holder of Preferred may, from time to time, convert any or all of such holder’s shares of Preferred into fully paid and non-assessable shares of common stock in an amount equal to two hundred (200) shares of common stock for each one (1) share of Preferred surrendered. However, at no time may all or a portion of shares of Preferred stock be converted if the number of shares of common stock to be issued pursuant to such conversion which would exceed, when aggregated with all other shares of common stock owned by such holder at such time, the number of shares of common stock which would result in such holder beneficially owning more than 4.99% of all of the common stock outstanding at such time.

Each of the three Note Holders agreed to a leak-out agreement (the “Note Leak-Out”) with respect to the sale of common stock underlying the Preferred. The Note Leak-Out agreement restricts the number of shares of common stock that can be sold to 30% of the previous trading day’s volume until May 18, 2017 and thereafter to 20% of the previous day’s trading volume until February 6, 2018.

Each of the five January Investors agreed to a leak-out agreement (the “January Leak-Out”) with respect to the sale of common stock underlying the Preferred. The January Leak-Out agreement restricts the number of shares of common stock that can be sold to 7.8% of the previous trading day’s volume until February 6, 2018.

Each of the seven April Investors agreed to a leak-out agreement (the “April Leak-Out”) with respect to the sale of common stock underlying the Preferred. The April Leak-Out agreement restricts the number of shares of common stock that can be sold to 12.2% of the previous trading day’s volume until February 6, 2018.

Each of the five January Investors agreed to a lockup agreement with respect to the sale of the common stock underlying the Preferred, whereby they agreed not to sell the common stock underlying the Preferred until May 19, 2017.

Each of the seven April Investors agreed to a lockup agreement with respect to the sale of the common stock underlying the Preferred, whereby they agreed not to sell the common stock underlying the Preferred until May 19, 2017.

On March 22, 2017, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Note (the “CSC Agreement”) with CSC Leasing Company (“CSC”) with respect to the equipment lease schedule entered into between CSC and the Company (the “CSC Lease”). The Company leased Bitmain S7 servers and power supplies (the “Servers”) from CSC starting on February 2, 2016 for $12,053 per month for a term of 36 months. Prior to the CSC Agreement the Company owed CSC $91,823 in accrued and unpaid monthly lease payments and interest, and had a continuing monthly payment obligation totaling $277,225 over the remaining term of the CSC Lease for an aggregate liability of $369,048.

Pursuant to the CSC Agreement the Company has agreed to: i) issue CSC 833,333 shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Shares”), and ii) pay CSC $200,000 (the “Cash Payment”). The Shares and Cash Payment constitute the total payment to CSC with respect to the termination and release from the CSC Lease. The Company agreed to endorse and deliver to CSC the insurance check it received from Erie Insurance in the amount of $84,278 which will be credited against the Cash Payment. The remaining $115,722 Cash Payment is due in full by March 31, 2018 and is subject certain payment terms including 10% annual interest, subject to periodic increase, as set forth in the CSC Agreement.

As a result of the Company’s default on the CSC Lease and prior to the CSC Agreement, the Company forfeited its $25,000 security deposit with CSC and returned to CSC the remaining leased Servers in the Company’s possession.

Between March 15, 2017 and June 5, 2017, the Company issued 24,628,136 shares of Common Stock for the cashless exercise of 37,948,307 warrants.

Between March 28, 2017 and June 8, 2017, the Company issued 32,402,600 shares of Common Stock upon the conversion of 162,013 shares of Series B Convertible Preferred stock.

On April 26, 2017, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement with RK Equity Advisors, LLC, and Pickwick Capital Partners, LLC (collectively “RKPCP”) pursuant to which the Company terminated the engagement letter with RKPCP including all provisions and any obligations to pay future fees. As consideration for the termination the Company issued Pickwick Capital Partners, LLC 125,000 shares of Common Stock.

On May 25, 2017 the Company raised $1 million in cash from four institutional investors in exchange for the issuance of $1,111,111 of a new class of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock (“Series C”) and three types of warrants as described below. The 79,368 Series C shares are initially convertible into 15,873,600 shares of common stock. The Series C is convertible at $0.7 per share or approximately $0.063 per share after giving effect to the additional $111,111, subject to reduction in the event of future sales of equity securities and common stock equivalents (with customary exemptions) at a lower price. The Company is subject to a number of customary covenants and a restriction on the incurrence of indebtedness for one year. Within 120 days, the Company has agreed to file a registration statement covering the common stock issuable upon exercise of the registrable securities described below. The registration statement will cover 47,302,176 shares of common underlying the Series A Warrants, Additional Warrants, and Bonus Warrants, which warrants are described below:

15,873,600 Series A Warrants exercisable at $0.085 per share, subject to adjustment, over a five-year period;

15,714,288 Additional Warrants exercisable at $0.085 per share, subject to adjustment, over a period which is the earlier of (i) one-year after the effective date of a registration statement covering the warrant shares, or (ii) three years from the date of issuance. The Additional Warrants are callable by the Company for nominal consideration if the common stock trades above $0.17 per share and the daily volume is more than $50,000 for at least 20 trading days;

15,714,288 Bonus Warrants exercisable at $0.17 per share, over a three-year period. The Bonus Warrants are also callable for nominal consideration but the threshold price is more than $0.30 per share.

The Series A Warrants and Additional Warrants have price protection in the event of future lower priced issuances.

The following table details the Company’s capitalization as of June 8, 2017.

The 122,417,497 warrants include: (i) 47,302,176 warrants issued in connection with the Series C financing completed on May 25, 2017, (ii) 595,203 warrants with a strike price of $0.025 and an expiration date of January 21, 2020, (iii) 74,520,099 warrants with a strike price of $0.032 and an expiration date of April 16, 2020, and (iv) 19 warrants with a strike price of $1.80 and an expiration date of December 16, 2018.

The Company expects to use the proceeds for working capital including payment of liabilities. Of the liabilities, the Company’s management will receive approximately $377,000 representing accrued and unpaid salaries for 2016 and 2017. Provided; however, that the Company’s management will be unable to receive any payments towards accrued and unpaid salaries in excess of $50,000 in total for 2017 for each of its two officers, until such time as the Company has filed its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the “10K”). Additionally, the Company owes $187,330 to investors in the Company’s April 2015 financing pursuant to the amendment to the subscription agreement and as a condition to the Series C financing no payments can be made until the Company has filed its 10-K.

All of the above offerings and sales were deemed to be exempt under Section 4(a)(2)  of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. No advertising or general solicitation was employed in offering the securities. The offerings and sales were made to a limited number of accredited investors, and transfer was restricted by us in accordance with the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933. Each investor agreed that it was purchasing for investment and not with a view to distribution.

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

None

ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

INTRODUCTION

The following discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our historical financial statements and the notes to those statements that appear elsewhere in this report. Certain statements in the discussion contain forward-looking statements based upon current expectations that involve risks and uncertainties, such as plans, objectives, expectations and intentions. Actual results and the timing of events could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of a number of factors, including those set forth under “Item 1A. Risk Factors.” and elsewhere in this report.

OVERVIEW

During the past year, we have worked with certain investors to remove portions of our debt and raise capital. While we need to raise additional capital, our goal is to re-enter the Digital Assets business once we are able to raise the necessary capital. We cannot assure you we will be successful in raising the capital or assuming we can, be able to develop a successful business. For further information please see Part 1, Item 1 “Business.”

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016 AND 2015

Revenues

Revenues for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $355,212 as compared to $506,190 for the year ended December 31, 2015, a decrease of $150,978. Revenues represent net revenue earned: 1) from the processing of customer transactions through our ecommerce website, 2) through fees earned from our transaction verification service business, and 3) from hosting. The decrease in our revenues is mainly a result of the Company suspending its operations at its North Carolina transaction verification services facility in July 2016.

Power and Mining Expenses

Power and mining expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were $263,869 and $290,099, respectively. The decrease in the power and mining expenses is the result of the reduction in mining activities and related electric costs for our transaction verification services business. Our electricity cost is a variable expense subject to certain demand charges which change based upon on and off peak usage and seasonal billing rates. Our power consumption and resulting electricity cost is determined by the power settings of our transaction verification servers and other ancillary equipment used in the building.

Operating Expenses

Operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were $1,547,627 and $8,414,390. The decrease in operating expenses over the prior year mostly relates to decreases in general and administrative expenses. General and administrative expense was lower primarily due to a decrease in stock based compensation of approximately $6.4 million.

Other Expenses

Other expenses for the years ended 2016 and 2015 was approximately $42.8 million and $1.8 million, respectively. The increase in other expenses over the prior year primarily relates to increases in fair value adjustments for derivative liability shortfall of shares of $14.9 million, fair value adjustments for warrant liabilities of $25.3 million, liquidated damage of $3.1 million, and offset by gain on extinguishment of debt of $837,000, all of which are non-cash expenses, and an impairment loss related to investment of $2.3 million.

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

On December 31, 2016, we had current assets of approximately $95,000 and current liabilities of approximately $45.3 million, rendering a deficit of working capital of approximately $45.2 million, which includes $23.2 million for the non-cash fair value of derivative liabilities. On December 6, 2016, the Company issued a total of $220,002 Convertible Promissory Notes (the “December 2016 Notes”) to three accredited investors. The December 2016 Notes were issued in connection with a loan of $200,002 and the cancellation of two $10,000 promissory notes previously issued by the Company to two of the investors, see Item 9B Other Information. The December 2016 Notes are due on June 6, 2017 and bear interest at 8% per annum payable on the maturity date.   The conversion price of the December 2016 Notes is $0.002 per share.

Our working capital needs are influenced by our level of operations, and generally decrease with higher levels of revenue. We used approximately $828,000 of cash in operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2016. We incurred approximately a $44.0 million net loss for the year ended December 31, 2016. We had cash of approximately $95,000 at December 31, 2016. We expect to incur losses into the foreseeable future as we undertake efforts to execute our business plans.

We will require significant additional capital to sustain short-term operations and make the investments needed to execute our longer term business plan. Our existing liquidity is not sufficient to fund operations and anticipated capital expenditures for the foreseeable future, and we do not have sufficient cash resources to support our current operations for the next 12 months, and will need additional funding to resume revenue generating activities. If we attempt to obtain additional debt or equity financing, we cannot provide assurance that such financing will be available to us on favorable terms, if at all.

Because of recurring operating losses, net operating cash flow deficits, and an accumulated deficit, there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming we will continue as a going concern. We have not made adjustments to the accompanying consolidated financial statements to reflect the potential effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or liabilities should we be unable to continue as a going concern.

We continue to incur ongoing administrative and other expenses, including public company expenses, primarily accounting and legal fees, in excess of corresponding (non-financing related) revenue. While we continue to implement its business strategy, it intends to finance its activities through:

GOING CONCERN AND MANAGEMENT PLANS

The audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016, included in this Annual Report, have been prepared on a going concern basis, which implies that we will continue to realize our assets and discharge our liabilities and commitments in the normal course of business. We have generated $355,212 in revenues during the year ended December 31, 2016 and have never paid any dividends and are unlikely to pay dividends or generate substantial earnings in the immediate or foreseeable future. Our continuation as a going concern is dependent upon the continued financial support from our shareholders, the ability of our company to obtain necessary financing to achieve our operating objectives, and the attainment of profitable operations. As of December 31, 2016, we have accumulated deficit of $69,052,203 since inception. As we do not have sufficient funds for our planned or new operations, we will need to raise additional funds for operations. These factors, among others, raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

The continuation of our business is dependent upon us raising additional financial support. The issuance of additional equity or convertible debt securities by us could result in a significant dilution in the equity interests of our current stockholders. Obtaining commercial loans, assuming those loans would be available, will increase our liabilities and future cash commitments.

Subject to additional financing, the Company plans to create a portfolio of digital assets including bitcoin and other “protocol tokens” to provide investors a diversified pure-play exposure to the bitcoin and blockchain industries. The Company intends to acquire digital assets through: open market purchases, participating in initial digital asset offerings (often referred to as initial coin offerings). Additionally, the Company may acquire digital assets by resuming its transaction verification services business through outsourced data centers and earning rewards in digital assets by securing their respective blockchains.

We continue to incur ongoing administrative and other expenses, including public company expenses, in excess of corresponding (non-financing related) revenue. While we continue to implement our business strategy, we intend to finance our activities through:

Off Balance Sheet Arrangements

As of December 31, 2016, there were no off balance sheet arrangements.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES

We believe that the following accounting policies are the most critical to aid you in fully understanding and evaluating this management discussion and analysis:

Basis of Presentation Financial Statements

We maintain our books of account and prepare statutory financial statements in accordance with accounting principles in the United States of America. The accompanying financial statements are based on the statutory records, with adjustments and reclassifications, for the purpose of fair presentation in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“US GAAP”).

Revenue Recognition

Revenue is measured at the fair value of the consideration received or receivable. Revenue is reduced for customer returns, rebates, and other similar allowances. Revenue for our transaction verification services business is recognized when the bitcoins are received in our digital wallet and are booked at the prevailing market price on the day of receipt as reported by Coinbase.

Property, plant and equipment

Property, plant and equipment are carried at cost less accumulated depreciation and any accumulated impairment losses, if any. Depreciation is charged so as to write off the cost of assets, other than land and construction in progress, over their estimated useful lives, using the straight-line method. The estimated useful lives, residual values and depreciation method are reviewed at each year-end, with the effect of any changes in estimate accounted for on a prospective basis.

Assets held under finance leases are depreciated over their expected useful lives on the same basis as owned assets or, where shorter, the term of the relevant lease. The gain or loss arising on the disposal or retirement of an item of property, plant and equipment is determined as the difference between the sales proceeds and the carrying amount of the asset and is recognized in profit or loss.

The ranges of estimated useful lives are as follows:

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, an updated standard on revenue recognition. ASU No. 2014-09 provides enhancements to the quality and consistency of how revenue is reported by companies while also improving comparability in the financial statements of companies reporting using International Financial Reporting Standards or U.S. GAAP. The main purpose of the new standard is for companies to recognize revenue to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers in amounts that reflect the consideration to which a company expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. The new standard also will result in enhanced disclosures about revenue, provide guidance for transactions that were not previously addressed comprehensively and improve guidance for multiple-element arrangements. In July 2015, the FASB voted to approve a one-year deferral of the effective date of ASU No. 2014-09, which will be effective for the Company in the first quarter of fiscal year 2019 and may be applied on a full retrospective or modified retrospective approach. The Company is evaluating the impact of implementation and transition approach of this standard on its financial statements.

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements-Going Concern, which defines management’s responsibility to assess an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, and requires related footnote disclosures if there is substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. ASU No. 2014-15 is effective for the Company for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2017, with early adoption permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adopting ASU No. 2014-15 and its related disclosures.

In November 2015, FASB issued ASU No. 2015-17, Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes. ASU No. 2015-17 requires that deferred tax liabilities and assets be classified as noncurrent in a classified statement of financial position. ASU No. 2015-17 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those fiscal years. The Company is currently evaluating the impact that ASU No. 2015-17 will have on its balance sheet and financial statement disclosures.

In January 2016, FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01, Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities. ASU No. 2016-01 requires equity investments to be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in net income; simplifies the impairment assessment of equity investments without readily determinable fair values by requiring a qualitative assessment to identify impairment; eliminates the requirement for public business entities to disclose the method(s) and significant assumptions used to estimate the fair value that is required to be disclosed for financial instruments measured at amortized cost on the balance sheet; requires public business entities to use the exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes; requires an entity to present separately in other comprehensive income the portion of the total change in the fair value of a liability resulting from a change in the instrument-specific credit risk when the entity has elected to measure the liability at fair value in accordance with the fair value option for financial instruments; requires separate presentation of financial assets and financial liabilities by measurement category and form of financial assets on the balance sheet or the accompanying notes to the financial statements and clarifies that an entity should evaluate the need for a valuation allowance on a deferred tax asset related to available-for-sale securities in combination with the entity’s other deferred tax assets. ASU No. 2016-01 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those fiscal years. The Company is currently evaluating the impact that ASU No. 2016-01 will have on its financial statements and related disclosures.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), which supersedes FASB ASC Topic 840, Leases (Topic 840) and provides principles for the recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure of leases for both lessees and lessors. The new standard requires lessees to apply a dual approach, classifying leases as either finance or operating leases based on the principle of whether or not the lease is effectively a financed purchase by the lessee. This classification will determine whether lease expense is recognized based on an effective interest method or on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease, respectively. A lessee is also required to record a right-of-use asset and a lease liability for all leases with a term of greater than twelve months regardless of classification. Leases with a term of twelve months or less will be accounted for similar to existing guidance for operating leases. The standard is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2018, with early adoption permitted upon issuance. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position and results of operations.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-08, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations (“ASU 2016-08”). The purpose of ASU 2016-08 is to clarify the implementation of guidance on principal versus agent considerations. The amendments in ASU 2016-08 are effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. The Company is currently assessing the impact of ASU 2016-08 on the consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09, Compensation-Stock Compensation (Topic 718), Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting (“ASU 2016-09”). Under ASU 2016-09, companies will no longer record excess tax benefits and certain tax deficiencies in additional paid-in capital (“APIC”). Instead, they will record all excess tax benefits and tax deficiencies as income tax expense or benefit in the income statement and the APIC pools will be eliminated. In addition, ASU 2016-09 eliminates the requirement that excess tax benefits be realized before companies can recognize them. ASU 2016-09 also requires companies to present excess tax benefits as an operating activity on the statement of cash flows rather than as a financing activity. Furthermore, ASU 2016-09 will increase the amount an employer can withhold to cover income taxes on awards and still qualify for the exception to liability classification for shares used to satisfy the employer’s statutory income tax withholding obligation. An employer with a statutory income tax withholding obligation will now be allowed to withhold shares with a fair value up to the amount of taxes owed using the maximum statutory tax rate in the employee’s applicable jurisdiction(s). ASU 2016-09 requires a company to classify the cash paid to a tax authority when shares are withheld to satisfy its statutory income tax withholding obligation as a financing activity on the statement of cash flows. Under current U.S. GAAP, it was not specified how these cash flows should be classified. In addition, companies will now have to elect whether to account for forfeitures on share-based payments by (1) recognizing forfeitures of awards as they occur or (2) estimating the number of awards expected to be forfeited and adjusting the estimate when it is likely to change, as is currently required. The amendments of this ASU are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, with early adoption permitted but all of the guidance must be adopted in the same period. The Company is currently assessing the impact that ASU 2016-09 will have on its consolidated financial statements.

In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-10, Revenue from Contracts with Customer (“ASU 2016-10”). The new guidance is an update to ASC 606 and provides clarity on: identifying performance obligations and licensing implementation. For public companies, ASU 2016-10 is effective for annual periods, including interim periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2016. The Company is currently evaluating the impact that ASU 2016-10 will have on its consolidated financial statements.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses: Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments (“ASU 2016-13”). ASU 2016-13 requires that expected credit losses relating to financial assets measured on an amortized cost basis and available-for-sale debt securities be recorded through an allowance for credit losses. ASU 2016-13 limits the amount of credit losses to be recognized for available-for-sale debt securities to the amount by which carrying value exceeds fair value and also requires the reversal of previously recognized credit losses if fair value increases. The new standard will be effective on January 1, 2020. Early adoption will be available on January 1, 2019. The Company is currently evaluating the effect that the updated standard will have on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-15, Statement of Cash Flows - Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments, which addresses eight specific cash flow issues with the objective of reducing the existing diversity in practice in how certain cash receipts and cash payments are presented and classified in the statement of cash flows. The standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted, including adoption in an interim period. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this new pronouncement on its consolidated statements of cash flows.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-04, Intangibles - Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Accounting for Goodwill Impairment. ASU No. 2017-04 removes Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test, which requires a hypothetical purchase price allocation. A goodwill impairment will now be the amount by which a reporting unit’s carrying value exceeds its fair value, not to exceed the carrying amount of goodwill. This standard will be effective for the Company beginning in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021 is required to be applied prospectively. Early adoption is permitted for interim or annual goodwill impairment tests performed on testing dates after January 1, 2017. The Company is currently evaluating the impact this standard will have on its consolidated financial statements.

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 anticipate that we will incur operating losses for the foreseeable future. Our historical cash burn rate for the year ended ending December 31, 2016 was on average approximately $68,300 per month. As a result, we expect that the cash we currently have on hand is insufficient to fund our operations. As of June 12, 2017, we had a cash position equal to $723,988. We require additional funds for our anticipated operations and to settle outstanding liabilities. If we are not successful in securing additional financing, we may be required to delay significantly, reduce the scope of or eliminate our business activities, downsize our general and administrative infrastructure, or seek alternative measures to avoid bankruptcy. 

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

Our independent auditors have indicated in their report on our December 31, 2016 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 stockholders, 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 $44.3 million and $10.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. We expect to incur additional net expenses 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. 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.

The loss of key personnel, particularly 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 continued success depends solely on the continued services of key personnel, 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. Occasionally, members of senior management or key employees may find it necessary to take a leave of absence due to medical or other causes. 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.

The loss of key personnel, particularly 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, directors or employees and would subsequently cease all operations which would have a material adverse effect on us.

Because 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, our shareholders would have no practical ability to elect a new board of directors and without officers or employees we would cease operations, which would have a material adverse effect on us.

We have no other officers or directors. 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. It would leave the Company without officers or directors. Our shareholders would face major obstacles in convening a shareholders meeting and electing a new board of directors. As a result, the departure of our officers and directors would likely have a material adverse effect upon us.

Our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Charles Allen, is involved in other companies including his position and interest in Allen Consulting, LLC, creating a potential conflict of interest. In the event such position and interest results in a conflict of interest between us and Allen Consulting, LLC, Mr. Allen could potentially make decisions that are not in the best interest of the shareholders of the Company.

Our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Charles Allen, is involved in other companies including his position and interest in Allen Consulting, LLC. To the extent that such other companies may participate in ventures in which we may desire to participate or the amount of time and attention we require overlaps with that of the needs of such other companies, Mr. Allen may have a conflict of interest. Our Board of Directors and Mr. Allen attempt to minimize such conflicts. In determining whether or not our interest conflict with those of Mr. Allen’s, our disinterested directors will primarily consider the potential benefits to us, the degree of risk to which we may be exposed and our financial position at that time. Other than as indicated, the Company has no other procedures or mechanisms to deal with conflicts of interest. It is possible that the existence of the potential conflict or decisions made in connection with such conflicts could adversely affect the price of our common stock and could cause the price to be less than it might have been if the conflicts did not exist or were avoided. Mr. Allen currently devotes approximately five hours per year to Allen Consulting LLC in connection with its tax and other state filing obligations, however as a result of the Company’s inability to compensate Mr. Allen at generally accepted market levels and its historic failure to either make payroll or make payroll on a timely basis. Mr. Allen may choose to devote a substantial amount of his time to his involvement with other companies which may have a material adverse effect on us.

Our Chief Operating Officer, Michal Handerhan, is involved in other companies including his position and interest in Meesha Media Group, LLC, creating a potential conflict of interest. In the event such position and interest results in a conflict of interest between us and Meesha Media Group, LLC, Mr. Handerhan could potentially make decisions that are not in the best interest of the shareholders of the Company.

Our Chief Operating Officer, Michal Handerhan, is involved in other companies including his position and interest in Meesha Media Group, LLC. To the extent that such other companies may participate in ventures in which we may desire to participate or the amount of time and attention we require overlaps with that of the needs of such other companies, Mr. Handerhan may have a conflict of interest. Our Board of Directors and Mr. Handerhan attempt to minimize such conflicts. In determining whether or not our interest conflict with those of Mr. Handerhan’s, our disinterested directors will primarily consider the potential benefits to us, the degree of risk to which we may be exposed and our financial position at that time. Other than as indicated, the Company has no other procedures or mechanisms to deal with conflicts of interest. It is possible that the existence of the potential conflict or decisions made in connection with such conflicts could adversely affect the price of our common stock and could cause the price to be less than it might have been if the conflicts did not exist or were avoided. Mr. Handerhan currently devotes approximately forty hours per month to Meesha Media Group, LLC, in connection with its tax and other state filing obligations, however as a result of the Company’s inability to compensate Mr. Handerhan at generally accepted market levels and its historic failure to either make payroll or make payroll on a timely basis, Mr. Handerhan may choose to devote a substantial amount of his time to his involvement with other companies which may have a material adverse effect on 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.

If we fail to accurately forecast our expenses and revenues, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations may suffer and the price of our securities may decline.

The rapidly evolving nature of our industry and the constantly evolving nature of our business, make forecasting operating results difficult. We plan to upgrade and further expand the components of our infrastructure. We may experience difficulties with upgrades of our infrastructure, and may incur increased expenses as a result of these difficulties. As a result of these potential expenditures on our infrastructure, our ability to reduce spending may become limited. Therefore, any significant shortfall in the revenues for which we have built and are continuing to build our infrastructure would likely harm our business.

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, 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, 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 Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (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 Securities and Exchange Commission and furnishing audited reports to stockholders 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 control, 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, 2016, management identified a significant deficiency in our disclosure controls and procedures which may lead to a failure to prevent or detect misstatements.

Effective internal control is 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, 2016, 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 2016 and beyond and to make certain activities more time consuming and costly. As a public company, we also expect that these rules and regulations may make it more difficult and expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance 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 thinly traded, 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 either now or 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. If a market further develops, the price may be highly volatile. Because there may be a low price for our shares of common stock, 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 OTCPINK operated by OTC Markets.  This market is not a national securities exchange. While our common stock trading has been relatively active, generally the OTCPINK 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.

Sales by our significant stockholders could have an adverse effect on the market price of our stock.

Several of our stockholders own significant portions of our common stock or preferred stock convertible into common stock, and warrants exercisable for common stock. Although the holders of our Series B Convertible Preferred Stock have each agreed to limit sales of common stock to an aggregate of 20% of the prior day’s trading price until February 6, 2018, these three institutions, as of March 9, 2017, owned approximately 68% of our common stock giving effect to conversion of preferred stock (but excluding exercise of warrants). In addition, they acquired similar securities in our May 27, 2017 financing. If one or more of these stockholders were to sell all or a material number of shares of common stock currently available to be sold and the additional shares of common stock, upon effectiveness of a registration statement we are required to file (or expiration of the six month Rule 144 period), the market price of our common stock could be negatively impacted. These shares plus the shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of preferred stock and on the exercise of warrants creates a circumstance commonly referred to as an “overhang” and in anticipation of which the market price of our common stock could fall. Investors should be aware that they could experience significant short-term volatility in our stock if such stockholders decide to sell all or a portion of their holdings of our common stock at once or within a short period of time. The existence of an overhang, whether or not sales have occurred or are occurring, also could make more difficult our ability to raise additional financing through the sale of equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and price that we deem reasonable or appropriate.

Our articles of incorporation allow for our board to create new series of preferred stock without further approval by our stockholders, 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 stockholder 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 stockholders.

Substantial future sales of our common stock by us or by our existing stockholders could cause our stock price to fall.

Additional equity financings 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 stockholders 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.

You will experience future dilution as a result of future equity offerings.

We plan to offer additional shares of our common stock or other securities convertible into or exchangeable for our common stock. Although no assurances can be given that we will consummate a financing, in the event we do, or in the event we sell shares of common stock or other securities convertible into shares of our common stock in the future, additional and substantial dilution will occur. In addition, investors purchasing shares or other securities in the future could have superior rights.

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.

Use of social media may adversely impact our reputation.

There has been a marked increase in use of social media platforms and similar devices, including weblogs (blogs), social media websites, and other forms of Internet-based communications which allow individual access to a broad audience of consumers and other interested persons. Consumers value readily available information concerning retailers, manufacturers, and their goods and services and often act on such information without further investigation, authentication and without regard to its accuracy. The availability of information on social media platforms and devices is virtually immediate as is its impact. Social media platforms and devices immediately publish the content their subscribers and participants post, often without filters or checks on accuracy of the content posted. The opportunity for dissemination of information, including inaccurate information, is virtually limitless. Information concerning or affecting us may be posted on such platforms and devices at any time. Information posted may be inaccurate and adverse to us, and it may harm our business. The harm may be immediate without affording us an opportunity for redress or correction. Such platforms also could be used for the dissemination of trade secret information or compromise of other valuable company assets, any of which could harm our business.

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 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.

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.

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, that may adversely affect an investment in us.

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 percent 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 percent of the processing power on the Bitcoin Network. To the extent that GHash.io did exceed 50 percent 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 percent of the processing power on the Bitcoin Network. The approach to and possible crossing of the 50 percent 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 percent 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 fifty (50) percent 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 twelve and a half (12.5) bitcoin per block; the reward decreased from twenty-five (25) bitcoin in July 2016. It is estimated that it will halve again in about four (4) 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 fifty (50) percent 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 (10) 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 two 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 transaction 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 (4) 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.

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 June 5, 2017, there were over sever hundred (700) alternate Digital Assets (or altcoins) tracked by CoinMarketCap, having a total market capitalization (including the market capitalization of bitcoin) of approximately $101 billion, using market prices and total available 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 June 5, 2017, bitcoin’s $46 billion market capitalization was almost two (2) times the size of the $24 billion market cap of Ether, the second largest proof-of-work 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 bitcoins.

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. 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 bitcoins, 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. 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 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. Our bitcoins are also stored with exchanges such as Itbit and Coinbase and others prior to selling them.

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 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 bitcoins 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 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 bitcoins or a theft of bitcoins 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 bitcoins. 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 may be subject to loss, damage, theft or restriction on access.

There is a risk that part or all of our bitcoins could be lost, stolen or destroyed. We believe that our bitcoins will be an appealing target to hackers or malware distributors seeking to destroy, damage or steal our bitcoins. Although we primarily utilize Bitgo Inc.’s enterprise multi-signature storage solution, 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 bitcoins 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 for which no person is liable.

The bitcoins 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 held by us are not subject to FDIC or SIPC protections.

We do not hold our bitcoins with a banking institution or a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) or the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) and, therefore, our bitcoins 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 are lost, stolen or destroyed.

If our bitcoins 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 to pay expenses at a time of low bitcoin prices could adversely affect an investment in us.

We may sell bitcoins to pay expenses on an as-needed basis, irrespective of then-current bitcoin prices. Consequently, our bitcoins may be sold at a time when the bitcoin prices on the Bitcoin Exchange Market 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; 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. 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. Additionally, a meritorious intellectual property claim could prevent us from operating and force us to liquidate our bitcoins. 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 bitcoins or the operation of the Bitcoin Network in a manner that adversely affects an investment in us.

Until recently, little or no regulatory attention has been directed toward bitcoin and the Bitcoin Network by U.S. federal and state governments, foreign governments and self-regulatory agencies. As bitcoin has grown in popularity and in market size, the Federal Reserve Board, U.S. Congress and certain U.S. agencies (e.g., the CFTC, FinCEN and the Federal Bureau of Investigation) have begun to examine the operations of the Bitcoin Network, Bitcoin users and the Bitcoin Exchange Market.

Currently, the SEC has not formally asserted regulatory authority over bitcoin, the Bitcoin Network, or bitcoin trading and ownership. Although the SEC has not opined on the legal characterization of bitcoin as a security, it 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. As noted above, the CFTC in the Coinflip order found that the respondents (i) conducted activity related to commodity options transactions without complying with the provisions of the CEA and CFTC regulations, and (ii) operated a facility for the trading of swaps without registering the facility as a SEF or DCM. The Coinflip order was significant as it is the first time the CFTC determined that bitcoin and other virtual currencies are properly defined as commodities under the CEA. Based on this determination, the CFTC applied CEA provisions and CFTC regulations that apply to transactions in commodity options and swaps to the conduct of the bitcoin derivatives trading platform. 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.

Local state regulators such as the NYSDFS have also initiated examinations of bitcoin, the Bitcoin Network and the regulation thereof. In July 2014, the NYSDFS proposed the first US regulatory framework for licensing participants in “virtual currency business activity.” The proposed regulations, known as the “BitLicense,” are intended to focus on consumer protection and, after the closure of an initial comment period that yielded 3,746 formal public comments and a reproposal, the NYSDFS issued its final “BitLicense” regulatory framework 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.

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 registration statement 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. There is a possibility of future regulatory change altering, perhaps to a material extent, the nature of an investment in us or the ability of us to continue our operations.

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. In China, a recent government notice classified bitcoin as legal and “virtual commodities;” however, the same notice restricted the banking and payment industries from using bitcoin, creating uncertainty and limiting the ability of Bitcoin Exchanges to operate in the then-second largest bitcoin market. In January 2016, the People’s Bank of China, China’s central bank, disclosed that it has been studying a state-backed electronic monetary system and potentially had plans for its own state-backed electronic money. In January 2017, the People’s Bank of China announced that it had found several violations, including margin financing and a failure to impose anti-money laundering controls, after on-site inspections of two China-based Bitcoin Exchanges. In response to the Chinese regulator’s oversight, the three largest China-based Bitcoin Exchanges, OKCoin, Huobi, and BTC China, started charging trading commission fees to suppress speculative trading and prevent price swings which resulted in a significant drop in volume on these exchanges. 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. 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. 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. These changes were approved by the Japanese Diet in May 2016 and are expected to be effective beginning in 2017. 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.

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 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 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 to exchange bitcoins for fiat 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 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 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 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 are treated for classification and clearing purposes. In particular, bitcoin derivatives 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 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 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. 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 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. In particular, bitcoins may not be excluded from the definition of “security” by SEC rulemaking or interpretation. As of the date of this Annual Report, we are not aware of any rules or interpretations that have been proposed to regulate bitcoins as securities. We cannot be certain as to how future regulatory developments will impact the treatment of bitcoins 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 bitcoins are deemed to fall within the definition of a security pursuant to subsequent rulemaking by the SEC, 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. 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 may adversely affect an investment in us.

If federal or state legislatures or agencies initiate or release tax determinations that change the classification of bitcoins as property for tax purposes (in the context of when such bitcoins 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 Transaction Verification Business

The loss or destruction of a private key required to access a bitcoin may be irreversible. Our loss of access to our private keys or our experience of a data loss relating to our Company’s bitcoins 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.

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.

ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

We are a smaller reporting company as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and are not required to provide the information under this item.

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

None

ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

None

ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

(a) Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures.

We maintain disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in our Securities and Exchange Commission Act of 1934 reports is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, as appropriate, to allow for timely decisions regarding required disclosure. In designing and evaluating the disclosure controls and procedures, management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives, and management is required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures. As required by Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e), we carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on the foregoing, management concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not operating effectively as of December 31, 2016. Our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective because of the “material weakness” described below.

(b) Management’s annual report on internal control over financial reporting.

SEC rules implementing Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 require our 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K to contain management’s report regarding the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. As a basis for our report, we tested and evaluated the design, documentation, and operating effectiveness of our internal control.

Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act, of BTCS Inc. and its subsidiaries. The Company’s internal control over financial reporting consists of policies and procedures that are designed and operated to provide reasonable assurance about the reliability of the Company’s financial reporting and its process for preparing financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). There are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of any system of internal control, including the possibility of human error and the circumvention or overriding of controls. Accordingly, even effective internal controls can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation. Further, because of changes in conditions, the effectiveness of internal control may vary over time.

Based on management’s evaluation as of December 31, 2016, our management identified the material weaknesses set forth below in our internal control over financial reporting:

The Company’s process for internally reporting material information in a systematic manner to allow for timely filing of material information is ineffective, due to its inherent limitations from being a small company, and there exist material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting that contribute to the weaknesses in our disclosure controls and procedures. These weaknesses include:

Our management concluded that in light of the material weaknesses described above, our company did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016 based on the criteria set forth in Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the COSO.

This report on Form 10-K does not include an attestation report of the Company’s independent public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report was not subject to attestation by the Company’s independent public accounting firm pursuant to permanent rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission that permit the Company to provide only management’s report in this Transition Report on Form 10-K.

CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the fourth quarter of the year ended December 31, 2016 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION

As of December 31, 2016, the Company was in default on its Senior Notes and Junior Notes. On March 9, 2017, the Company completed a securities exchange offer (the “Note Offer”) with its three convertible note holders (the “Note Holders”). Pursuant to the Note Offer the Note Holders agreed to exchange i) $868,897 of 5% Original Issue Discount 10% Senior Convertible Note Due September 16, 2016, originally issued in December 2015 and all accrued interest and liquidated damages owed (collectively the “Senior Notes”), ii) $175,000 of 20% Original Issue Discount Junior Convertible Notes Due December 5, 2016, originally issued in June 2016 and all accrued interest and liquidated damages owed (collectively the “Junior Notes”), iii) $220,002 of 8% Convertible Notes Due June 6, 2017, originally issued in December 2016 and all accrued interest owed (collectively the “Convertible Notes”), and iv) 97,423,579 warrants (the “Senior Warrants”) for 845,631 shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Preferred”). After giving effect to the Note Offer the Company no longer has any Senior Notes, Junior Notes or Convertible Notes outstanding.

PART III

All per share amounts and outstanding shares, including stock options, restricted stocks and warrants, have been retroactively adjusted for all periods on a post-Reverse Stock Split basis below. Further, exercise prices of stock options and warrants have been retroactively adjusted in these consolidated financial statements for all periods presented to reflect the 1-for-60 Reverse Stock Split. Numbers of shares of the Company’s preferred stock were not affected by the Reverse Stock Split; however, the conversion ratios have been adjusted to reflect the Reverse Stock Split.

ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

The following table presents information with respect to our officers and directors as of the date of this report:

Each director serves until our next annual meeting of the stockholders or unless they resign earlier. The Board of Directors elects officers and their terms of office are at the discretion of the Board of Directors.

Background of Officers and Directors

The following is a brief account of the education and business experience during at least the past five years of our officers and directors, indicating the person’s principal occupation during that period, and the name and principal business of the organization in which such occupation and employment were carried out.

Charles W. Allen, age 41, has served as our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer since February 5, 2014 and as our Chairman of the Board since September 11, 2014. Mr. Allen is responsible for our overall corporate strategy and direction as well as managing our corporate finances. Mr. Allen is also on the advisory board of GoCoin LLC, a leading Digital Asset payment processor. Mr. Allen has extensive experience in business strategy and structuring and executing a variety of investment banking and capital markets transactions, including financings, IPO’s and mergers and acquisitions. From February, 2012 through January, 2014 Mr. Allen was a Managing Director at RK Equity Capital Markets LLC (“RK”) and focused on natural resources investment banking and added to RK’s capital markets efforts. In August, 2012 Mr. Allen co-founded RK Equity Investment Corp. (“RKEIC”) and served as a member of its board from inception through September 7, 2014. RKEIC is an investment company established to co-invest in mining projects with JDS Energy and Mining Inc. Current RKEIC investments include Craigmont Industries Ltd., a coal washing magnetite and iron ore producer. Mr. Allen founded Allen Consulting LLC in January, 2010 and currently serves as its president. Allen Consulting LLC provided financial and strategic consulting services to financial advisory firms, investment banks and corporate clients from its inception through January 2014. Currently, Allen Consulting LLC is a dormant entity and has no operations. In January, 2012 Mr. Allen co-founded ZA Investments LLC (“ZA”) and played an integral part in the evaluation of their investment opportunities and oversaw our investment in ADI Logistics, Corp. From January, 2012 through April, 2013 Mr. Allen served as board member of ADI Logistics, Corp. (“ADI”) a third party logistics company and advised, governed, and oversaw policy and direction, including expansion into west coast operations, as well as providing financial oversight. ZA was dissolved in December, 2013 following the successful exit from our investment in ADI. From March, 2010 through June, 2012 Mr. Allen was the chief financial officer, secretary and a director of Pantheon China Acquisition Corp. II (“PCACII”) and Pantheon China Acquisition Corp. III (“PCACIII”). PCACII and PCACIII were public special purpose acquisition vehicles created by Mr. Allen and affiliates of Pantheon China Acquisition LTD to provide a means for small and medium size companies to access the U.S. capital markets. Pantheon China Acquisition LTD is a financial advisor and investment bank focused on the unique needs of foreign small to medium enterprises. From October, 2009 through May, 2012 Mr. Allen was a Managing Director at TriPoint Global Equities, LLC (“TriPoint”), a boutique investment bank focused on helping small cap companies access the capital markets. Prior to joining TriPoint, Mr. Allen was a Managing Director at Broadband Capital Management LLC (“Broadband”), where he also advised small and mid-cap companies concerning capital markets transactions. Mr. Allen worked at Broadband from March, 2006 to October, 2009. In 2005, Mr. Allen worked as an Associate for the Akul Group, an equity hedge fund and provided fundamental research coverage, investment strategies and risk management analysis. Mr. Allen began his career as a field engineer for Emcore Corporation, where he assisted customers in connection with their compound semiconductor manufacturing capabilities, and as a senior manufacturing engineer for Agility Communications, where he focused on the manufacture and development of tunable lasers for fiber optic communications. Mr. Allen received a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Lehigh University and a M.B.A. from the Mason School of Business at the College of William & Mary. The Board concludes that Mr. Allen’s background and leadership experiences in the industry qualify him to serve on the Board.

Michal Handerhan, age 40, has served as our Chief Operating Officer since February 5, 2014 and was appointed as our Secretary on March 11, 2014. Mr. Handerhan served as our Chairman of the Board from February 5, 2014 to September 11, 2014 and was a co-founder of BitcoinShop. Mr. Handerhan supports both our business and development strategy across the management team. From February, 2011 through February, 2014 Mr. Handerhan served as an independent IT and web services consultant to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”). From October, 2005 until February, 2014 Mr. Handerhan was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Meesha Media Group, LLC which provided high-definition video production services, Web 2.0 development, database management, and social media solutions. From March, 2002 through October, 2006 Mr. Handerhan served as a team leader for NASA in their Peer Review Services group. Prior to working at NASA’s Peer Review Services group Mr. Handerhan served as the web developer for Folio Investments. Mr. Handerhan received a B.S. in Computer Science from Czech Technical University. The Board concludes that Mr. Handerhan’s extensive experiences in IT qualify him to serve on the Board.

BOARD LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE AND ROLE IN RISK OVERSIGHT

Our Board of Directors is primarily responsible for overseeing our risk management processes. The Board of Directors receives and reviews periodic reports from management, auditors, legal counsel, and others, as considered appropriate regarding the Company’s assessment of risks. The Board of Directors focuses on the most significant risks facing us and our general risk management strategy, and also ensures that risks undertaken by us are consistent with the Board of Directors’ appetite for risk. While the Board of Directors oversees the Company, our management is responsible for day-to-day risk management processes. We believe this division of responsibilities is the most effective approach for addressing the risks facing the Company and that our board leadership structure supports this approach. With the absence of any independent directors, the roles of our management and directors are not clearly delineated.

CODE OF ETHICS

We have not yet adopted a code of ethics that applies to our principal executive officers, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions, since we have been focusing our efforts on growing our business and obtaining financing for our Company. We expect to adopt a code as we further develop our business.

FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS

There are no family relationships between any of our directors, executive officers or directors.

COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Due to our size, we have not formally designated a nominating committee, an audit committee, a compensation committee, or committees performing similar functions.

The Board currently acts as our audit committee. Since we are still a developing company, the Board of Directors is still in the process of finding an “audit committee financial expert” as defined in Regulation S-K.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION

None of our executive officers serves as a member of the Board of Directors or compensation committee of any other entity that has one or more of its executive officers serving as a member of our Board of Directors.

INVOLVEMENT IN CERTAIN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

During the past ten years, none of our officers, directors, promoters or control persons has been involved in any legal proceedings as described in Item 401(f) of Regulation S-K.

SECTION 16(A) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our directors, executive officers, and persons who own more than 10% of our common stock to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership of our common stock with the SEC. Based on the information available to us during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, we believe that all applicable Section 16(a) filing requirements were met on a timely basis.

ITEM 11: EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

The following summary compensation table sets forth information concerning compensation for services rendered in all capacities during the fiscal years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 awarded to, earned by or paid to our executive officers. The numbers in the summary compensation table represent the actual amount of compensation accrued under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The footnotes represent cash actually paid.

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

Employment Agreements with Executive Officers

To achieve our compensation objective of retaining and motivating qualified executives, we believe that we need to provide our executive officers with severance and change of control protections that are competitive with the protections offered by other companies. Offering our executive officers these payments and benefits facilitates the operation of our business, allows them to better focus their time, attention and capabilities on our business, provides for a clear and consistent approach to managing involuntary departures with mutually understood separation benefits, and aligns with market practice.

Charles W. Allen

On July 2, 2015, we entered into an Option Cancellation and Release Agreement with Charles Allen pursuant to which Mr. Allen voluntarily agreed to return to us for cancellation, an eight year non-qualified stock option under the Company’s 2014 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) to purchase up to an aggregate of 158,334 shares of the Company’s common stock with a per share exercise price of $6.00, held by him.

On June 22, 2017, we entered into an employment agreement with Charles Allen (the “Allen Employment Agreement”), whereby Mr. Allen agreed to serve as our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer for a period of two (2) years, subject to renewal, in consideration for an annual salary of $245,000. Additionally, under the terms of the Allen Employment Agreement, Mr. Allen shall be eligible for an annual bonus if we meet certain criteria, as established by the Board of Directors. Mr. Allen shall be entitled to participate in all benefits plans we provide to our senior executive. We shall reimburse Mr. Allen for all reasonable expenses incurred in the course of his employment. The Company shall pay the Executive $500 per month to cover telephone and internet expenses. If the Company does not provide office space to the Executive the Company will pay the Executive an additional $500 per month to cover expenses in connection with their office space needs. 

Michal Handerhan

On July 2, 2015, we entered into an Option Cancellation and Release Agreement with Michal Handerhan pursuant to which Mr. Handerhan voluntarily agreed to return to us for cancellation, an eight year non-qualified stock option under the Plan to purchase up to an aggregate of 49,167 shares of the Company’s common stock with a per share exercise price of $6.00, held by him.

On June 22, 2017, we entered into an employment agreement with Michal Handerhan (the “Handerhan Employment Agreement”), whereby Mr. Handerhan agreed to serve as our Chief Operating Officer and Secretary for a period of two (2) years, subject to renewal, in consideration for an annual salary of $190,000. Additionally, under the terms of the Handerhan Employment Agreement, Mr. Handerhan shall be eligible for an annual bonus if we meet certain criteria, as established by the Board of Directors. Mr. Handerhan shall be entitled to participate in all benefits plans we provide to our senior executive. We shall reimburse Mr. Handerhan for all reasonable expenses incurred in the course of his employment. The Company shall pay the Executive $500 per month to cover telephone and internet expenses. If the Company does not provide office space to the Executive the Company will pay the Executive an additional $500 per month to cover expenses in connection with their office space needs. 

The terms of the Allen Employment Agreement and Handerhan Employment Agreement (collectively the “Employment Agreements”) provide each of Messrs. Allen and Handerhan (the “Executives”) certain, severance and change of control benefits if the Executive resigns from the Company for good reason or the Company terminates him other than for cause. In such circumstances, the Executive would be entitled to a lump sum payment equal to (i) the Executive’s then-current base salary, and (ii) payment on a pro-rated basis of any bonus or other payments earned in connection with any bonus plan to which the Executive was a participant. In addition, the severance benefit for the Executives the employment agreements include the Company continuing to pay for medical and life insurance coverage for up to one year following termination. If, within eighteen months following a change of control (as defined below), the Executive’s employment is terminated by the Company without cause or he resigns from the Company for good reason, the Executive will receive certain severance compensation. In such circumstances, the cash benefit to the Executive will be a lump sum payment equal to two times (i) his then-current base salary and (ii) his prior year cash bonus and incentive compensation. Upon the occurrence of a change of control, irrespective of whether his employment with the Company terminates, each Executive’s stock options and equity-based awards will immediately vest.

A “change of control” for purposes of the Employment Agreements means any of the following: (i) the sale or partial sale of the Corporation to an un-affiliated person or entity or group of un-affiliated persons or entities pursuant to which such party or parties acquire shares of capital stock of the Corporation representing at least twenty five (25%) of the fully diluted capital stock (including warrants, convertible notes, and preferred stock on an as converted basis) of the Corporation; (ii) the sale of the Corporation to an un-affiliated person or entity or group of such persons or entities pursuant to which such party or parties acquire all or substantially all of the Corporation’s assets determined on a consolidated basis, or (iii) Incumbent Directors (Mr. Allen and Mr. Handerhan) cease for any reason, including, without limitation, as a result of a tender offer, proxy contest, merger or similar transaction, to constitute at least a majority of the board of directors of the Company.

Additionally, pursuant to the terms of the Employment Agreements, we have agreed to execute and deliver in favor of the Executives an indemnification agreement and to maintain directors’ and officers’ insurance with terms and in the amount of $2,000,000.

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR-END TABLE  

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End December 31, 2016

ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

The following table sets forth certain information regarding beneficial ownership of our common stock as of June 8, 2017: (i) by each of our directors, (ii) by each of the Named Executive Officers, (iii) by all of our executive officers and directors as a group, and (iv) by each person or entity known by us to beneficially own more than five percent (5%) of any class of our outstanding shares.

ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

Review of Related Person Transactions

We do not have a formal written policy for the review and approval of transactions with related parties. Our Board of Directors is responsible for reviewing and approving or ratifying related-persons transactions.

Related Person Transactions

On March 31, 2017, the Company entered into salary settlement agreements (the “Settlement Agreements”) with each of Charles Allen and Michal Handerhan pursuant to which each agreed to exchange $2,500 in accrued and unpaid salaries for 87,936 shares of series seed preferred stock in BitVault, Inc. and 13,963 common shares in GCZ, Inc. (collectively the “Settlement Shares”). In fiscal year 2014 the Company had written the Settlement Shares off as unrecoverable.

DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

Our common stock is quoted on the OTCPINK quotation system, which does not have director independence requirements. Using the definition of independence set forth in the rules of the NASDAQ Stock Market, neither of our directors would be considered an independent director.

ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES

During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 we engaged RBSM and Marcum LLP, respectively as our independent auditor. For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we incurred fees as discussed below:

Audit fees consist of fees related to professional services rendered in connection with the audit of our annual financial statements and reviews, of the quarterly financial statements.

Our policy is to pre-approve all audit and permissible non-audit services performed by the independent accountants. These services may include audit services, audit-related services, tax services and other services. Under our policy, pre-approval is generally provided for particular services or categories of services, including planned services, project based services and routine consultations. In addition, the Board of Directors may also pre-approve particular services on a case-by-case basis. Our Board of Directors approved all services that our independent accountants provided to us in the past two fiscal years.

PART IV

ITEM 15. EXHIBITS