BTCS Inc. - Annual Report: 2018 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018

or

[  ] TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

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 every Interactive Data File required to be submitted 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 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 Form 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. [  ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes [  ] No [X]

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, 2018 the aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the closing sales price of Common Stock of $0.0575 on June 30, 2018 was approximately $21,160,958. As of January 31, 2019, the registrant had 387,281,530 shares of Common Stock outstanding.

BTCS INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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.

“Digital Security” - A type of Digital Asset that is offered by a promoter as an investment contract, which is a type of security defined by Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act.

“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.

“Warrants” refers to the Series A Warrants, Additional Warrants, Bonus Warrants, Series B Warrants, and Series C Warrants.

“1940 Act” - The Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended.

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. To our knowledge, we are one of a few public companies intending to acquire both Digital Assets and a controlling interest in one or more businesses in the Digital Asset and blockchain industries.

OUR BUSINESS

Subject to additional financing, the Company plans to acquire additional Digital Assets to provide investors with indirect ownership of Digital Assets that are not securities, such as bitcoin and ether. The Company intends to acquire Digital Assets through open market purchases. 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 are not limiting our assets to a single type of Digital Asset and may purchase a variety of Digital Assets that appear to benefit our investors, subject to the limitations contained within this report regarding Digital Securities. The Company is also seeking to acquire controlling interests in businesses in the blockchain industry as further described in this report.

The Company has not participated in any initial coin offerings as it believes most of the offerings entail the offering of Digital Securities and require registration under the Securities Act and under state securities laws or can only be sold to accredited investors in the United States. Since about July 2017, initial coin offerings using Digital Securities have been (or should be) limited to accredited investors. Because we cannot qualify as an accredited investor, we do not intend to acquire coins in initial coin offerings or from purchasers in such offerings. Further, the Company does not intend to participate in registered or unregistered initial coin offerings. The Company will carefully review its purchases of Digital Securities to avoid violating the 1940 Act and seek to reduce potential liabilities under the federal securities laws. See “Risk Factors” at page 16 and “Business” at pages 3-16.

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 be 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 including acquiring controlling interests in business in this rapidly evolving sector in an effort to enhance shareholder value.

Even though the prices of Digital Assets have fallen substantially and there remains some regulatory uncertainty, we believe that businesses using blockchain technology and those involved with Digital Assets such as bitcoin and ether, offer upside opportunity and are the types of opportunities that we may pursue.

Our current framework or criteria is to seek and evaluate acquisition targets in the blockchain and Digital Asset sector which (i) align with our business model of acquiring Digital Assets or acquiring a controlling interest in one or more blockchain technology related business ventures, and (ii) have sufficient capital to provide working capital and cover public company expenses. As disclosed in this report we have limited cash, and accordingly as a critical framework element are seeking acquisition targets with sufficient capital which may help us sustain our operations without having us rely on toxic funding structures. Our acquisition activities are spearheaded by Charles Allen, our Chief Executive Officer who regularly communicates with Mr. David Garrity, one of our independent directors who is also seeking acquisition targets.

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. However, given the current network difficulties and price levels to mine both ethereum and bitcoin we do not believe mining offers a positive return on investment at present. We plan to monitor the blockchain networks and subject to additional funding re-enter the mining business when we believe a positive return on investment is achievable. 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. If we resume our mining operations, we do not intend to actively trade the Digital Assets but rather hold them for our own account and sell them for U.S. dollars or other currencies including virtual currencies.

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. A party which is successful in adding a block to the blockchain, is awarded a fixed number of Digital Assets for our effort.

Going Concern

Because of recurring operating losses, net operating cash flow deficits, and an accumulated deficit, our independent auditors have indicated in their report on our December 31, 2018 financial statements that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

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 (Digital Asset Mining) & Creation of New Digital Assets

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 2017.

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., Canaan Creative, Halong Mining, 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 October 11, 2018, transaction fees accounted for approximately 0.92 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. According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, much of the world’s bitcoin mining occurs in China; it is unclear whether the Chinese crackdown on Digital Assets will impact mining activities or whether if it does, what the adverse effects will be.

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 January 24, 2019, the largest three mining pools were, an unknown pool, BTC.TOP, and BTC, which, when aggregated, represented approximately 53 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 January 24, 2019, based on the information we collected from our network access 17.5 million 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. For disclosure on the accounting of Digital Assets, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” at page 18.

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 October 11, 2018, no single pool controlled more than twenty four 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, 2018-2019

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 January 29, 2019, as reported by blockchain.com:

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 January 24, 2019. Over 2,100 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. The Company is examining and will continue to examine these other Digital Assets including Digital Securities and acquire them, subject to financing, existing market conditions and regulatory compliance.

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. Recent actions taken by the SEC in its DAO Report that certain Digital Assets may be securities and actions taken by the CFTC including its July 24, 2017 order approving the first derivative clearing organization for digital currency swaps reflects that we may face increased government regulation and oversight. As stated earlier in this report, the SEC’s July 25, 2017 DAO Report, its Chairman’s recent remarks and concerns about the “Wild West” nature of the Digital Assets market and reports that its staff is issuing subpoenas will adversely affect the Company’s future acquisition of Digital Assets by limiting the amount of Digital Securities it may acquire and creating increased compliance and legal costs. In the future before we acquire Digital Assets, we may be required to examine how they were originally offered to determine if they were offered as an investment contract or security. Because of legal uncertainties, careful examination of the results of our compliance review will be required by experienced securities counsel. Because we must stay under the Investment Company’s 40% provisions, we will limit the amount of Digital Securities we acquire and establish procedures designed to protect us from rapid fluctuations in value of our Digital Assets portfolio. If our compliance procedures and legal reviews prove to be incorrect, we may incur the likelihood of prohibitive SEC penalties and/or private lawsuit defense costs and adverse rulings.

Following the issuance of the DAO Report, promoters sought to evade it by callings coins “utility tokens” even where the developer retained material future services that affected the profitability and future value of the coins. The SEC quickly stopped one such initial coin offering, which clearly was intended to send a message.

The Company does not currently own any virtual currencies, however, subject to additional funding intents to acquire virtual currencies. The Company has previously owned bitcoin, ether and other virtual currencies and may acquire them in the future. In order to avoid being an inadvertent investment company within the meaning of the 1940 Act, we actively focus on insuring that our ownership of assets that are not securities will always exceed 60% of our total assets excluding cash. See “Risk Factors” at page 16 and “Business at page 3. The ownership of Digital Assets including digital securities may change based on the definition of a security under the Securities Act and applicable court decisions. The key definition is the term “investment contract” and what is an investment contract. In 1946 the U.S. Supreme Court held that an investment in an orange grove operated and controlled by a third party was an investment contract and therefore a security subject to various provisions of the federal securities laws.

In the future if we acquire Digital Assets that may be a security we will analyze whether our ownership of the Digital Assets are securities under the investment contract analysis from the leading case and the lower court cases which have followed it. The test for determining if an asset is an investment contract based upon whether there was: (i) an investment of money, (ii) in a common enterprise, (iii) with the expectation of profits, (iv) primarily through the efforts of others.

Bitcoin

The Company previously owned Bitcoin but does not currently own Bitcoin but may own Bitcoin in the future and has therefor included the following analysis of Bitcoin.

Regardless of how one obtains bitcoin it requires an investment of money (whether it be U.S. dollars, other currency, or virtual currency) or mining. When a holder acquires bitcoin, the holder pays for the bitcoin with some form of currency, thus bitcoin satisfies this prong of the test.

Courts have focused on three distinct types of common enterprise: (i) horizontal commonality; (ii) broad vertical commonality; and (iii) strict vertical commonality. The horizontal commonality test requires a pooling of investors and profit sharing.

The holders of bitcoin do not pool their assets in a common entity or make payments to one common enterprise. Bitcoin is, by its design, decentralized and has no common entity controlling it. Mining, buying, and selling of bitcoin are all decentralized exchanges which do not feature the holders sharing in risks. Similarly, sellers of bitcoin do not share profits or risks with the purchasers and each purchaser keeps his or her own profits. Bitcoin holders who see their holdings as an investment are viewing bitcoin as an appreciating asset not as a common enterprise. Thus, bitcoin does not satisfy the test for horizontal commonality.

With broad vertical commonality, the key is an investors’ dependence on the efforts and expertise of the promoter or in the case of virtual currencies based on blockchain, the developer. There is no central promoter or common seller for bitcoin. Further, an individual seller of bitcoin would not constitute a promoter. A court has concluded that when the seller is no longer involved with the business there is no common enterprise. The lack of continuing management by the promoter or developer is similar to the land development cases where the courts have concluded that initial development services do not lead to the conclusion that the sale of a real estate parcel is a security. Thus, bitcoin does not satisfy the test for broad vertical commonality.

Strict vertical commonality differs from broad vertical commonality by requiring that the fortunes of the investors be tied to the efforts of the promoter or third parties; pooling is not an element. Because sellers of bitcoin do not provide further services or share in future price increases, bitcoin does not satisfy the test for strict vertical commonality.

The speculative fever surrounding bitcoin means that buyers of it often expect profits arising from value of the appreciation of bitcoin just as has historically happened with gold and silver. While some holders may acquire bitcoin exclusively for the purpose of transacting sales (similar to a currency), many holders acquire bitcoin in order to sell it at a later date when the value has appreciated or depreciated.

The Supreme Court’s use of “solely” has been interpreted by an appellate court to mean “the efforts made by those other than the investor are the undeniably significant ones, those essential managerial efforts which affect the failure or success of the enterprise.” However, the effort to create profit need not come exclusively from the efforts of others so long as the efforts of others are significant and primary. Bitcoin’s expectation of profits arise not from any efforts of others but from mere hoped for appreciation of value. This is similar to commodities such as gold or diamonds. As such, bitcoin does not satisfy this prong of the Supreme Court’s test.

As a result of failing to meet the prongs of the test for common enterprise and the efforts of others, we believe that bitcoin does not constitute an investment contract and is not a security.

Ether

The Company previously owned Ether but does not currently own Ether but may own Ether in the future and has therefor included the following analysis of Ether.

As mentioned in the SEC’s DAO Report, ether is a virtual currency originally created by the Ethereum Foundation that permits the development by third parties of digitalized contracts on a decentralized blockchain platform called the Ethereum Blockchain. The DAO Report refers to ether as a “virtual currency” which was used to purchase DAO tokens. The DAO Report could have but did not concluded that ether is or may be a security. In the DAO Report the Commission concluded that the DAO tokens under discussion were securities. As a virtual currency like bitcoin, the Company does not believe that ether is a security. Our counsel has advised us that while it is clear that bitcoin is not a security and more likely than not that ether is not a security, there is a risk that the SEC or a court may conclude otherwise. This is a factor that we must consider in evaluating whether we have become or may become an investment company since it will never be practical for us to register under the 1940 Act. However, due to cost considerations our counsel has not completed a full analysis as to whether or not ether is a security. Its view is that when ether was initially developed it may have been an investment contract which is one part of the statutory definition of a security. Nonetheless, while not settled, our counsel believes that while not free from doubt, it appears that ether presently is a virtual currency and not an investment contract or security. Since bitcoin constitutes approximately 70% of our eligible assets and we monitor this valuation on a daily basis, we do not believe it is in our shareholders’ interests or necessary for the protection of investors to get a more definitive opinion on ether.

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.

Prior to concluding that digital assets may be securities, the SEC 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. In 2017 the CFTC stated that it would consider bitcoin and other virtual currencies as commodities or derivatives depending on the facts of the offering. The CME Group announced that it will permit trading of bitcoin futures on its exchanges as early as December 2017.

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. 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 July 20-17, Delaware amended its General Corporation Law to provide for the creation maintenance of certain required records by blockchain technology and permit its use for electronic transmission of stockholder communications. 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 report 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.

The Wall Street Journal reported in September 2017 that China has decided to ban Digital Asset Exchanges which has had the immediate effect of reducing the price of bitcoin. Earlier 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. 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. 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. On September 4, 2017, reports were published that China may begin prohibiting the practice of using cryptocurrency for capital fundraising. Additional reports have surfaced that China is considering regulating Bitcoin Exchanges by enacting a licensing regime wherein Bitcoin Exchanges may legally operate.

In 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. In October 2017, Russia issued several releases indicating they may begin regulating bitcoin and licensing miners and entities engaging in initial coin offerings.

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, some countries 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. In 2017 Switzerland gave a swiss bank approval to manage assets based on bitcoin and other Digital Assets. 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. On August 24, 2017, Canada issued guidance stating the sale of cryptocurrency may constitute the sale of investment contract in accordance with Canadian law for determining if an investment constitutes a security.

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. In September 2017, Japan began regulating Bitcoin Exchanges and registered several such exchanges to operate within Japan.

In September 2017, the Financial Services Commission in South Korea released a statement that initial coin offerings would be prohibited as a fundraising tool. In January 2018, the South Korean Justice Minister issued remarks about banning bitcoin and other Digital Assets, although the President’s office clarified that no final decision has been made.

In June 2017, India’s government ruled in favor of regulating bitcoin and India’s ministry of Finance is currently developing rules for such regulation.

In February 2018, the Ontario Securities Commission recently approved a Blockchain exchange-traded fund for launch on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Australia has previously introduced legislation to regulate Bitcoin Exchanges and increase anti-money laundering policies.

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. Companies have raised substantial capital this year seeking to enter the Digital Assets business. Our lack of capital is a competitive disadvantage.

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 resume 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 (other than its cash balance) is its human capital specifically Mr. Allen and Mr. Handerhan, who have extensive market knowledge and long-standing business relationships within the industry. Our 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. However, given the current network difficulties and price levels to mine both ethereum and bitcoin we do not believe mining offers a positive return on investment at present. We plan to monitor the blockchain networks and subject to additional funding re-enter the mining business when we believe a positive return on investment is achievable. 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 two employees.

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

During the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, 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 $1,000 per month to cover out of pocket expenses associated with phone, internet and office space.

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 OTCQB and has been quoted under the symbol “BTCS”. Because we are quoted on the OTCQB, 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 by OTC Markets Group Inc., 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 January 24, 2019, there were 137 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, 2018, 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, 2018.

EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION

RECENT SALES OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES

The sales of unregistered securities of our Company during the year ended December 31, 2018 are summarized below:

On January 1, 2018, the Company issued 5,175,400 shares of Common Stock upon the conversion of 25,877 shares of Series B Convertible Preferred stock.

During April 2018 the Company issued 4,118,000 shares of Common Stock upon the conversion of 20,590 shares of Series C-1 Convertible Preferred stock.

On July 23, 2018, the Company issued 268,817 shares of Common Stock for the cashless exercise of 555,556 warrants.

On October 11, 2018 the Company issued four investors each 13,750,000 Series C Warrants or 55,000,000 warrants in aggregate. The Series C Warrants are exercisable at $1.00 per share, over a four-year period, are exercisable for cash only, and are callable by the Company at any time for nominal consideration.

On October 25, 2018 the Company and each of the four investors who hold the Series C Warrants agreed to cancel the Series C Warrants for no consideration. Accordingly, the Series C Warrants are not outstanding.

Over the course of November 13, 2018 through November 16, 2018, the Company issued 2,850,000 shares of Common Stock for the cash exercise of Series A Warrants resulting in aggregate proceeds of $57,000 to the Company.

On December 18, 2018, the Company issued a $200,000 promissory note to one institutional investor (the “Promissory Note”). The Promissory Note is due on September 18, 2019 and bears interest at a rate of 12%. In the event of default the Promissory Note bears interest at a rate of 20%.

The sales of unregistered securities of our Company subsequent to the year ended December 31, 2018 are summarized below:

Over the course of January 9, 2019 through January 31, 2019, the Company issued 11,825,544 shares of Common Stock for the cash exercise of Series A Warrants, Additional Warrants  and Bonus Warrants resulting in aggregate proceeds of $148,843 to the Company.

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

Subject to additional financing, the Company plans to acquire additional Digital Assets to provide investors with indirect ownership of Digital Assets that are not securities, such as bitcoin and ether. The Company is also seeking to acquire a controlling interest in one or more companies in the blockchain industry. The Company intends to acquire Digital Assets through open market purchases. The Company has not participated in any initial coin offerings as it believes most of the offerings entail the offering of Digital Securities and require registration under the Securities Act and under state securities laws. Since about July 2017, initial coin offerings using Digital Securities have been (or should be) limited to accredited investors. Because we cannot qualify as an accredited investor, we do not intend to acquire coins in initial coin offerings or from purchasers in such offerings. Further, the Company does not intend to participate in registered or unregistered 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. The Company will carefully review its purchases of Digital Securities to avoid violating the 1940 Act and seek to reduce potential liabilities under the federal securities laws. 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, 2018 AND 2017

Revenues

Revenues for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 were approximately $0 and $4,000, respectively. Revenues represent net revenue earned from the processing of customer transactions through our ecommerce website.

Cost of revenues

Cost of revenues for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 were approximately $0 and $160, respectively.

Operating expenses

Operating expenses for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 were approximately $1.0 million and $1.6 million. The decrease in the operating was primarily attributed to approximately $0.6 million decrease in general and administrative expenses, which includes $0.4 million decrease in stock-based compensation expenses and $78,000 decrease in bonuses.

Other Expenses

Other income (expenses) for the years ended 2018 and 2017 was approximately $0.2 million and $43.9 million, respectively. The decrease in other expenses over the prior year primarily relates to decreases in fair value adjustments for warrant liabilities of $39.2 million, fair value adjustments for convertible notes of $16.8 million and loss on issuance of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock of $2.8 million, and is offset by an increase in gain on extinguishment of debt of $15.9 million, all of which are non-cash expenses.

Net loss attributable to common stockholders

We incurred a $5,600 of deemed dividend related to reduction of warrant strike price during the year ended December 31, 2018.

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

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.

We have been unable to raise capital which has no toxic features. By toxic we mean, among other things, providing anti-dilution protection to new investors upon future sales or issuances of common stock. The Company expects to incur losses into the foreseeable future as it undertakes its efforts to execute its business plans.

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:

Liquidity

As of January 31, 2019, the Company had approximately $91,850 of cash and no Digital Assets. The Company has not participated in any initial coin offering due to the fact that many, if not all, initial coin offerings constitute a Digital Security and because of the SEC’s intense focus on legal compliance in this area. Because of the rules under the Securities Act, we are ineligible to participate in an initial coin offering if it is for Digital Securities. Accordingly, we recently elected to not participate in initial coin offerings in the future.

We do not have sufficient capital to meet our expenses over the 12 months from the date of this report. Our current cash is not sufficient to sustain operations. We will require significant additional capital to sustain short-term operations and make the investments needed to execute our longer-term business plan. 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 condensed 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:

Accounting Treatment of Digital Assets

Digital Assets are included in current assets in the consolidated balance sheets. Digital Assets are recorded at cost less impairment.

An intangible asset with an indefinite useful life is not amortized but assessed for impairment annually, or more frequently, when events or changes in circumstances occur indicating that it is more likely than not that the indefinite-lived asset is impaired. Impairment exists when the carrying amount exceeds its fair value. In testing for impairment, the Company has the option to first perform a qualitative assessment to determine whether it is more likely than not that an impairment exists. If it is determined that it is not more likely than not that an impairment exists, a quantitative impairment test is not necessary. If the Company concludes otherwise, it is required to perform a quantitative impairment test. To the extent an impairment loss is recognized, the loss establishes the new cost basis of the asset that is amortized over the remaining useful life of that asset, if any. Subsequent reversal of impairment losses is not permitted.

Realized gain (loss) on sale of Digital Assets are included in other income (expense) in the consolidated statements of operations.

The Company assesses impairment of Digital Assets quarterly if the fair value of digital assets is less than its cost basis. The Company recognizes impairment losses on Digital Assets caused by decreases in fair value using the average U.S. dollar spot price of the related Digital Asset as of each impairment date. Such impairment in the value of Digital Assets is recorded as a component of costs and expenses in our consolidated statements of operations. There were no impairment losses related to Digital Assets during the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017.

GOING CONCERN AND MANAGEMENT PLANS

The audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2018, 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 approximately $0 and $4,000 in revenues during the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively, 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, 2018, we have an accumulated deficit of $115.3 million 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 ether 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. 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. The Company does not intend to acquire Digital Securities in quantities which would cause it to be deemed an investment company in violation of the 1940 Act. There is a risk that we may inadvertently become an investment company. See “Risk Factors” at page 16.

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, 2018, 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:

Accounting Treatment of Digital Assets

Digital Assets are included in current assets in the consolidated balance sheets. Digital Assets are recorded at cost less impairment.

An intangible asset with an indefinite useful life is not amortized but assessed for impairment annually, or more frequently, when events or changes in circumstances occur indicating that it is more likely than not that the indefinite-lived asset is impaired. Impairment exists when the carrying amount exceeds its fair value. In testing for impairment, the Company has the option to first perform a qualitative assessment to determine whether it is more likely than not that an impairment exists. If it is determined that it is not more likely than not that an impairment exists, a quantitative impairment test is not necessary. If the Company concludes otherwise, it is required to perform a quantitative impairment test. To the extent an impairment loss is recognized, the loss establishes the new cost basis of the asset that is amortized over the remaining useful life of that asset, if any. Subsequent reversal of impairment losses is not permitted.

Realized gain (loss) on sale of Digital Assets are included in other income (expense) in the consolidated statements of operations.

The Company assesses impairment of Digital Assets quarterly if the fair value of digital assets is less than its cost basis. The Company recognizes impairment losses on Digital Assets caused by decreases in fair value using the average U.S. dollar spot price of the related Digital Asset as of each impairment date. Such impairment in the value of Digital Assets are recorded as a component of costs and expenses in our consolidated statements of operations. There were no impairment losses related to Digital Assets during the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)” (ASU 2014-09) as modified by ASU No. 2015-14, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Deferral of the Effective Date,” ASU 2016-08, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net),” ASU No. 2016-10, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing,” and ASU No. 2016-12, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients.” The revenue recognition principle in ASU 2014-09 is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. In addition, new and enhanced disclosures will be required. Companies may adopt the new standard either using the full retrospective approach, a modified retrospective approach with practical expedients, or a cumulative effect upon adoption approach. The Company adopted ASU 2014-09 on January 1, 2018, using the modified retrospective approach. Because the Company doesn’t have any customer contracts as of January 1, 2018, the adoption of ASU 2014-09 did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, equity or cash flows.

In August 2018, the SEC adopted the final rule under SEC Release No. 33-10532, Disclosure Update and Simplification, amending certain disclosure requirements that were redundant, duplicative, overlapping, outdated or superseded. In addition, the amendments expanded the disclosure requirements on the analysis of stockholders’ equity for interim financial statements. Under the amendments, an analysis of changes in each caption of stockholders’ equity presented in the balance sheet must be provided in a note or separate statement. The analysis should present a reconciliation of the beginning balance to the ending balance of each period for which a statement of comprehensive income is required to be filed. This final rule is effective on November 5, 2018. We are evaluating the impact of this guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

Other recent accounting pronouncements issued by the FASB, including its Emerging Issues Task Force, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and the Securities and Exchange Commission did not or are not believed by management to have a material impact on the Company’s present or future 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 require additional funds since we have very limited operating capital and negative working capital. As of January 31, 2019, we had $91,850 in cash. Our cash as of the date of this report is expected to only be sufficient to cover on going public company costs through May 1, 2019 depending on expenses and provided that we do not pay our employees.

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

We have not had sufficient funds to make payroll and compensate our Officers and they are owed back salary from December 1st, 2018. Our cash burn rate is approximately $80,000 per month, which we are typically accruing, and which may increase as we continue to spend additional cash on legal and accounting expenses in connection with our public reporting requirements. If we are not successful in securing additional financing including toxic funding, we will likely be required to cease operations.

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

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

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

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

We have an evolving business model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We no longer have sufficient funds to make payroll and compensate either Charles Allen or Michal Handerhan. If either are unwilling to continue working without pay and choose to leave it could have a material adverse effect on us.

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

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

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

Our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Charles Allen’s involvement with Global Bit Ventures Inc. (“GBV”) may create a continuing, conflict of interest. In the event such position and interest results in a conflict of interest between us and GBV, 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 GBV, a blockchain company. The Company currently has no intent to acquire GBV and does not intend to in the future. The conflicts include time and the potentially competing interests of two companies in the same industry. Our Board of Directors and Mr. Allen will 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 legal advice concerning corporate opportunities, the potential benefits to us, the degree of risk to which we may be exposed and our financial position at that time. We will rely upon the role of Mr. David Garrity, our sole non-employee director to evaluate corporate opportunities and the time Mr. Allen spends on our interests. However, as discussed at page 42 under the heading “Conflicts of Interest,” Mr. Garrity is a consultant to two firms which focus on blockchain technology. We cannot be certain that Mr. Garrity will not have conflicts of interest in the future. 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 no more than five hours per week to GBV, however as a result of the Company’s past 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 or on other projects which may have a material adverse effect on us.

We have not had sufficient funds to make payroll and compensate Charles Allen, and he is owed back salary from December 1st, 2018. As a result Mr. Allen elected to devote a substantial amount of his time to his involvement with other companies and projects which may have a material adverse effect on us.

With our small size and lack of financial resources, we may not be able to recruit independent directors. Because our officers may be subject to potential lawsuits brought by shareholders on behalf of the Company, they may be hesitant to take actions which could benefit us and they may be more likely to resign. Ultimately, we may be adversely harmed as the result of such potential conflicts.

Our Chief Operating Officer, Michal Handerhan’s involvement with GBV may create a continuing, conflict of interest. In the event such position and interest results in a conflict of interest between us and GBV, 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 GBV, a blockchain company. The Company currently has no intent to acquire GBV and does not intend to in the future. Mr. Handerhan may face continuing conflicts of interest between the Company and GBV. The conflicts include time and the potentially competing interests of two companies in the same industry. Our Board of Directors and Mr. Handerhan will 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 legal advice concerning corporate opportunities, the potential benefits to us, the degree of risk to which we may be exposed and our financial position at that time. For information on David Garrity, a non-employee director, and potential conflicts he may have, see the immediately prior risk factor. 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 no more than five hours per week to GBV, however as a result of the Company’s past 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 or on other projects which may have a material adverse effect on us.

We have not had sufficient funds to make payroll and compensate Michal Handerhan, and he is owed back salary from December 1^st, 2018. As a result Mr. Handerhan has chosen to devote a substantial amount of his time to his involvement with other companies and projects which may have a material adverse effect on us.

With our small size and lack of financial resources, we may not be able to recruit independent directors. Because our officers may be subject to potential lawsuits brought by shareholders on behalf of the Company, they may be hesitant to take actions which could benefit us and they may be more likely to resign. Ultimately, we may be adversely harmed as the result of such potential conflicts.

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 other than Digital Securities, it is unclear how we will be required to account for Digital Asset transactions in the future.

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

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

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

If we fail to establish and maintain an effective system of internal 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, 2018, management identified a significant deficiency in our disclosure controls and procedures which may lead to a failure to prevent or detect misstatements.

Effective internal 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, 2018, management identified a significant deficiency related to presence of weakness in our disclosure control and procedure resulting from limited internal audit functions. Because of our inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with any policies and procedures may deteriorate.

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

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and rules implemented by the Securities and Exchange Commission have required changes in corporate governance practices of public companies. As a public company, we expect these rules and regulations to increase our compliance costs in 2018 and beyond and to make certain activities more time consuming and costly. The impact of the SEC’s July 25, 2017 report on Digital Securities (the “DAO Report”) as well as recent enforcement actions and speeches made by the SEC’s Chairman will increase our compliance and legal costs. More recently, the SEC’s Chairman commented that most initial coin offerings (a type of Digital Asset) involve the offer of a Digital Security. As a public company, we also expect that these rules and regulations 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 not traded on a national securities exchange, and the price, may not reflect our actual or perceived value. There can be no assurance that there will be an active market for our shares of Common Stock in the future. The market liquidity will be dependent on the perception of our operating business, among other things. We may, in the future, take certain steps, including utilizing investor awareness campaigns, press releases, road shows and conferences to increase awareness of our business and any steps that we might take to bring us to the awareness of investors may require we compensate consultants with cash and/or stock. There can be no assurance that there will be any awareness generated or the results of any efforts will result in any impact on our trading volume. Consequently, investors may not be able to liquidate their investment at a price that reflects the value of the business and trading may be at an inflated price relative to the performance of our company due to, among other things, availability of sellers of our shares. The price of our Common Stock has been highly volatile. Because there may be a low price for our shares of Common Stock and because of our involvement in the Digital Asset business, many brokerage firms or clearing firms may not be willing to effect transactions in the securities or accept our shares for deposit in an account. Even if an investor finds a broker willing to effect a transaction in the shares of our Common Stock, the combination of brokerage commissions, transfer fees, taxes, if any, and any other selling costs may exceed the selling price. Further, many lending institutions will not permit the use of low priced shares of Common Stock as collateral for any loans.

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

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

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

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

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

Several of our shareholders own significant portions of our preferred stock convertible into Common Stock, and Warrants exercisable for Common Stock. If one or more of our significant shareholders 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 exercises 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 shareholders 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 shareholders, which could adversely affect the rights of the holders of our Common Stock.

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

Substantial future sales of our Common Stock by us or by our existing shareholders 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 shareholders 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.

If any of our Warrant holders exercise their Warrants or we engage in future securities offerings, our shareholders will experience future dilution.

If any of our Warrant holders exercise their Warrants, our shareholders will incur substantial dilution. In order to raise capital, we plan to offer additional shares of our Common Stock or other securities convertible into or exchangeable for our Common Stock. We have no plans as to the type of security or price or the potential number of shares of Common Stock. Although no assurances can be given that we will issue any Common Stock or Common Stock equivalents or 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.

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

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

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

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

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

If We Acquire Digital Securities, Even Unintentionally, We May Violate the Investment Company Act and Incur Potential Third-Party Liabilities

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

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

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

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.

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

On August 1, 2017 bitcoin’s blockchain was forked and Bitcoin Cash was created. The fork resulted in a new blockchain being created with a shared history, and a new path forward. Bitcoin Cash has a block size of 8mb and other technical changes. On October 24, 2017, bitcoin’s blockchain was forked and Bitcoin Gold was created. The fork resulted in a new blockchain being created with a shared history, and new path forward, Bitcoin Gold has a different proof of work algorithm and other technical changes. The value of the newly created Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold may or may not have value in the long run and may affect the price of bitcoin if interest is shifted away from bitcoin to the newly created Digital Assets. The value of bitcoin after the creation of a fork is subject to many factors including the value of the fork product, market reaction to the creation of the fork product, and the occurrence of forks in the future. As such, the value of bitcoin could be materially reduced if existing and future forks have a negative effect on bitcoin’s value.

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

The Bitcoin Network operates based on an open-source protocol maintained by contributors, largely on the Bitcoin Core project on GitHub. As an open source project, Bitcoin is not represented by an official organization or authority. As the Bitcoin Network protocol is not sold and its use does not generate revenues for contributors, contributors are generally not compensated for maintaining and updating the Bitcoin Network protocol. Although the MIT Media Lab’s Digital Currency Initiative funds the current maintainer Wladimir J. van der Laan, among others, this type of financial incentive is not typical. The lack of guaranteed financial incentive for contributors to maintain or develop the Bitcoin Network and the lack of guaranteed resources to adequately address emerging issues with the Bitcoin Network may reduce incentives to address the issues adequately or in a timely manner. This may adversely affect an investment in us.

If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control in excess of 50 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 percent (50%) of the aggregate hashrate active on the Bitcoin Network or the Blockchain, potentially permitting such actor to manipulate the Blockchain in a manner that adversely affects an investment in us.

As the award of new bitcoin for solving blocks declines, and if transaction fees are not sufficiently high, miners may not have an adequate incentive to continue mining and may cease their mining operations. The current fixed reward for solving a new block is 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 three years, Bitcoin Network mining operations have evolved from individual users mining with computer processors, graphics processing units and first-generation ASIC servers. Currently, new processing power brought onto the Bitcoin Network is predominantly added by incorporated and unincorporated “professionalized” mining operations. Professionalized mining operations may use proprietary hardware or sophisticated ASIC machines acquired from ASIC manufacturers. They require the investment of significant capital for the acquisition of this hardware, the leasing of operating space (often in data centers or warehousing facilities), incurring of electricity costs and the employment of technicians to operate the mining farms. As a result, professionalized mining operations are of a greater scale than prior Bitcoin Network miners and have more defined, regular expenses and liabilities. These regular expenses and liabilities require professionalized mining operations to more immediately sell bitcoins earned from mining operations on the Bitcoin Exchange Market, whereas it is believed that individual miners in past years were more likely to hold newly mined bitcoins for more extended periods. The immediate selling of newly mined bitcoins greatly increases the supply of bitcoins on the Bitcoin Exchange Market, creating downward pressure on the price of bitcoins.

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

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

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

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

Bitcoin is an open source project and, although there is an influential group of leaders in the Bitcoin Network community including the Core Developers, there is no official developer or group of developers that formally controls the Bitcoin Network. Any individual can download the Bitcoin Network software and make any desired modifications, which are proposed to users and miners on the Bitcoin Network through software downloads and upgrades, typically posted to the bitcoin development forum on GitHub.com. A substantial majority of miners and bitcoin users must consent to those software modifications by downloading the altered software or upgrade that implements the changes; otherwise, the changes do not become a part of the Bitcoin Network. Since the Bitcoin Network’s inception, changes to the Bitcoin Network have been accepted by the vast majority of users and miners, ensuring that the Bitcoin Network remains a coherent economic system; however, a developer or group of developers could potentially propose a modification to the Bitcoin Network that is not accepted by a vast majority of miners and users, but that is nonetheless accepted by a substantial population of participants in the Bitcoin Network. In such a case, and if the modification is material and/or not backwards compatible with the prior version of Bitcoin Network software, a fork in the Blockchain could develop and two separate Bitcoin Networks could result, one running the pre-modification software program and the other running the modified version (i.e., a second “Bitcoin” network). Such a fork in the Blockchain typically would be addressed by community-led efforts to merge the forked Blockchains, and several prior forks have been so merged. This kind of split in the Bitcoin Network could materially and adversely impact an investment in us and, in the worst case scenario, harm the sustainability of the Bitcoin Network’s economy.

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

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

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

The Bitcoin Exchanges on which the bitcoins trade are new and, in most cases, largely unregulated. Furthermore, many Bitcoin Exchanges (including several of the most prominent US Dollar denominated Bitcoin Exchanges) do not provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management teams, corporate practices or regulatory compliance. As a result, the marketplace may lose confidence in, or may experience problems relating to, Bitcoin Exchanges, including prominent exchanges handling a significant portion of the volume of bitcoin trading.

Over the past four (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.

More recently, the Wall Street Journal has reported that China will shut down Bitcoin Exchanges and other virtual currency trading platforms. The article reported that China has accounted for the bulk of global bitcoin trading. Further, in late January 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that $530 million of cryptocurrency was missing from a Japanese exchange.

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 January 24, 2019, there were over two thousand one hundred (2,100) alternate Digital Assets (or altcoins) tracked by CoinMarketCap, having a total market capitalization (including the market capitalization of bitcoin) of approximately $120 billion, using market prices and total outstanding supply of each Digital Asset. This included altcoins using a “proof of work” mining structure similar to Bitcoin, and those using a “proof of stake” transaction verification system that is different than Bitcoin’s mining system (e.g., Peercoin, Bitshares and NXT). As of January 24, 2019, bitcoin’s $63 billion market capitalization was over five (5) times the size of the $13 billion market cap of XRP, the second largest Digital Asset. Despite the marked first-mover advantage of the Bitcoin Network over other Digital Assets, it is possible that another Digital Asset could become materially popular due to either a perceived or exposed shortcoming of the Bitcoin Network protocol that is not immediately addressed by the Bitcoin contributor community or a perceived advantage of an altcoin that includes features not incorporated into Bitcoin. If a Digital Asset obtains significant market share (either in market capitalization, mining power or use as a payment technology), this could reduce bitcoin’s market share as well as other Digital Assets we may become involved in and have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, such Digital Assets and could adversely affect an investment in us.

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

The history of the Bitcoin Exchange Market has shown that Bitcoin Exchanges and large holders of bitcoins must adapt to technological change in order to secure and safeguard their bitcoins and other Digital Assets. We rely on Bitgo Inc.’s multi-signature enterprise storage solution to safeguard our bitcoins from theft, loss, destruction or other issues relating to hackers and technological attack. We believe that it may become a more appealing target of security threats as the size of our bitcoin holdings grow. To the extent that either Bitgo Inc. or we are unable to identify and mitigate or stop new security threats, our bitcoins may be subject to theft, loss, destruction or other attack, which could adversely affect an investment in us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On July 25, 2017, the SEC issued its DAO Report which concluded that Digital Assets or tokens issued for the purpose of raising funds may be securities within the meaning of the federal securities laws. The DAO Report focused on the activities of a virtual organization which offered tokens in exchange for ether which as disclosed on page 15 of this report is the second largest reported digital currency. The DAO Report emphasized that whether Digital Asset is a security is based on the facts and circumstances. Although the Company’s activities are not focused on raising capital or assisting others that do so, the federal securities laws are very broad, and there can be no assurances that the SEC will not take enforcement action against the Company in the future including for the sale of unregistered securities in violation of the Securities Act or acting as an unregistered investment company in violation of the Investment Company Act. The SEC has taken various actions against persons or entities misusing bitcoin in connection with fraudulent schemes (i.e., Ponzi scheme), inaccurate and inadequate publicly disseminated information, and the offering of unregistered securities. More recently, the SEC suspended trading in three Digital Asset public companies. Since issuing the DAO Report the SEC Chairman has stated that the SEC is carefully examining initial coin offerings and similar areas involving Digital Assets for their compliance with the Securities Act.

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

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

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

Local state regulators such as the NYSDFS have also initiated examinations of bitcoin, the Bitcoin Network and the regulation thereof. 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 report 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. Since December 2013, China, Iceland, Vietnam and Russia have taken a more restrictive stance toward bitcoin and, thereby, have reduced the rate of expansion of bitcoin use in each country. In May 2014, the Central Bank of Bolivia banned the use of bitcoin as a means of payment. In the summer and fall of 2014, Ecuador announced plans for its own state-backed electronic money, while passing legislation that prohibits the use of decentralized Digital Assets such as bitcoin. In July 2016, economists at the Bank of England advocated that central banks issue their own digital currency, and the House of Lords and Bank of England started discussing the feasibility of creating a national virtual currency, the BritCoin. As of July 2016, Iceland was studying how to create a system in which all money is created by a central bank, and Canada was beginning to experiment with a digital version of its currency called CAD-COIN, intended to be used exclusively for interbank payments. On August 24, 2017, Canada issued guidance stating the sale of cryptocurrency may constitute an investment contract in accordance with Canadian law for determining if an investment constitutes a security. In July 2016, the Russian Ministry of Finance indicated it supports a proposed law that bans bitcoin domestically but allows for its use as a foreign currency. Russia recently issued several releases indicating they may begin regulating bitcoin and licensing miners and entities engaging in initial coin offerings. Conversely, regulatory bodies in some countries such as India and Switzerland have declined to exercise regulatory authority when afforded the opportunity. In April 2015, the Japanese Cabinet approved proposed legal changes that would reportedly treat bitcoin and other Digital Assets as included in the definition of currency. These regulations would, among other things, require market participants, including exchanges, to meet certain compliance requirements and be subject to oversight by the Financial Services Agency, a Japanese regulator. In September 2017 Japan began regulating Bitcoin Exchanges and registered several such exchanges to operate within Japan. In July 2016, the European Commission released a draft directive that proposed applying counter-terrorism and anti-money laundering regulations to virtual currencies, and, in September 2016, the European Banking authority advised the European Commission to institute new regulation specific to virtual currencies, with amendments to existing regulation as a stopgap measure. Various foreign jurisdictions may, in the near future, adopt laws, regulations or directives that affect the Bitcoin Network and its users, particularly Bitcoin Exchanges and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. Such laws, regulations or directives may conflict with those of the United States and may negatively impact the acceptance of bitcoin by users, merchants and service providers outside of the United States and may therefore impede the growth of the bitcoin economy. On September 4, 2017, reports were published that China may begin prohibiting the practice of using cryptocurrency for capital fundraising. Additional reports have surfaced that China is considering regulating Bitcoin Exchanges by enacting a licensing regime wherein Bitcoin Exchanges may legally operate. In September 2017, the Financial Services Commission of South Korea released a statement that initial coin offerings would be prohibited as a fundraising tool. In January 2018, the South Korean Justice Minister issued remarks about banning bitcoin and other Digital Assets, although the President’s office clarified that no final decision has been made. In June 2017, India’s government ruled in favor of regulating bitcoin and India’s ministry of Finance is currently developing rules for such regulation. Australia has previously introduced legislation to regulate Bitcoin Exchanges and increase anti-money laundering policies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As discussed at page 11 and 12 we do not think that bitcoin and ether are securities. As such, we do not intend to acquire securities in amounts that are equal to or greater than 40% of our assets. Should the total value of securities which we hold rise to more than 40% of our assets (exclusive of cash) we note that SEC Rule 3a-2 under the 1940 Act allows an issuer to prevent itself from being deemed an investment company if it reduces its holdings of securities to less than 40% of its assets (exclusive of cash) and does not go above the 40% threshold more than once every three years. In order to comply with the 1940 Act, we anticipate having increased management time and legal expenses in order to analyze which Digital Assets are securities and periodically analyze our total holdings to ensure that we do not maintain more than 40% of our total assets (exclusive of cash) as securities. If our view that ether is not a security is challenged by the SEC and courts uphold the challenge, we may inadvertently violate the 1940 Act and incur substantial legal fees in defending our position. In such case the legal fees may exceed our available assets which could adversely affect an investment in us.

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

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

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

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

Risks Related to Our Digital Assets Holdings

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

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

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

The Company currently uses a digital asset exchange to hold all of the Company’s ether; the Company’s bitcoin are held directly by the Company in a bitcoin wallet utilizing Bitgo Inc.’s enterprise multi-signature storage solution. All Digital Assets not held in the Company’s bitcoin wallet are subject to the risks encountered by a Digital Asset exchange including a DDoS Attack or other malicious hacking, a sale of the Digital Asset exchange, loss of the Digital Assets by the Digital Asset exchange and other risks similar to those described on page 33 in a risk factor entitled “Security threats to us could result in, a loss of Company’s Digital Assets, or damage to the reputation and our brand, each of which could adversely affect an investment in us.” The Company does not maintain a custodian agreement with the Digital Asset exchange that holds the Company’s ether. This Exchange does not provide insurance and may lack the resources to protect against hacking and theft. In the future we may acquire other Digital Assets that are held by Exchanges. If a material amount of our Digital Assets are held by Exchanges, we may be materially and adversely affected if the Exchanges suffer cyberattacks or incur financial problems.

Risks Related to Our Future Transaction Verification Business

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

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

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

In order to incentivize miners to continue to contribute processing power to the Bitcoin Network, the Bitcoin Network may either formally or informally transition from a set reward to transaction fees earned upon solving for a block. This transition could be accomplished either by miners independently electing to record in the blocks they solve only those transactions that include payment of a transaction fee or by the Bitcoin Network adopting software upgrades that require the payment of a minimum transaction fee for all transactions. If transaction fees paid for Bitcoin transactions become too high, the marketplace may be reluctant to accept bitcoins as a means of payment and existing users may be motivated to switch from bitcoins to another Digital Asset or back to fiat currency. Decreased use and demand for bitcoins may adversely affect their value and may adversely impact an investment in us.

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

Not applicable.

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, 2018. 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 2018 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, 2018, 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, 2018 based on the criteria set forth in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the COSO.

On September 17, 2018, the Board of Directors of the Company concluded that due to ineffective controls we failed to follow GAAP in accounting for our digital assets. This failure arose from a material weakness which required us to restate our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2017 as well as two other periods.

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, 2018 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION

The following table details the Company’s capitalization as of January 31, 2019.

The 46,832,367 Warrants include: (i) 32,626,632 Warrants issued in connection with the Series C financing completed on May 25, 2017, (ii) 12,942,000 Warrants issued in connection with the Series C-1 financing completed in October 2017, (iii) 524,368 Warrants with a strike price of $0.025 and an expiration date of January 21, 2020, and (iv) 739,367 Warrants with a strike price of $0.032 and an expiration date of April 16, 2020.

PART III

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 43, 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. Since January 12, 2018 Mr. Allen has been the CEO of Global Bit Ventures Inc., a newly formed private blockchain focused company. Since October 10, 2017 Mr. Allen has been a director of GBV. 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. Mr. Allen has extensive experience in business strategy, investment banking and capital markets transactions. Prior to his work in the blockchain industry he worked domestically and internationally on projects in technology, media, natural resources, logistics, medical services and financial services. He has served as a Managing Director at numerous boutique investment banks focused on advising and raising capital for small and mid-size companies. 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 42, 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.us LLC. Mr. Handerhan supports both our business and development strategy across the management team. Since January 12, 2018 Mr. Handerhan has been the Secretary and a director of GBV. 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.

David Garrity, age 58, has served as our independent Director since October 16, 2017. Mr. Garrity has over 25 years’ experience in the financial services industry, he has held senior roles including CFO and board of director positions for both publicly-held and private companies, and has extensive experience in several disciplines including operating, advisory and research, and is CEO of New York City based consulting firm, GVA Research. Mr. Garrity is a Partner at BTblock, a blockchain consultancy firm, and a senior advisor at Quantum1Net which also has a focus on blockchain technology. During 2008 and 2009, Mr. Garrity served as CFO and a director at Interclick, Inc., a behavioral targeting internet advertising network. From June 9, 2011 to May 14, 2013, Mr. Garrity was Chief Financial Officer of Aspen Group, Inc., an online for-profit university. From May 14, 2013 through October 31, 2013, he was Executive Vice President Corporate Development for Aspen Group, Inc. From February 1, 2017, through January 2018, Mr. Garrity was acting CFO of Mutualink, Inc., a private company developing secure distributed networking technologies to support communications interoperability for public- & private-sector clients. Mr. Garrity appears regularly on CNBC, BNN, Bloomberg, The Financial Times, Asia Times, Yahoo Finance, and other media outlets.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Messrs. Allen and Handerhan are officers and directors of GBV which operates a business in the cryptocurrency area. The conflicts faced by Messrs. Allen and Handerhan include time and the potentially competing interests of two companies in the same industry.

Mr. David Garrity, an independent director, will evaluate corporate opportunities due to future potential conflicts since Messrs. Allen and Handerhan will be conflicted. Recently, Mr. Garrity became a Partner at BTblock, a blockchain consultancy firm, and a senior advisor at Quantum1Net which also has a focus on blockchain technology. It is possible that these activities will create conflicts in the future. Given our small size and lack of financial resources, we may be hampered in recruiting independent directors.

Our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Operating Officer are officers and serve on the Board of Directors of a company which previously engaged in the mining of Digital Assets; when we had sufficient working capital, we engaged in the same business. With sufficient capital, we intend to re-enter this business. To deal with conflicts of interest, we have added one independent director who will monitor possible conflicts of interest. The future activities of our officers and directors may be challenged by shareholders, result in a diversion of time and cause us to incur legal and other expenses.

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.

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, 2018, 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, 2018 and 2017 awarded to, earned by or paid to our directors and 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

As a condition to the May 2017 financing, the Company was unable to 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 filed its Form 10-k for the period ending December 31, 2016. That compensation was paid later in 2017.

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 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 Mr. Allen $500 per month to cover telephone and internet expenses. If the Company does not provide office space to Mr. Allen the Company will pay him an additional $500 per month to cover expenses in connection with their office space needs.

On February 6, 2019 we amended the Allen Employment Agreement whereby the annual salary was increased to $345,000 per year effective January 1, 2019.

Michal Handerhan

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 Mr. Handerhan $500 per month to cover telephone and internet expenses. If the Company does not provide office space to Mr. Handerhan the Company will pay him an additional $500 per month to cover expenses in connection with their office space needs.

On February 6, 2019 we amended the Handerhan Employment Agreement whereby the annual salary was increased to $215,000 per year effective on January 1, 2019.

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 Company 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 Company 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 Company; (ii) the sale of the Company 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 Company’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 entered into an indemnification agreement with each Executive Officer and our Executive Officers’ have insurance with terms in the amount of $1,000,000.

On December 14, 2017, the Company agreed to pay Charles Allen, its CEO, and Michal Handerhan, its COO, cash bonuses of $75,000 and $35,000, respectively for 2017. The Company further agreed to pay Mr. Allen and Mr. Handerhan contingent cash bonuses of $175,000 and $75,000 respectively (the “2017 Contingent Bonuses”) which will be deemed earned on the earlier of i) the closing of a merger approved by the Board, ii) the closing of one or many financings in 2018 totaling over $1.25 million in gross proceeds, or iii) the Company having cash and Digital Assets valued at over $1.5 million. Provided further that the 2017 Contingent Bonuses if deemed earned will only be payable if the Company has at least $1.25 million in cash and Digital Assets prior to paying the bonuses. The 2017 Contingent Bonuses are not conditioned upon the continued service of either Mr. Allen or Mr. Handerhan and do not expire.

On February 6, 2019, the Company agreed to pay Charles Allen, its CEO, and Michal Handerhan, its COO, contingent cash bonuses of $256,025 and $150,000, respectively for 2018 (the “2018 Contingent Bonuses”) which will be deemed earned and payable upon the repayment and / or settlement of the $200,000 Promissory Note issued on December 18, 2018. The 2018 Contingent Bonuses are not conditioned upon the continued service of either Mr. Allen or Mr. Handerhan and do not expire.

The amendments to the Employment Agreements and 2018 Contingent Bonuses were approved unanimously by the Board.

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

The following summary compensation table sets forth information concerning compensation for services rendered in all capacities during the fiscal years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 awarded to, earned by or paid to our directors excluding executive officers. The numbers in the summary compensation table represent the actual amount of compensation accrued under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

On January 1, 2018 the Company entered into a one-year consulting agreement with GVA Research LLC (“GVA”) whereby it will pay GVA a quarterly consulting fee of $13,750. David Garrity is the owner and principal of GVA Research LLC and this is irrespective of and not included in the Director compensation. The Company did not renew the GVA consulting agreement for 2019.

On February 6, 2019 the Company reevaluated the level of compensation for its sole director and agreed to an annual director fee of $18,750 per quarter or $75,000 per year effective January 1, 2019.

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR-END TABLE

There are no outstanding equity awards issued to our Named Executive Officers as of December 31, 2018.

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 and C-1 Convertible Preferred Stock as of the date of this report: (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 voting shares.

* Less than 1%

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 OTCQB 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 Mr. Allen or Mr. Handerhan would be considered an independent director.

ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES

During the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 we engaged RBSM as our independent auditor. For the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, 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

ITEM 16. FORM 10-K SUMMARY.

Not applicable.

SIGNATURES

In accordance with Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, the registrant caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized on February 6, 2019.

In accordance with the Exchange Act, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of BTCS Inc. and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and

Stockholders of BTCS Inc.

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of BTCS Inc. and subsidiary (The “Company”) as of December 31, 2018 and 2017 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2018, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the consolidated financial statements). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2018, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The Company’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has an accumulated deficit, recurring losses, and expects continuing future losses, and has stated that substantial doubt exists about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s evaluation of the events and conditions and management’s plans regarding these matters are also described in Note 4. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Basis for Opinion

These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

BTCS Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Balance Sheets

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

BTCS Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statements of Operations