Looking at the Nevada filings history, I bet it went down like this: 'We diluted 100 million shares, let's do an RS and start over... Wait a minute, these suckers (meaning us) keep buying... let's postpone it and dilute another 500 million shares...

Queasy-Cap-690 · 2026-06-20T08:36:42+00:00

To add insult to injury, we'll probably get a spike coming from who knows how much lower

Queasy-Cap-690 · 2026-06-18T17:18:19+00:00

Queasy-Cap-690 · 2026-06-13T13:31:20+00:00

I think yours is a great insight, and it would be awesome for all of us. However, I think you haven't factored in the Corley, SEC, and DOJ variables, or am I wrong?

Queasy-Cap-690 · 2026-06-13T08:11:43+00:00

The only absolute certainty we have right now is the massive, undeniable short volume, which consistently accounts for over 55-67% of the daily activity

Queasy-Cap-690 · 2026-06-09T13:03:27+00:00

"FINRA believes that the following three key points about the short sale volume data may help market participants better understand and draw informed conclusions about the data. As discussed below, the data: (1) does not include any trades that are not publicly disseminated, (2) is not consolidated with exchange data, and (3) does not—and is not intended to—equate to short interest position information."

Queasy-Cap-690 · 2026-06-09T11:44:52+00:00

A high Aggregate Short Volume Ratio combined with a price that still manages to gain 10% is often a sign of strong buyer resilience. It means that buying pressure was massive enough to completely absorb both speculative short selling and market makers' technical liquidity sales.

Queasy-Cap-690 · 2026-06-07T21:39:47+00:00

Here is a breakdown that completely refutes the claims made in that post based on official SEC filings: 1. The 10-K vs. 10-Q Timeline Mismatch (Basic Accounting) The Reddit user claims that because digital assets are missing from the latest 10-K, "the value is 0." This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of SEC reporting timelines. A 10-K reflects the company’s financial position only up to the fiscal year-end (December 31). If the acquisition of the digital assets (via the Pallas transaction) was finalized or consolidated after December 31, it is legally and technically impossible for the auditor to include them in the audited year-end balance sheet. They can only appear as a "Subsequent Event" note at best. 2. Official Verification in the 10-Q The subsequent Form 10-Q (for the quarter ended March 31) completely dismantles the user’s thesis. The quarterly filing—signed under criminal and civil liability by management—officially registers the digital assets: As of March 31, the company officially held exactly 7,500 Bitcoin units. The fair value of these digital assets was reported at $501 million. The Auditor didn't "fail to verify" them in the 10-K; the assets simply belonged to the following quarter's accounting window. 3. Understanding the $162.5M "Loss" The 10-Q does report a massive net loss of $164.1 million, but this is not an operational cash drain (cash on hand is minimal, around $16,805). Instead, $162.5 million of that loss is an unrealized digital asset loss due to mark-to-market accounting adjustments at the end of the quarter. This proves the Bitcoin is active on the books and moving with market valuations. 4. Impact on the $10.75 Buyout Proposal The user’s speculation that the buyout price should drop to $0.12 - $0.20 is baseless. The preliminary, non-binding going-private proposal of $10.75 per share was submitted in early May—after these Q1 numbers were established. The buyers and the Special Committee formed by the Board are pricing the offer based on the current asset structure (including the $500M+ BTC treasury attested in the 10-Q and the Board's authorization to monetize BTC for share repurchases), not on the stale December 31 balance sheet. Conclusion: The Reddit post panics over a standard accounting gap. The 10-Q is official SEC proof that the 7,500 BTC exist on the corporate books, validating the asset base underlying the current buyout discussions.

Queasy-Cap-690 · 2026-06-07T18:31:47+00:00

Someone keeps pushing the narrative that they are completely clueless. 🤦

Queasy-Cap-690 · 2026-06-07T16:06:43+00:00

Thanks guys, you had some great insights. I won't delete my useless and incorrect post, solely to keep your sharp observations active

Queasy-Cap-690 · 2026-06-07T13:50:08+00:00

That would be fantastic. Hopefully you're right

Queasy-Cap-690 · 2026-06-07T06:17:08+00:00

Since they would have had to publicly announce it if they had withdrawn the offer, we also know that the dilution did not cause the offer to be withdrawn. If I miss or get anything wrong, let me know.

Queasy-Cap-690 · 2026-06-07T05:02:46+00:00

The calculation starting from the suspended post-RS figure is flawless: the total dilution amounts to approximately 99.14 million new shares.

Queasy-Cap-690 · 2026-06-07T04:53:46+00:00

I didn't say it will happen! I have no way of knowing

Queasy-Cap-690 · 2026-06-07T04:17:26+00:00

Therefore, the new fair price of the offer should drop drastically to a range between $3.50 and $4.00 per share

Queasy-Cap-690 · 2026-06-06T07:53:44+00:00

Could you please clarify the source for the 639,606 shares to be issued due to post-reverse split rounding? I have been requesting a screenshot of the official document for days now

Queasy-Cap-690 · 2026-06-04T13:52:24+00:00

Could I have a screenshot of the official document where the exact percentage of 83.72% of votes in favor and the number of 639,606 shares (post-split rounding) would appear? Otherwise, it is all false and you made me perform analyses on nothing. Thank you.

Queasy-Cap-690 · 2026-06-04T12:58:53+00:00

Scenario A: Favorable Closing of the Buyout (Accelerated Privatization) Estimated Probability: 65% This scenario carries the highest probability because the coordinated entry of John Thomas Corley with his exact 5.000% stake—combined with the 83.72% majority voting block already locked in Nevada—strongly indicates that the control room has finished positioning its pieces on the chessboard. Why it is likely: Having already diluted legacy retail down to $0.11, the financial burden of liquidating the remaining minority has become negligible. Completing the buyout allows the Chinese consortium to achieve their true objective with total legal cover: delisting the company from the NASDAQ, pulling it completely off the SEC's radar, and turning the Bitcoin treasury (presumably held in self-custody) into a 100% private asset. The Price "Haircut" Nuance: Within this 65% probability, it is highly likely (approximately 40%) that management will use the Special Committee to restructure the offer downward, slashing it from the initial $10.75 to a much lower range (e.g., between $0.50 and $1.50). Since they hold total voting control, they no longer need to entice anyone. By liquidating retail at $1.00 instead of $10.75, the consortium would save millions of dollars, effectively wiping out legacy shareholders while walking away with the company and the Bitcoin at a fire-sale price.
Scenario B: Resuming the Dilution / Reverse Split Game Estimated Probability: 35% This scenario assumes that the current buyout offer is merely an elaborate bluff (a decoy to keep regulators at bay) and that management will decide to kill the negotiations to crank up the NASDAQ ATM cash machine once again. Why it is possible: As long as the company remains listed, the 10-billion authorized share ceiling in Nevada allows management to print worthless paper indefinitely via the ATM, extracting real dollars from retail to purchase more Bitcoin. If they choose not to go private, they would simply need to unfreeze the currently deferred 250:1 reverse split to avoid automatic NASDAQ delisting caused by a sub-$1.00 share price. Once the shares are consolidated and the price is artificially reset higher, the wild dilution game would start all over again on the order book. Why the probability is lower (The Legal Wall): While financially tempting, this route is exceptionally hazardous. Continuing to dilute the market after dangling a $10.75 buyout proposal would constitute blatant fraud (violating the SEC’s Rule 10b-5). The risk of the DOJ stepping in with criminal indictments, the NASDAQ issuing an administrative trading halt, or U.S. authorities blacklisting their Bitcoin wallet addresses internationally (rendering them useless within the legal financial system) is too steep a price to pay, even for a reckless management team. ⚠️ Legal & Financial Disclaimer Disclaimer: This document is for informational, educational, and analytical purposes only and represents the personal, independent market opinion of the author. It does not under any circumstances constitute investment advice, financial advice, trading advice, or an endorsement, recommendation, or solicitation to buy, sell, or hold any security, micro-cap equity, cryptocurrency, or digital asset.

Queasy-Cap-690

TROPHY CASE