RISK FACTORS

GWAC’s shareholders should carefully consider the following risk factors, together with all of the other information included in this proxy statement/prospectus, before they decide whether to vote or instruct their vote to be cast to approve the relevant proposals described in this proxy statement/prospectus.

Unless the context otherwise requires, all references in this subsection to the “Company,” “Cipher,” “we,” “us” or “our” refer to the business of Cipher prior to the consummation of the Business Combination, which will be the business of New Cipher following the consummation of the Business Combination.

Risks Related to Cipher’s Limited Operating History and Early Stage of Growth

We are in an early stage of development. If we are not able to develop our business as anticipated, we may not be able to generate revenues or achieve profitability and you may lose your investment.

Having been incorporated only in January 7, 2021, we have no operating history and have not earned any revenues to date. Our primary business activities will be focused on the development of our cryptocurrency mining business, specializing in Bitcoin. Although we believe that our business model has significant profit potential, we may not attain profitable operations and our management may not succeed in realizing our business objectives. If we are not able to develop our business as anticipated, we may not be able to generate revenues or achieve profitability and you may lose your investment.

Our lack of operating history makes evaluating our business and future prospects difficult and increases the risk of an investment in our securities.

We have no operating history on which investors can base an evaluation of our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results. We are separate from Bitfury Top HoldCo and the Bitfury Group and the past performance of any entities of the Bitfury Group, or the Bitfury Group as a whole, is not comparable to Cipher’s planned operations and future performance in the United States. It is difficult to predict our future revenues and appropriately budget for our expenses, and we have limited insight into trends that may emerge and affect our business. Furthermore, we plan to focus our business on cryptocurrency, and specifically Bitcoin, mining, a new and developing field, which could further exacerbate the risks involved in our business, see “—Risks Related to Cryptocurrency—Acceptance and widespread use of cryptocurrency, in general, and Bitcoin, specifically, is uncertain.” In the event that actual results differ from our estimates or we adjust our estimates in future periods, our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected.

The projected financial information appearing elsewhere in this proxy statement/prospectus has been prepared with assistance from Cipher’s management and reflects current estimates of future performance. The projected results depend on the successful implementation of our management’s growth strategies and are based on assumptions and events over which we have only partial or no control. The assumptions underlying such projected information require the exercise of judgment and may not occur, and the projections are subject to uncertainty due to the effects of economic, regulatory, legislative, business, competitive, political and other changes.

There is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

The report of our independent registered public accounting firm on our financial statements for the period from January 7, 2021 (inception) through January 31, 2021 included an explanatory paragraph expressing management’s assessment and conclusion that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, citing our lack of cash and a working capital deficiency among other factors. For further information, see “Cipher’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources”. Our ability to continue as a going concern will be determined by our ability to complete the Business Combination and generate sufficient cash flow to build and sustain our operations and/or

47

raise additional capital in the form of debt or equity financing. We believe that the inclusion of a going concern explanatory paragraph in the report of our registered public accounting firm will make it more difficult for us to secure additional financing or enter into strategic relationships on terms acceptable to us, if at all, and likely will materially and adversely affect the terms of any financing that we might obtain. Our consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability and classification of recorded asset amounts or amounts and classification of liabilities that might be necessary should we be unable to continue as a going concern.

Our business and the markets in which we plan to operate are new and rapidly evolving, which makes it difficult to evaluate our future prospects and the risks and challenges we may encounter.

We have not earned any revenues to date and expect to incur losses until we are able to commence our operations. These losses could increase as we continue to work to develop our business. We plan to focus on cryptocurrency mining business, specializing in Bitcoin. Specifically, we plan to begin our initial buildout phase with a set-up of cryptocurrency mining facilities in four sites in the United States (three in Texas and one in Ohio), see “Information about Cipher—Our Planned Cryptocurrency Operations—Operational Buildout Timeline”. Our business and the markets in which we plan to operate are new and rapidly evolving, which makes it difficult to evaluate and assess our future prospects and the risks and challenges that we may encounter. These risks and challenges include, among others, our ability to:

Our strategy may not be successful, and we may never become profitable. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. If the risks and uncertainties that we plan for when establishing and operating our business are incorrect or change, or if we fail to manage these risks successfully, our results of operations could differ materially from our expectations and our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected.    

In the future, we may need to raise additional capital, which may not be available on terms acceptable to us, or at all.

We believe that the cash that we expect to obtain from the Business Combination, together with cash we expect to generate from future operations, will be sufficient to meet our working capital and capital expenditure requirements in the near future. However, from time to time, we may require additional capital to respond to technological advancements, competitive dynamics or technologies, customer demands, business opportunities, challenges, acquisitions or unforeseen circumstances. Accordingly, we may determine to engage in equity or debt financings or enter into credit facilities for the above-mentioned or other reasons.

We may not be able to timely secure additional debt or equity financing on favorable terms, or at all. If we raise additional funds through equity financing, our existing stockholders could experience significant dilution. Furthermore, any debt financing obtained by us in the future could involve restrictive covenants relating to our capital raising activities and other financial and operational matters, which may make it more difficult for us to obtain additional capital and to pursue business opportunities. If we are unable to obtain adequate financing or financing on terms satisfactory to us, when we require it, our ability to continue to grow or support our business and to respond to business challenges could be significantly limited.

48

Risks Related to Cipher’s Business, Industry and Operations following the Business Combination

Risks Related to Cipher’s Business

Our operating results may fluctuate due to the highly volatile nature of cryptocurrencies in general and, specifically, Bitcoin.

All of our sources of revenue will be dependent on cryptocurrencies and, specifically, Bitcoin and the broader blockchain and Bitcoin mining ecosystem. Due to the highly volatile nature of the cryptocurrency markets and the prices of cryptocurrency assets, our operating results may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter in accordance with market sentiments and movements in the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem. Our operating results may fluctuate as a result of a variety of factors, many of which are unpredictable and in certain instances are outside of our control, including:

As a result of these factors, it may be difficult for us to forecast growth trends accurately and our business and future prospects are difficult to evaluate, particularly in the short term. In view of the rapidly evolving nature of our business and the Bitcoin mining ecosystem, period-to-period comparisons of our operating results may not be meaningful, and you should not rely upon them as an indication of future performance. Quarterly and annual expenses reflected in our financial statements may be significantly different from historical or projected rates, and our operating results in one or more future quarters may fall below the expectations of securities analysts and investors.

If we are unable to successfully enter into our planned power or hosting arrangements or secure the sites for our data centers, or renew such arrangements once entered into, on acceptable terms or at all or if we must otherwise relocate to replacement sites, our operations may be disrupted, and our business results may suffer.

As part of our initial buildout phase, we plan to set up cryptocurrency mining facilities (or sites) in at least four cities in the United States, with three in Texas and one in Ohio. Subject to completion of the Business Combination, we plan to begin deployment of capacity in one city in Ohio and one of the cities in Texas in the fourth quarter of 2021. We could set up multiple cryptocurrency mining sites per city. For further details on our planned initial buildout phase, see “Information about Cipher—Our Planned Cryptocurrency Operations—Operational Buildout Timeline”. We entered into letters of intent with three providers of power and hosting arrangements, which intend to cover sites for our data centers in at least four planned cities referenced above. It is a closing condition under the terms of the Merger Agreement that we enter into definitive agreements in respect of those arrangements and we have already entered into definitive agreements with Standard Power

49

and WindHQ. For further details, see “Information about Cipher—Material Agreements—Power Arrangements and Hosting Arrangements”. While the remaining definitive agreement in respect of the Luminant power arrangement is currently in negotiation, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully enter into all of the planned definitive agreements for our planned power arrangements. Furthermore, although we expect these definitive agreements to include provisions allowing us to secure the sites for our data centers, actually securing these sites on terms acceptable to our management team may not occur within our timing expectations or at all. Securing the sites for our data centers may also be subject to various governmental approvals and require entry into ancillary agreements. Our inability to secure the sites for our data centers could adversely impact the anticipated timing of our initial buildout phase and therefore the time by which we are able to commence our operations.

If we are forced to locate alternative sites, we may not be successful in identifying adequate replacement sites to house our miners. Even if we identify such sites, we may not be successful in leasing the necessary facilities at rates that are economically viable to support our mining activities.

Even if we successfully secure the sites for our data centers, in the future, we may not be able to renew those on acceptable terms, in which case we would need to relocate our established mining operations. Relocating any mining operation may force us to incur the costs to transition to a new facility including, but not limited to, transportation expenses and insurance, downtime while we are unable to mine, legal fees to negotiate the new lease, de-installation at our current facility and, ultimately, installation at any new facility we identify. These costs may be substantial, and we cannot guarantee that we will be successful in transitioning our miners to a new facility. Such circumstances could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Our success will, in part, be dependent upon maintaining a successful relationship with Bitfury Top HoldCo under the Master Services and Supply Agreement and, as our controlling shareholder following the Business Combination, Bitfury Top HoldCo’s decisions on various matters, including its decisions with respect to its or New Cipher’s performance under the Master Services and Supply Agreement, may be contrary to the expectations or preferences of New Cipher Common Stock holders.

As a closing condition under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Bitfury Top HoldCo B.V. (“Bitfury Top HoldCo”) and Cipher will enter into the Master Services and Supply Agreement, pursuant to which Bitfury Top HoldCo will agree to provide us with certain critical equipment, such as chips and servers, and construction, engineering, operational, maintenance, consulting and other services, required to launch and maintain our mining center operations in the United States. The Master Services and Supply Agreement provides, among other things, that Bitfury Top HoldCo undertakes to offer us a number of specified services, including assistance in set-up and maintenance of our planned data centers, and that it will use commercially reasonable efforts to supply us with certain required specialist mining equipment. The exact specifications, amount, quantity and timing for the equipment and services that we may request under the Master Services and Supply Agreement will be set out in individual orders to be entered into pursuant to the agreement. Under the Master Services and Supply Agreement, we expect to benefit from: (i) a right of first refusal regarding the purchase of chips that Bitfury Top HoldCo makes available to the market in future, subject to certain notice requirements, and (ii) the “most-favored nation pricing” protection in relation to the services (with reference to the United States prices) and equipment (with reference to the worldwide prices) to be supplied by Bitfury Top HoldCo. For further details on the Master Services and Supply Agreement, see “Information about Cipher—Material Agreements—Master Services and Supply Agreement”.

We are not required to order or accept any ASIC chips or other equipment from Bitfury Top HoldCo and can utilize an alternative or supplemental equipment supplier to obtain ASIC chips, miners and other critical equipment from other third parties. However, as part of our strategy, we would aim to leverage our relationship with Bitfury Top HoldCo in obtaining certain necessary equipment, including ASIC chips, miners, containers, and servers. Specifically, we expect that the right of first refusal under the Master Services and Supply Agreement will, subject to the exceptions referred to above, apply to Bitfury Top HoldCo’s new eighth

50

generation 5nm ASIC chip, the so-called NIVEN chip, currently finalizing its design phase and anticipated to come into mass production by the end of 2021 and the servers that are expected to house the same, as well as future chip and server releases by the Bitfury Group. Once it becomes available, we would aim to order the NIVEN chip through the Master Services and Supply Agreement and utilize this chip in our miners. For further details on the Master Services and Supply Agreement, see “Information about Cipher—Material Agreements—Master Services and Supply Agreement”. If we are unable to obtain the NIVEN chip or servers from Bitfury Top HoldCo under the anticipated timeline, we plan to rely on other third-party suppliers for the required chips and servers in order to meet our planned timing under the initial buildout phase, see “—Miners rely on components and raw materials that may be subject to price fluctuations or shortages, including ASIC chips that have been subject to an ongoing significant shortage, and we cannot order the equipment necessary for our initial buildout phase without the funds that we expect to obtain upon Closing of the Business Combination.”.

In general, we may be highly dependent on the Master Services and Supply Agreement for the development of our business model. As the Bitfury Group also has its own mining operations outside of the United States, there is a risk that Bitfury Top HoldCo may refuse to deliver the equipment or services ordered by us under the Master Services and Supply Agreement if it perceives that it may deliver those equipment or services on more economically advantageous terms to other third parties or to other companies of the Bitfury Group. While we have certain indemnification rights under the Master Services and Supply Agreement, if Bitfury Top HoldCo is unable, refuses or fails to perform its obligations under the Master Services and Supply Agreement, whether due to certain economic or market conditions, bankruptcy, insolvency, lack of liquidity, operational failure, fraud, or for any other reason, it will have a material adverse effect on our business and there is a possibility that we will not be able to continue the development under our current business model.

The initial term of the Master Services and Supply Agreement is 84 months, with automatic 12-month renewals thereafter (unless either party provides sufficient notice of non-renewal). If the Master Services and Supply Agreement is terminated or not renewed, we may not be able to find an alternative provider for such services and supplies, which will have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Furthermore, Bitfury Top HoldCo is our controlling shareholder prior to the Business Combination and will remain our controlling shareholder following the Business Combination. The Master Services and Supply Agreement will constitute a related-party transaction, see “Certain Relationships and Related Person Transactions—Cipher’s Related Party Transaction—Master Services and Supply Agreement”. Following the Business Combination, Bitfury Top HoldCo will be entitled to appoint a majority of the members of the New Cipher Board, and it will have the power to determine the decisions to be taken at New Cipher’s shareholder meetings on matters of New Cipher’s management that require the prior authorization of our shareholders, including in respect of related party transactions, such as the Master Services and Supply Agreement, corporate restructurings and the date of payment of dividends and other capital distributions. Thus, the decisions of Bitfury Top HoldCo as our controlling shareholder on these matters, including its decisions with respect to its or New Cipher’s performance under the Master Services and Supply Agreement, may be contrary to the expectations or preferences of New Cipher Common Stock holders and could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Bitcoin mining activities are energy-intensive, which may restrict the geographic locations of miners and have a negative environmental impact. Government regulators may potentially restrict the ability of electricity suppliers to provide electricity to mining operations, such as ours, or even fully or partially ban mining operations.

Mining Bitcoin requires massive amounts of electrical power, and electricity costs are expected to account for a significant portion of our overall costs. The availability and cost of electricity will restrict the geographic locations of our mining activities. Any shortage of electricity supply or increase in electricity costs in any location where we plan to operate may negatively impact the viability and the expected economic return for Bitcoin mining activities in that location.

51

Further, our business model can only be successful and our mining operations can only be profitable if the costs, including electrical power costs, associated with Bitcoin mining are lower than the price of Bitcoin itself. As a result, any mining operation we establish can only be successful if we can obtain sufficient electrical power for that site on a cost-effective basis, and our establishment of new mining data centers requires us to find sites where that is the case. Even if our electrical power costs do not increase, significant fluctuations in, and any prolonged periods of, low Bitcoin prices may also cause our electrical supply to no longer be cost-effective.

In connection with the Business Combination, we entered into letters of intent for power and hosting arrangements covering sites for our data centers in at least four cities where we expect to begin our initial buildout phase. On April 1, 2021, pursuant to one such letter of intent, we entered into the Standard Power Hosting Agreement. On June 10, 2021, we also entered into the WindHQ Joint Venture Agreement. For further details, see “Information about Cipher—Material Agreements—Power Arrangements and Hosting Arrangements”. Although our entry into definitive agreements further to all those letters of intent is a closing condition under the terms of the Merger Agreement, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully enter into the remaining definitive agreement with Luminant or do so on the terms acceptable to both our management team and the power providers. If we are unable to successfully enter into the remaining definitive agreements or our counterparties fail to perform their obligations under the final agreements, we may be forced to look for alternative power providers. There is no assurance that we will be able to find such alternative suppliers on acceptable terms in a timely manner or at all.

Furthermore, there may be significant competition for suitable cryptocurrency mining sites, and government regulators, including local permitting officials, may potentially restrict our ability to set up cryptocurrency mining operations in certain locations. They can also restrict the ability of electricity suppliers to provide electricity to mining operations in times of electricity shortage, or may otherwise potentially restrict or prohibit the provision of electricity to mining operations. For example, in 2018, the board of commissioners of Chelan County Public Utility District in Washington voted to stop reviewing applications for mining facilities following a review of the impact of existing operations. While we are not aware of the existence of any such restrictions in our planned mining locations in Texas and Ohio, new ordinances and other regulations at the federal, state and local levels can be introduced at any time. Specifically, those can be triggered by certain adverse weather conditions or natural disasters, see “—We are vulnerable to severe weather conditions and natural disasters, including earthquakes, fires, floods, hurricanes, as well as power outages and other industrial incidents, which could severely disrupt the normal operation of our business and adversely affect our results of operations.”

Furthermore, if cryptocurrency mining becomes more widespread, government scrutiny related to restrictions on cryptocurrency mining facilities and their energy consumption may significantly increase. The considerable consumption of electricity by mining operators may also have a negative environmental impact, including contribution to climate change, which could set the public opinion against allowing the use of electricity for Bitcoin mining activities or create a negative consumer sentiment and perception of Bitcoin, specifically, or cryptocurrencies, generally. This, in turn, could lead to governmental measures restricting or prohibiting cryptocurrency mining or the use of electricity for Bitcoin mining activities. Any such development in the jurisdictions where we plan to operate could increase our compliance burdens and have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results. Government regulators in other countries may also ban or substantially limit their local cryptocurrency mining activities, which could have a material adverse effect on the price of Bitcoin or increase our domestic competition as some of those cryptocurrency miners or new entrants in this market may consider moving their cryptocurrency mining operations or establishing new operations in the United States. For further details on our competition, see “—We will operate in a highly competitive industry and we compete against unregulated or less regulated companies and companies with greater financial and other resources, and our business, operating results, and financial condition may be adversely affected if we are unable to respond to our competitors effectively.”

52

Additionally, our mining operations could be materially adversely affected by power outages and similar disruptions. Given the power requirements for our mining equipment, it would not be feasible to run this equipment on back-up power generators in the event of a government restriction on electricity or a power outage. If we are unable to receive adequate power supply and are forced to reduce our operations due to the availability or cost of electrical power, it would have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

We may be affected by price fluctuations in the wholesale and retail power markets.

While we anticipate that the majority our power and hosting arrangements will contain fixed power prices, we expect that they may contain certain price adjustment mechanisms in case of certain events. Furthermore, some portion of our power and hosting arrangements is expected to have merchant power prices, or power prices reflecting market movements.

Market prices for power, generation capacity and ancillary services, are unpredictable. Depending upon the effectiveness of any price risk management activity undertaken by us, an increase in market prices for power, generation capacity, and ancillary services may adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results. Long- and short-term power prices may fluctuate substantially due to a variety of factors outside of our control, including, but not limited to:

If we are unable to secure power supply at prices or on terms acceptable to us, it would have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

We will be vulnerable to severe weather conditions and natural disasters, including earthquakes, fires, floods, hurricanes, as well as power outages and other industrial incidents, which could severely disrupt the normal operation of our business and adversely affect our results of operations.

Our business will be subject to the risks of severe weather conditions and natural disasters, including earthquakes, fires, floods, hurricanes, as well as power outages and other industrial incidents, any of which could result in system failures, power supply disruptions and other interruptions that could harm our business. As a substantial portion of our business and operations will be located in Texas and Ohio, we will be particularly vulnerable to disruptions affecting those states.

For example, in February 2021, Texas was hit with a major winter storm, which triggered power outages across the state for several days and left millions of homes, offices and factories without power. Although the power outages did not have a material impact on our power suppliers, future power outages may disrupt our business operations and adversely affect our results of operations. Furthermore, the grid damages that occurred in Texas could potentially lead to delays and increased prices in our procurement of certain equipment essential to our operations, such as switchgears, cables and transformers. This could adversely impact the anticipated timing of our initial buildout phase and therefore the time by which we are able to commence our operations.

53

While we anticipate that the majority of our power and hosting arrangements will contain fixed power prices, some portion of our power arrangements is expected to have merchant power prices, or power prices reflecting the market movements. In an event of a major power outage, such as the abovementioned power outage in Texas, the merchant power prices could be too high to make Bitcoin mining profitable. Furthermore, even the fixed-price power arrangements would still depend upon prevailing market prices to some degree. To extent the power prices increase significantly as result of severe weather conditions, natural disasters or any other causes, resulting in contract prices for power being significantly lower than current market prices, the counterparties under our power and hosting arrangements may refuse to supply power to us during that period of fluctuating prices, see “—We are exposed to risk of nonperformance by counterparties, including our counterparties under the planned power and hosting arrangements.”

From time to time, we may consider protecting against power price movements by adopting a more risk adverse power procurement strategy and hedging our power purchase prices, which would translate into additional hedging costs for us.

Furthermore, events such as the aforementioned outage in Texas may lead federal, state or regional government officials to introduce new legislation and requirements on power providers that may result in, among other things, restrictions on cryptocurrency mining operations in general.

We do not plan to carry business interruption insurance sufficient to compensate us for the losses that may result from interruptions in our operations as a result of system failures. A system outage or data loss, caused by it, could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

We are exposed to risk of nonperformance by counterparties, including our counterparties under the planned power and hosting arrangements.

We are exposed to risk of nonperformance by counterparties, whether contractual or otherwise. Risk of nonperformance includes inability or refusal of a counterparty to perform because of a counterparty’s financial condition and liquidity or for any other reason. For example, our counterparties under the planned power and hosting arrangements may be unable to deliver the required amount of power for a variety of technical or economic reasons. Furthermore, there is a risk that during a period of power price fluctuations or prolonged or sharp power price increases on the market, our counterparties may find it economically preferable to refuse to supply power to us, despite the contractual arrangements. Any significant nonperformance by counterparties, could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Miners rely on components and raw materials that may be subject to price fluctuations or shortages, including ASIC chips that have been subject to an ongoing significant shortage, and we cannot order the equipment necessary for our initial buildout phase without the funds that we expect to obtain upon Closing of the Business Combination.

In order to build and sustain our operations we will depend on third parties to provide us with ASIC chips and other critical components for our mining equipment, which may be subject to price fluctuations or shortages. For example, the ASIC chip is the key component of a mining machine as it determines the efficiency of the device. The production of ASIC chips typically requires highly sophisticated silicon wafers, which currently only a small number of fabrication facilities, or wafer foundries, in the world are capable of producing. We believe that the current microchip shortage that the entire industry is experiencing leads to price fluctuations and disruption in the supply of key miner components. Specifically, the ASIC chips have recently been subject to a significant price increases and shortages.

We plan to fund our initial buildout phase with cash that we expect to obtain in connection with the Business Combination. For further details, see “Summary of the Proxy Statement/Prospectus—The Business Combination Proposal—Sources and Uses of Funds for the Business Combination.” We have no operating history and have

54

not earned any revenues to date. Until the funding expected in connection with the Business Combination is available to us upon Closing, we cannot order ASIC chips or other equipment through Bitfury Top HoldCo or any other suppliers. ASIC chip manufacturers and suppliers typically do not guarantee reserve foundry capacity or supplies without substantial order deposits. As such, there is a significant risk that we may not be able to timely place our purchase orders to ensure sufficient supply of the required equipment at prices acceptable to us or at all. Thus, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to initiate or progress our initial buildout phase as planned. Furthermore, any delays in connection with the Closing would further exacerbate that risk.

Our ability to source ASIC chips and other critical components in a timely matter and at an acceptable price is critical to our operational buildout timeline and the development under our current business model. As part of our strategy, we would aim to leverage our relationship with Bitfury Top HoldCo in obtaining certain necessary equipment, including ASIC chips, miners, containers, and servers. Specifically, Bitfury Group is currently developing its new eighth generation 5nm ASIC chip, referred to as the NIVEN chip. Once it becomes available, we would aim to order the NIVEN chip through the Master Services and Supply Agreement and utilize this chip in our miners. See “Information about Cipher—Bitcoin Mining Technology—ASIC chips”.

We are not required to order or accept any ASIC chips or other equipment from Bitfury Top HoldCo and can utilize an alternative or supplemental equipment supplier to obtain ASIC chips, miners and other critical equipment from other third parties. Irrespective of the delivering counterparty, we will be dependent on their timely supply at acceptable quality and prices and we will be exposed to the risk of disruptions or other failures in the overall global supply chain for cryptocurrency hardware. This is particularly relevant to the ASIC chip production since there is only a small number of fabrication facilities capable of such production, which increases our risk exposure to manufacturing disruptions or other supply chain failures. For further details see “—We are exposed to risks related to disruptions or other failures in the supply chain for cryptocurrency hardware and difficulties in obtaining new hardware.”

There is also a risk that a manufacturer or seller of ASIC chips or other necessary mining equipment may adjust the prices according to Bitcoin, other cryptocurrency prices or otherwise, so the cost of new machines could become unpredictable and extremely high. As a result, at times, we may be forced to obtain miners and other hardware at premium prices, to the extent they are even available. Such events could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

We are exposed to risks related to disruptions or other failures in the supply chain for cryptocurrency hardware and difficulties in obtaining new hardware.

Manufacture, assembly and delivery of certain components and products for mining operations could be complex and long processes, in the course of which various problems could arise, including disruptions or delays in the supply chain, product quality control issues, as well other external factors, over which we have no control.

Our mining operations can only be successful and ultimately profitable if the costs associated with Bitcoin mining, including hardware costs, are lower than the price of Bitcoin itself. In the course of the normal operation of our cryptocurrency mining facilities, our miners and other critical equipment and materials related to datacenter construction and maintenance, such as containers, switch gears, transformers and cables, will experience ordinary wear and tear and may also face more significant malfunctions caused by a number of extraneous factors beyond our control. Declines in the condition of our miners and other hardware will require us, over time, to repair or replace those miners. Additionally, as the technology evolves, we may be required to acquire newer models of miners to remain competitive in the market. Any upgrading process may require substantial capital investment, and we may face challenges in doing so on a timely and cost-effective basis.

Our business will be subject to limitations inherent within the supply chain of certain of our components, including competitive, governmental, and legal limitations, and other events. For example, we expect that we will significantly rely on foreign imports to obtain certain equipment and materials. We anticipate that the cryptocurrency miners for our operations will be imported from China and other parts of equipment and

55

materials, including ASIC chips, will be manufactured in and imported from South Korea or Taiwan. Any global trade disruption, introductions of tariffs, trade barriers and bilateral trade frictions, together with any potential downturns in the global economy resulting therefrom, could adversely affect our necessary supply chains. Our third-party manufacturers, suppliers and subcontractors may also experience disruptions by worker absenteeism, quarantines, restrictions on employees’ ability to work, office and factory closures, disruptions to ports and other shipping infrastructure, border closures, or other travel or health-related restrictions, such as those that were triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, for example. Depending on the magnitude of such effects on our supply chain, shipments of parts for our miners, or any new miners that we order, may be delayed.

Furthermore, the global supply chain for cryptocurrency miners is presently heavily dependent on China, which has been severely affected by the China as a main supplier of cryptocurrency miners has been called into question in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. China has also in the past limited the shipment of products in and out of its borders, which could negatively impact our ability to receive mining equipment from our China-based suppliers. Should similar outbreaks or other disruptions to the China-based global supply chain for cryptocurrency hardware occur, such as, for example, as result of worsening of the U.S. trade relations with China, including imposition of new tariffs, trade barriers and bilateral trade frictions, we may not be able to obtain adequate equipment from the manufacturer on a timely basis. Such events could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

The properties in our mining network may experience damages, including damages that are not covered by insurance.

Our planned mining operations in Ohio and Texas, and any other future cryptocurrency mining sites we establish, will be subject to a variety of risks relating to physical condition and operation, including:

For example, our cryptocurrency mining facilities could be rendered inoperable, temporarily or permanently, as a result of, among others, a fire or other natural disasters. The security and other measures we anticipate to take to protect against these risks may not be sufficient.

Additionally, our mines could be materially adversely affected by a power outage or loss of access to the electrical grid or loss by the grid of cost-effective sources of electrical power generating capacity. For further details on our reliance on the power generating capacity, see “—Bitcoin mining activities are energy intensive, which may restrict the geographic locations of miners and have a negative environmental impact. Government regulators may potentially restrict the ability of electricity suppliers to provide electricity to mining operations, such as ours.” Our insurance is anticipated to cover the replacement costs of any lost or damaged miners, but will not cover any interruption of our mining activities. Our insurance therefore may not be adequate to cover the losses we suffer as a result of any of these events. In the event of an uninsured loss, including a loss in excess of insured limits, at any of the mines in our network, such mines may not be adequately repaired in a timely manner or at all and we may lose some or all of the future revenues anticipated to be derived from such mines.

Our loss of any of our management team, our inability to execute an effective succession plan, or our inability to attract and retain qualified personnel, could adversely affect our business.

We have no operating history, and our success and future growth will to a significant degree depend on the skills and services of our management, including our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Legal Officer and Chief Operating Officer. We will need to continue to grow our management in order to alleviate

56

pressure on our existing team and in order to set up and develop our business. If our management, including any new hires that we may make, fails to work together effectively and to execute our plans and strategies on a timely basis, our business could be significantly harmed. Furthermore, if we fail to execute an effective contingency or succession plan with the loss of any member of management, the loss of such management personnel may significantly disrupt our business.

Furthermore, the loss of key members of our management could inhibit our growth prospects. Our future success depends, in large part, on our ability to attract, retain and motivate key management and operating personnel. As we continue to develop and expand our operations, we may require personnel with different skills and experiences, who have a sound understanding of our business and the cryptocurrency industry, for example, specialists in power contract negotiations and management, as well as data center specialists. As cryptocurrency, and specifically Bitcoin, mining, is a new and developing field, the market for highly qualified personnel in this industry is particularly competitive and we may be unable to attract such personnel. If we are unable to attract such personnel, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Cipher has 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, including as part of evolution in their regulatory treatment on the international and the U.S. federal, state and local levels. For more detail about the potential regulatory risks, see “Risk Factors—There is no one unifying principle governing the regulatory status of cryptocurrency nor whether cryptocurrency is a security in each context in which it is viewed. Regulatory changes or actions in one or more countries may alter the nature of an investment in us or restrict the use of digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies, in a manner that adversely affects our business, prospects or operations”. As a result, our business model may need to evolve in order for us to stay current with the industry and to fully comply with the federal, as well as the applicable, state securities laws.

Furthermore, from time to time we may modify aspects of our business model or engage in various strategic initiatives, which may be complimentary to our mining operations in the United States. For further information on our strategy, see “Information about Cipher—Our Strategy—Retain flexibility in considering strategically adjacent opportunities complimentary to our business model”. We cannot offer any assurance that these or any other modifications will be successful or will not result in harm to the business, damage our reputation and limit our growth. Additionally, any such changes to our business model or strategy could cause us to become subject to additional regulatory scrutiny and a number of additional requirements, including licensing and permit requirements. All of the abovementioned factors may impose additional compliance costs on our business and higher expectations from regulators regarding risk management, planning, governance and other aspects of our operations.

Further, we cannot provide any assurance that we will successfully identify all emerging trends and growth opportunities in this business sector and we may fail to capitalize on certain important business and market opportunities. Such circumstances could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

We may experience difficulties in effectively managing our initial buildout phase and, subsequently, managing our growth and expanding our operations.

We expect to experience significant growth in the scope of our operations. Our ability to manage our initial buildout phase and the planned second phase will require us to build upon and to continue to improve our operational, financial and management controls, compliance programs and reporting systems. We may not be able to implement improvements in an efficient or timely manner and may discover deficiencies in existing controls, programs, systems and procedures, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

57

Additionally, rapid growth in our business may place a strain on our managerial, operational and financial resources and systems. We may not grow as we expect, if we fail to manage our growth effectively or to develop and expand our managerial, operational and financial resources and systems, our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected.

Unfavorable global economic, business or political conditions, such as the global COVID-19 pandemic and the disruption caused by various countermeasures to reduce its spread, could adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Our results of operations could be adversely affected by general conditions in the global economy and in the global financial markets, including conditions that are outside of our control, such as the impact of the current outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (“COVID-19”). The COVID-19 pandemic that was declared on March 11, 2020 has caused significant economic dislocation in the United States and globally as governments of more than 80 countries across the world, including the United States, introduced measures aimed at preventing the spread of COVID-19, including, amongst others, travel restrictions, closed international borders, enhanced health screenings at ports of entry and elsewhere, quarantines and the imposition of both local and more widespread “work from home” measures. The spread of COVID-19 and the imposition of related public health measures have resulted in, and are expected to continue to result in, increased volatility and uncertainty in the cryptocurrency space. Any severe or prolonged economic downturn, as result of the COVID-19 pandemic or otherwise, could result in a variety of risks to our business and we cannot anticipate all the ways in which the current economic climate and financial market conditions could adversely impact our business.

We may experience disruptions to our business operations resulting from supply interruptions, quarantines, self-isolations, or other movement and restrictions on the ability of our employees to perform their jobs. For example, we may experience delays in construction and delays in obtaining necessary equipment in a timely fashion. If we are unable to effectively set up and service our miners, our ability to mine Bitcoin will be adversely affected. The future impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is still highly uncertain and there is no assurance that the COVID-19 pandemic or any other pandemic, or other unfavorable global economic, business or political conditions, will not materially and adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

We will operate in a highly competitive industry and we compete against unregulated or less regulated companies and companies with greater financial and other resources, and our business, operating results, and financial condition may be adversely affected if we are unable to respond to our competitors effectively.

The cryptocurrency ecosystem is highly innovative, rapidly evolving, and characterized by competition, experimentation, changing customer needs, frequent introductions of new products and services, and subject to uncertain and evolving industry and regulatory requirements. In the future, we expect competition to further intensify with existing and new competitors, some of which may have substantially greater liquidity and financial resources than we do. We compete against a number of companies operating both within the United States and abroad. Furthermore, increased regulatory focus and governmental scrutiny of cryptomining operations could lead to partial or full prohibitions on cryptocurrency mining activities in certain jurisdictions. For example, in May and June 2021, in their efforts to curb cryptocurrency trading and mining, regulators in several Chinese provinces, including Qinghai, Inner Mongolia and Sichuan, announced policies to curb or ban local cryptomining operations. As result of these developments, the price of Bitcoin experienced a drop of over 30% in May. Furthermore, such regulatory actions may lead to increase our domestic competition as some of those cryptocurrency miners or new entrants in this market may consider moving their cryptocurrency mining operations or establishing new operations in the United States. We may not be able to compete successfully against present or future competitors. We may not have the resources to compete with larger providers of similar services and, consequently, may experience great difficulties in expanding and improving our operations to remain competitive. For details on our current competitive landscape, see “Information about Cipher—Competition”.

58

Competition from existing and future competitors could result in our inability to secure acquisitions and partnerships that we may need to build-up or expand our business in the future. This competition from other entities with greater resources, experience and reputations may result in our failure to maintain or expand our business, as we may never be able to successfully execute our business model. Furthermore, we anticipate encountering new competition if we expand our operations to new locations geographically and into wider applications of blockchain, cryptocurrency mining and mining farm operations. If we are unable to expand and remain competitive, our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected.

Facebook’s development of a cryptocurrency may adversely affect the value of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

In May 2019, Facebook announced its plans for a cryptocurrency called Libra, which faced significant government scrutiny. In July 2019, Facebook announced that Libra will not launch until all regulatory concerns have been met. Facebook rebranded the crytocurrency to Diem in 2020. The massive social network and 27 other partners are estimating that the Diem digital coin and Facebook’s corresponding digital wallet, would be a way to make sending payments around the world as easy as it is to send a photo. Facebook’s significant resources and ability to engage the world via social media may enable it to bring Diem to market rapidly and to deploy it across industries more rapidly and successfully than previous cryptocurrencies. Facebook’s size and market share may cause its cryptocurrency to succeed to the detriment and potential exclusion of existing cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin.

We may acquire other businesses, form joint ventures or make other investments that could negatively affect our operating results, dilute our stockholders’ ownership, increase our debt or cause us to incur significant expenses.

From time to time, we may consider potential acquisitions, joint venture or other investment opportunities. We cannot offer any assurance that acquisitions of businesses, assets and/or entering into strategic alliances or joint ventures will be successful. We may not be able to find suitable partners or acquisition candidates and may not be able to complete such transactions on favorable terms, if at all. If we make any acquisitions, we may not be able to integrate these acquisitions successfully into the existing business and could assume unknown or contingent liabilities.

Any future acquisitions also could result in the issuance of stock, incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities or future write-offs of intangible assets or goodwill, any of which could have a negative impact on our cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. Integration of an acquired company may also disrupt ongoing operations and require management resources that otherwise would be focused on developing and expanding our existing business. We may experience losses related to potential investments in other companies, which could harm our financial condition and results of operations. Further, we may not realize the anticipated benefits of any acquisition, strategic alliance or joint venture if such investments do not materialize.

To finance any acquisitions or joint ventures, we may choose to issue shares of common stock, preferred stock or a combination of debt and equity as consideration, which could significantly dilute the ownership of our existing stockholders or provide rights to such preferred stock holders in priority over our common stock holders. Additional funds may not be available on terms that are favorable to us, or at all. If the price of our common stock is low or volatile, we may not be able to acquire other companies or fund a joint venture project using stock as consideration.

59

If we fail to develop, maintain, and enhance our brand and reputation, our business, operating results, and financial condition may be adversely affected.

We anticipate that our brand and reputation, particularly in the cryptocurrency ecosystem, will be an important factor in success and development of our business. As part of our strategy, we will seek to structure our relationships with Bitfury Top HoldCo, our power suppliers and other potential partners as long-term partnerships, see “Information about Cipher—Our Strategy—Position ourselves as a leader on the global cost curve and maintain strong relationships with our industry partners”. Thus, maintaining, protecting, and enhancing our reputation is also important to our development plans and relationships with our power suppliers, service providers and other counterparties.

Furthermore, we believe that the importance of our brand and reputation may increase as competition further intensifies. Our brand and reputation could be harmed if we fail to perform under our agreements or if our public image were to be tarnished by negative publicity, unexpected events or actions by third parties. Unfavorable publicity about us, including our technology, personnel, and Bitcoin and cryptoassets generally could have an adverse effect on the engagement of our partners and suppliers and may result in our failure to maintain or expand our business and successfully execute our business model.

Our compliance and risk management methods might not be effective and may result in outcomes that could adversely affect our reputation, operating results, and financial condition.

Our ability to comply with applicable complex and evolving laws, regulations, and rules is largely dependent on the establishment and maintenance of our compliance, audit, and reporting systems, as well as our ability to attract and retain qualified compliance and other risk management personnel. While we plan to devote significant resources to develop policies and procedures to identify, monitor and manage our risks, we cannot assure you that our policies and procedures will always be effective against all types of risks, including unidentified or unanticipated risks, or that we will always be successful in monitoring or evaluating the risks to which we are or may be exposed in all market environments.

We may infringe the intellectual property rights of others.

Our success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties. In recent years, there has been considerable patent, copyright, trademark, domain name, trade secret and other intellectual property development activity in the cryptocurrency space, as well as litigation, based on allegations of infringement or other violations of intellectual property, including by large financial institutions. Furthermore, individuals and groups can purchase patents and other intellectual property assets solely for the purpose of making claims of infringement to extract settlements from companies like ours.

Our use of third-party intellectual property rights may be subject to claims of infringement or misappropriation. From time to time, third parties may claim that we are infringing upon or misappropriating their intellectual property rights, and we may be found to be infringing upon such rights. Any claims or litigation could cause us to incur significant expenses and, if successfully asserted against us, could require that we pay substantial damages or ongoing royalty payments.

Furthermore, the occurrence of infringement claims may be likely to grow as the cryptocurrency ecosystem grows and matures. Accordingly, our exposure to damages resulting from infringement claims could increase and this could further exhaust our financial and management resources. Even if intellectual property claims do not result in litigation or are resolved in our favor, these claims, and the time and resources necessary to resolve them, could divert the resources of our management and require significant expenditures. Any of the foregoing could prevent us from competing effectively and could have an adverse effect on our business, operating results, and financial condition.

60

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position could be harmed.

To protect all of our confidential and proprietary information, we plan to rely upon trademarks, copyright and trade secret protection, as well as potentially patents, non-disclosure agreements and invention assignment agreements with employees, consultants and third parties. Some elements of our business model are based on unpatented trade secrets and know-how that are not publicly disclosed. In addition to contractual measures, we plan to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information using physical and technological security measures. Such measures may not, for example, in the case of misappropriation of a trade secret by an employee or third party with authorized access, provide adequate protection for our proprietary information.

The security measures may not prevent an employee or consultant from misappropriating our trade secrets and providing them to a competitor, and the recourse we take against such misconduct may not provide an adequate remedy to protect our interests fully. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret can be difficult, expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. If any of our confidential or proprietary information, such as our trade secrets, were to be disclosed or misappropriated, or if any such information was independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position could be harmed, which could have an adverse effect on our business, operating results, and financial condition

Risks Related to Regulatory Framework

If we were deemed an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), applicable restrictions could make it impractical for us to continue our business as contemplated and could have a material adverse effect on our business.

An issuer will generally be deemed to be an “investment company” for purposes of the 1940 Act if:

We believe that we are not and will not be primarily engaged in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities, and we do not hold ourselves out as being engaged in those activities. We intend to hold ourselves out as a cryptocurrency mining business, specializing in Bitcoin. Accordingly, we do not believe that we are an “orthodox” investment company as described in the first bullet point above.

While certain cryptocurrencies may be deemed to be securities, we do not believe that certain other cryptocurrencies, in particular Bitcoin, are securities. Our cryptocurrency mining activities will focus on Bitcoin; therefore, we believe that less than 40% of our total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis will comprise cryptocurrencies or assets that could be considered investment securities. Accordingly, we do not believe that we are an inadvertent investment company by virtue of the 40% inadvertent investment company test as described in the second bullet point above. Although we do not believe any of the cryptocurrencies we may own, acquire or mine are securities, there is still some regulatory uncertainty on the subject, see “—There is no one unifying principle governing the regulatory status of cryptocurrency nor whether cryptocurrency is a security in each context in which it is viewed. Regulatory changes or actions in one or more countries may alter the nature of an investment in us or restrict the use of digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies, in a manner that adversely affects our business, prospects or operations.” If certain cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, were to be deemed securities, and consequently, investment securities by the SEC, we could be deemed an inadvertent investment company.

If we were to be deemed an inadvertent investment company, we may seek to rely on Rule 3a-2 under the 1940 Act, which allows an inadvertent investment company a grace period of one year from the earlier of (a) the date

61

on which the issuer owns securities and/or cash having a value exceeding 50% of the issuer’s total assets on either a consolidated or unconsolidated basis or (b) the date on which the issuer owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of such issuer’s total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. We are putting in place policies that we expect will work to keep the investment securities held by us at less than 40% of our total assets, which may include acquiring assets with our cash, liquidating our investment securities or seeking no-action relief or exemptive relief from the SEC if we are unable to acquire sufficient assets or liquidate sufficient investment securities in a timely manner. As Rule 3a-2 is available to an issuer no more than once every three years, and assuming no other exclusion were available to us, we would have to keep within the 40% limit for at least three years after we cease being an inadvertent investment company. This may limit our ability to make certain investments or enter into joint ventures that could otherwise have a positive impact on our earnings. In any event, we do not intend to become an investment company engaged in the business of investing and trading securities.

Finally, we believe we are not an investment company under Section 3(b)(1) of the 1940 Act because we are primarily engaged in a non-investment company business.

The 1940 Act and the rules thereunder contain detailed parameters for the organization and operations of investment companies. Among other things, the 1940 Act and the rules thereunder limit or prohibit transactions with affiliates, impose limitations on the issuance of debt and equity securities, prohibit the issuance of stock options, and impose certain governance requirements. We intend to continue to conduct our operations so that we will not be deemed to be an investment company under the 1940 Act. However, if anything were to happen that would cause us to be deemed to be an investment company under the 1940 Act, requirements imposed by the 1940 Act, including limitations on our capital structure, ability to transact business with affiliates and ability to compensate key employees, could make it impractical for us to continue our business as currently conducted, impair the agreements and arrangements between and among us and our senior management team and materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Any change in the interpretive positions of the SEC or its staff with respect to cryptocurrencies or digital asset mining firms could have a material adverse effect on us.

We intend to conduct our operations so that we are not required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act. Specifically, we do not believe that cryptocurrencies, in particular Bitcoin, are securities. The SEC Staff has not provided guidance with respect to the treatment of these assets under the 1940 Act. To the extent the SEC Staff publishes new guidance with respect to these matters, we may be required to adjust our strategy or assets accordingly. There can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain our exclusion from registration as an investment company under the 1940 Act. In addition, as a consequence of our seeking to avoid the need to register under the 1940 Act on an ongoing basis, we may be limited in our ability to engage in cryptocurrency mining operations or otherwise make certain investments, and these limitations could result in our holding assets we may wish to sell or selling assets we may wish to hold, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If regulatory changes or interpretations of our activities require our registration as a money services business (“MSB”) under the regulations promulgated by FinCEN under the authority of the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act, or otherwise under state laws, we may incur significant compliance costs, which could be substantial or cost-prohibitive. If we become subject to these regulations, our costs in complying with them may have a material negative effect on our business and the results of our operations.

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

62

To the extent that our activities would cause us to be deemed a “money transmitter” (“MT”) or equivalent designation, under state law in any state in which we may operate, we may be required to seek a license or otherwise register with a state regulator and comply with state regulations that may include the implementation of anti-money laundering programs, maintenance of certain records and other operational requirements. For example, in August 2015, the New York State Department of Financial Services enacted the first U.S. regulatory framework for licensing participants in “virtual currency business activity”. The regulations, known as the “BitLicense”, are intended to focus on consumer protection and regulate the conduct of businesses that are involved in “virtual currencies” in New York or with New York customers and prohibit any person or entity involved in such activity to conduct activities without a license.

Such additional federal or state regulatory obligations may cause us to incur extraordinary expenses. Furthermore, we may not be capable of complying with certain federal or state regulatory obligations applicable to MSBs and MTs. If we are deemed to be subject to and determine not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, we may act to dissolve and liquidate.

There is no one unifying principle governing the regulatory status of cryptocurrency nor whether cryptocurrency is a security in each context in which it is viewed. Regulatory changes or actions in one or more countries may alter the nature of an investment in us or restrict the use of digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies, in a manner that adversely affects our business, prospects or operations.

As cryptocurrencies have grown in both popularity and market size, governments around the world have reacted differently, with certain governments deeming cryptocurrencies illegal, and others allowing their use and trade without restriction. In some jurisdictions, such as in the U.S., digital assets, like cryptocurrencies, are subject to extensive, and in some cases overlapping, unclear and evolving regulatory requirements.

Bitcoin is the oldest and most well-known form of cryptocurrency. Bitcoin and other forms of cryptocurrencies have been the source of much regulatory consternation, resulting in differing definitional outcomes without a single unifying statement. Bitcoin and other digital assets are viewed differently by different regulatory and standards setting organizations globally as well as in the United States on the federal and state levels. For example, the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) consider a cryptocurrency as currency or an asset or property. Further, the IRS applies general tax principles that apply to property transactions to transactions involving virtual currency.

Furthermore, in the several applications to establish an Exchange Traded Fund (“ETF”) of cryptocurrency, and in the questions raised by the Staff under the 1940 Act, no clear principles emerge from the regulators as to how they view these issues and how to regulate cryptocurrency under the applicable securities acts. It has been widely reported that the SEC has recently issued letters and requested various ETF applications be withdrawn because of concerns over liquidity and valuation and unanswered questions about absence of reporting and compliance procedures capable of being implemented under the current state of the markets for exchange traded funds. On April 20, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill titled “Eliminate Barriers to Innovation Act of 2021” (H.R. 1602). If passed by the Senate and enacted into law, the bipartisan bill would create a digital assets working group to evaluate the current legal and regulatory framework around digital assets in the United States and define when the SEC may have jurisdiction over a particular token or cryptocurrency (i.e., when it is a security) and when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) may have jurisdiction (i.e., when it is a commodity).

If regulatory changes or interpretations require the regulation of Bitcoin or other digital assets under the securities laws of the United States or elsewhere, including the Securities Act of 1933, the Exchange Act and the 1940 Act or similar laws of other jurisdictions and interpretations by the SEC, the CFTC, the IRS, Department of Treasury or other agencies or authorities, we may be required to register and comply with such regulations, including at a state or local level. To the extent that we decide to continue operations, the required registrations and regulatory compliance steps may result in extraordinary expense or burdens to us. We may also decide to

63

cease certain operations and change our business model. Any disruption of our operations in response to the changed regulatory circumstances may be at a time that is disadvantageous to us.

Current and future legislation and SEC-rulemaking and other regulatory developments, including interpretations released by a regulatory authority, may impact the manner in which Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies are viewed or treated for classification and clearing purposes. In particular, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies may not be excluded from the definition of “security” by SEC rulemaking or interpretation requiring registration of all transactions unless another exemption is available, including transacting in Bitcoin or cryptocurrency among owners and require registration of trading platforms as “exchanges”.

Furthermore, when the interests of investor protection are paramount, for example in the offer or sale of Initial Coin Offering (“ICO”) tokens, the SEC has no difficulty determining that the token offerings are securities under the “Howey” test as stated by the United States Supreme Court. As such, ICO offerings would require registration under the Securities Act or an available exemption therefrom for offers or sales in the United States to be lawful. Section 5(a) of the Securities Act provides that, unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, it is unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to engage in the offer or sale of securities in interstate commerce. Section 5(c) of the Securities Act provides a similar prohibition against offers to sell, or offers to buy, unless a registration statement has been filed. Although, since we do not intend to be engaged in the offer or sale of securities in the form of ICO offerings, and we do not believe our planned mining activities would require registration for us to conduct such activities and accumulate digital assets the SEC, CFTC, Nasdaq or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency or organization may conclude that our activities involve the offer or sale of “securities”, or ownership of “investment securities”, and we may face regulation under the Securities Act or the 1940 Act. Such regulation or the inability to meet the requirements to continue operations, would have a material adverse effect on our business and operations. We may also face similar issues with various state securities regulators who may interpret our actions as requiring registration under state securities laws, banking laws, or money transmitter and similar laws, which are also an unsettled area or regulation that exposes us to risks.

We cannot be certain as to how future regulatory developments will impact the treatment of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies under the law. If we fail to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, we may seek to cease certain of our operations or be subjected to fines, penalties and other governmental action. Such circumstances could have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue as a going concern or to pursue our business model at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects or operations and potentially the value of any cryptocurrencies we plan to hold or expect to acquire for our own account.

Regulatory actions in one or more countries could severely affect the right to acquire, own, hold, sell or use certain cryptocurrencies or to exchange them for fiat currency.

One or more countries, such as China or Russia, may take regulatory actions in the future that could severely restrict the right to acquire, own, hold, sell or use cryptocurrencies or to exchange them for fiat currency. In some nations, it is illegal to accept payment in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for consumer transactions and banking institutions are barred from accepting deposits of cryptocurrencies. Such restrictions may adversely affect us as the large-scale use of cryptocurrencies as a means of exchange is presently confined to certain regions.

Furthermore, in the future, foreign governments may decide to subsidize or in some other way support certain large-scale cryptocurrency mining projects, thus adding hashrate to the overall network. Such circumstances could have a material adverse effect on the amount of Bitcoin we may be able to mine, the value of Bitcoin and any other cryptocurrencies we may potentially acquire or hold in the future and, consequently, our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results.

64

Competition from central bank digital currencies (“CBDCs”) could adversely affect the value of Bitcoin and other digital assets.

Central banks in some countries have started to introduce digital forms of legal tender. For example, China’s CBDC project, known as Digital Currency Electronic Payment, has reportedly been tested in a live pilot program conducted in multiple cities in China. A 2021 survey of central banks by the Bank for International Settlements found that 86% are actively researching the potential for CBDCs, 60% were experimenting with the technology and 14% were deploying pilot projects. Whether or not they incorporate blockchain or similar technology, CBDCs, as legal tender in the issuing jurisdiction, could have an advantage in competing with, or replacing, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as a medium of exchange or store of value. As a result, the value of Bitcoin could decrease, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Risks Related to Cryptocurrency

We may lose our private key to our digital wallet, causing a loss of all of our digital assets.

Digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies, are stored in a so-called “digital wallet”, which may be accessed to exchange a holder’s digital assets, and is controllable by the processor of both the public key and the private key relating to this digital wallet in which the digital assets are held, both of which are unique. We will publish the public key relating to digital wallets in use when we verify the receipt of transfers and disseminate such information into the network, but we will need to safeguard the private keys relating to such digital wallets. If the private key is lost, destroyed, or otherwise compromised, we may be unable to access our cryptocurrencies held in the related digital wallet which will essentially be lost. If the private key is acquired by a third party, then this third party may be able to gain access to our cryptocurrencies. Any loss of private keys relating to digital wallets used to store our cryptocurrencies could have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue as a going concern or could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

The storage and custody of our Bitcoin assets and any other cryptocurrencies that we may potentially acquire or hold in the future are subject to cybersecurity breaches and adverse software events.

In addition to the risk of a private key loss to our digital wallet, see “—We may lose our private key to our digital wallet, destroying all of our digital assets”, the storage and custody of our digital assets could also be subject to cybersecurity breaches and adverse software events. In order to minimize risk, we plan to establish processes to manage wallets, or software programs where assets are held, that are associated with our cryptocurrency holdings.

A “hot wallet” refers to any cryptocurrency wallet that is connected to the Internet. Generally, hot wallets are easier to set up and access than wallets in “cold” storage, but they are also more susceptible to hackers and other technical vulnerabilities. “Cold storage” refers to any cryptocurrency wallet that is not connected to the Internet. Cold storage is generally more secure than hot storage, but is not ideal for quick or regular transactions and we may experience lag time in our ability to respond to market fluctuations in the price of our digital assets.

We generally plan to hold the majority of our cryptocurrencies in cold storage to reduce the risk of malfeasance; however we may also use third-party custodial wallets and, from time to time, we may use hot wallets or rely on other options that may develop in the future. If we use a custodial wallet, there can be no assurance that such services will be more secure than cold storage or other alternatives. Human error and the constantly evolving state of cybercrime and hacking techniques may render present security protocols and procedures ineffective in ways which we cannot predict.

Regardless of the storage method, the risk of damage to or loss of our digital assets cannot be wholly eliminated. If our security procedures and protocols are ineffective and our cryptocurrency assets are compromised by

65

cybercriminals, we may not have adequate recourse to recover our losses stemming from such compromise. A security breach could also harm our reputation. A resulting perception that our measures do not adequately protect our digital assets could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Our Bitcoin assets and any other cryptocurrencies we may potentially acquire or hold in the future may be subject to loss, theft, hacking, fraud risks and restriction on access.

There is a risk that some or all of our Bitcoin assets and any other cryptocurrencies we may potentially acquire or hold in the future could be lost or stolen. Hackers or malicious actors may launch attacks to steal or compromise cryptocurrencies, such as by attacking the cryptocurrency network source code, exchange miners, third-party platforms, cold and hot storage locations or software, or by other means. Cryptocurrency transactions and accounts are not insured by any type of government program and cryptocurrency transactions generally are permanent by design of the networks. Certain features of cryptocurrency networks, such as decentralization, the open source protocols, and the reliance on peer-to-peer connectivity, may increase the risk of fraud or cyber-attack by potentially reducing the likelihood of a coordinated response.

Cryptocurrencies have suffered from a number of recent hacking incidents and several cryptocurrency exchanges and miners have reported large cryptocurrency losses, which highlight concerns over the security of cryptocurrencies and in turn affect the demand and the market price of cryptocurrencies. For example, in August 2016, it was reported that almost 120,000 Bitcoin worth around $78 million were stolen from Bitfinex, a large Bitcoin exchange. The value of Bitcoin immediately decreased by more than 10% following reports of the theft at Bitfinex. In addition, in December 2017, Yapian, the operator of Seoul-based digital asset exchange Youbit, suspended digital asset trading and filed for bankruptcy following a hack that resulted in a loss of 17% of Yapian’s assets. Following the hack, Youbit users were allowed to withdraw approximately 75% of the digital assets in their exchange accounts, with any potential further distributions to be made following Yapian’s pending bankruptcy proceedings. In January 2018, Japan-based exchange Coincheck reported that over $500 million worth of the digital asset NEM had been lost due to hacking attacks, resulting in significant decreases in the prices of Bitcoin, Ether and other digital assets as the market grew increasingly concerned about the security of digital assets. Following South Korean-based exchange Coinrail’s announcement in early June 2018 about a hacking incident, the price of Bitcoin and Ether dropped more than 10%. In September 2018, Japan-based exchange Zaif also announced that approximately $60 million worth of digital assets, including Bitcoin, was stolen due to hacking activities.

We may be in control and possession of one of the more substantial holdings of cryptocurrency. As we increase in size, we may become a more appealing target of hackers, malware, cyber-attacks or other security threats. Cyber-attacks may also target our miners or third-parties and other services on which we depend. Any potential security breaches, cyber-attacks on our operations and any other loss or theft of our cryptocurrency assets, which could expose us to liability and reputational harm and could seriously curtail the utilization of our services.

Incorrect or fraudulent cryptocurrency transactions may be irreversible.

Cryptocurrency transactions are irrevocable and stolen or incorrectly transferred cryptocurrencies may be irretrievable. As a result, any incorrectly executed or fraudulent cryptocurrency transactions could adversely affect our investments and assets.

Cryptocurrency transactions are not, from an administrative perspective, reversible without the consent and active participation of the recipient of the cryptocurrencies from the transaction. While theoretically cryptocurrency transactions may be reversible with the control or consent of a majority of processing power on the network, we do not now, nor is it feasible that we could in the future, possess sufficient processing power to effect this reversal.

66

Once a transaction has been verified and recorded in a block that is added to a blockchain, an incorrect transfer of a cryptocurrency or a theft thereof generally will not be reversible and we may not have sufficient recourse to recover our losses from any such transfer or theft. It is possible that, through computer or human error, or through theft or criminal action, our cryptocurrency rewards could be transferred in incorrect amounts or to unauthorized third parties, or to uncontrolled accounts.

Further, according to the SEC, at this time, there is no specifically enumerated U.S. or foreign governmental, regulatory, investigative or prosecutorial authority or mechanism through which to bring an action or complaint regarding missing or stolen cryptocurrency. The market participants, therefore, are presently reliant on existing private investigative entities to investigate any potential loss of our digital assets. These third-party service providers rely on data analysis and compliance of ISPs with traditional court orders to reveal information such as the IP addresses of any attackers. To the extent that we are unable to recover our losses from such action, error or theft, such events could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results, including our ability to continue as a going concern.

Acceptance and widespread use of cryptocurrency, in general, and Bitcoin, specifically, is uncertain.

Currently, there is a relatively limited use of any cryptocurrency in the retail and commercial marketplace, contributing to price volatility of cryptocurrencies. Price volatility undermines any cryptocurrency’s role as a medium of exchange, as retailers are much less likely to accept it as a form of payment. Banks and other established financial institutions may refuse to process funds for cryptocurrency transactions, process wire transfers to or from cryptocurrency exchanges, cryptocurrency-related companies or service providers, or maintain accounts for persons or entities transacting in cryptocurrency. Furthermore, a significant portion of cryptocurrency demand, including demand for Bitcoin, is generated by investors seeking a long-term store of value or speculators seeking to profit from the short- or long-term holding of the asset.

The relative lack of acceptance of cryptocurrencies in the retail and commercial marketplace, or a reduction of such use, limits the ability of end users to use them to pay for goods and services. Such lack of acceptance or decline in acceptances could have a material adverse effect on the value of Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrencies, and consequently our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results.

Ownership of Bitcoin is pseudonymous, and the supply of accessible Bitcoin is unknown. Individuals or entities with substantial holdings in Bitcoin may engage in large-scale sales or distributions, either on non-market terms or in the ordinary course, which could disproportionately and negatively affect the cryptocurrency market, result in a reduction in the price of Bitcoin and materially and adversely affect the price of our common stock.

There is no registry showing which individuals or entities own Bitcoin or the quantity of Bitcoin that is owned by any particular person or entity. It is possible, and in fact, reasonably likely, that a small group of early Bitcoin adopters hold a significant proportion of the Bitcoin that has been created to date. There are no regulations in place that would prevent a large holder of Bitcoin from selling Bitcoin it holds. To the extent such large holders of Bitcoin engage in large-scale sales or distributions, either on non-market terms or in the ordinary course, it could negatively affect the cryptocurrency market and result in a reduction in the price of Bitcoin. This, in turn, could materially and adversely affect the price of our stock, our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

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.

The Bitcoin network operates based on an open-source protocol, not represented by an official organization or authority. Instead it is maintained by a group of core contributors, largely on the Bitcoin Core project on GitHub.com. This group of contributors is currently headed by Wladimir J. van der Laan, the current lead

67

maintainer. 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.

There can be no guarantee that developer support will continue or be sufficient in the future. Additionally, some development and developers are funded by companies whose interests may be at odds with other participants in the network or with investors’ interests. To the extent that material issues arise with the Bitcoin network protocol and the core developers and open-source contributors are unable or unwilling to address the issues adequately or in a timely manner, the Bitcoin network and consequently our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected.

Significant contributors to all or a network for any particular digital asset, such as Bitcoin, could propose amendments to the respective network’s protocols and software that, if accepted and authorized by such network, could adversely affect our business.

The Bitcoin network is maintained by a group of contributors, largely on the Bitcoin Core project on GitHub.com, currently headed by Wladimir J. van der Laan, see “—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”. 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.

If 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, with one running the pre-modification software program and the other running the modified version (i.e., a second “Bitcoin network”). This is known as a “hard fork”. Such a hard fork in the blockchain typically would be addressed by community-led efforts to reunite the forked blockchains, and several prior forks have been resolved successfully. However, a “hard fork” in the blockchain could materially and adversely affect the perceived value of Bitcoin as reflected on one or both incompatible blockchains. Additionally, a “hard fork” will decrease the number of users and miners available to each fork of the blockchain as the users and miners on each fork blockchain will not be accessible to the other blockchain and, consequently, there will be fewer block rewards and transaction fees may decline in value. Any of the above could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

A temporary or permanent blockchain “fork” could have a negative effect on digital assets’ value.

In August 2017, Bitcoin “forked” into Bitcoin and a new digital asset, Bitcoin Cash, as a result of a several-year dispute over how to increase the rate of transactions that the Bitcoin network can process. Since then, Bitcoin has been forked numerous times to launch new digital assets, such as Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Silver and Bitcoin Diamond. These forks effectively result in a new blockchain being created with a shared history, and new path forward, and they have a different “proof of work” algorithm and other technical changes.

The value of the newly created Bitcoin Cash and the other similar digital assets 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 these 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.

68

Furthermore, a hard fork can introduce new security risks. For example, when Ethereum and Ethereum Classic split in July 2016, replay attacks, in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast to nefarious effect on the other network, plagued trading venues through at least October 2016. An exchange announced in July 2016 that it had lost 40,000 Ether from the Ethereum Classic network, which was worth about $100,000 at that time, as a result of replay attacks. Another possible result of a hard fork is an inherent decrease in the level of security. After a hard fork, it may become easier for an individual miner or mining pool’s hashing power to exceed 50% of the processing power of the Bitcoin network, thereby making the network more susceptible to attack.

A fork could also be introduced by an unintentional, unanticipated software flaw in the multiple versions of otherwise compatible software that users run. It is possible, however, that a substantial number of users and miners could adopt an incompatible version of Bitcoin while resisting community-led efforts to merge the two chains. This would result in a permanent fork, as in the case of Ethereum and Ethereum Classic, as detailed above.

If a fork occurs on a digital asset network which we are mining, such as Bitcoin, or hold digital assets in, it may have a negative effect on the value of the digital asset and could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Because there has been limited precedent set for financial accounting for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency assets, the determinations that we have made for how to account for cryptocurrency assets transactions may be subject to change.

Because there has been limited precedent set for the financial accounting for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency assets and related revenue recognition and no official guidance has yet been provided by the Financial Accounting Standards Board or the SEC, it is unclear how companies may in the future be required to account for cryptocurrency transactions and assets and related revenue recognition. A change in regulatory or financial accounting standards could result in the necessity to change the accounting methods we currently intend to employ in respect of our anticipated revenues and assets and restate any financial statements produced based on those methods. Such a restatement could adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operation.

The development and acceptance of cryptographic and algorithmic protocols governing the issuance of and transactions in cryptocurrencies is subject to a variety of factors that are difficult to evaluate.

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

69

The outcome of these factors could have negative effects on our ability to pursue our business strategy, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results as well as potentially negative effect on the value of Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrencies we may potentially acquire or hold in the future.

Banks and financial institutions may not provide banking services, or may cut off services, to businesses that provide cryptocurrency-related services or that accept cryptocurrencies as payment.

A number of companies that provide Bitcoin or other cryptocurrency-related services have been unable to find banks or financial institutions that are willing to provide them with bank accounts and other services. Similarly, a number of companies and individuals or businesses associated with cryptocurrencies may have had and may continue to have their existing bank accounts closed or services discontinued with financial institutions. We also may be unable to maintain these services for our business.

The difficulty that many businesses that provide Bitcoin or other cryptocurrency-related services have and may continue to have in finding banks and financial institutions willing to provide them services may decrease the usefulness of cryptocurrencies as a payment system and harm public perception of cryptocurrencies. Similarly, the usefulness of cryptocurrencies as a payment system and the public perception of cryptocurrencies could be damaged if banks or financial institutions were to close the accounts of businesses providing Bitcoin or other cryptocurrency-related services. This could occur as a result of compliance risk, cost, government regulation or public pressure. The risk applies to securities firms, clearance and settlement firms, national stock and commodities exchanges, the over the counter market and the Depository Trust Company. Such factors would have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, face significant scaling obstacles that can lead to high fees or slow transaction settlement times and any mechanisms of increasing the scale of cryptocurrency settlement may significantly alter the competitive dynamics in the market.

Cryptocurrencies face significant scaling obstacles that can lead to high fees or slow transaction settlement times, and attempts to increase the volume of transactions may not be effective. Scaling cryptocurrencies, and particularly Bitcoin, is essential to the widespread acceptance of cryptocurrencies as a means of payment, which is necessary to the growth and development of our business.

Many cryptocurrency networks face significant scaling challenges. For example, cryptocurrencies are limited with respect to how many transactions can occur per second. In this respect, Bitcoin may be particularly affected as it relies on the “proof of work” validation, which due to its inherent characteristics may be particularly hard to scale to allow simultaneous processing of multiple daily transactions by users. Participants in the cryptocurrency ecosystem debate potential approaches to increasing the average number of transactions per second that the network can handle and have implemented mechanisms or are researching ways to increase scale, such as “sharding”, which is a term for a horizontal partition of data in a database or search engine, which would not require every single transaction to be included in every single miner’s or validator’s block. For example, the Ethereum network is in the process of implementing software upgrades and other changes to its protocol, the so-called Ethereum 2.0, which are intended to be a new iteration of the Ethereum network that changes its consensus mechanism from “proof-of-work” to “proof-of-stake” and incorporate the use of “sharding”. This version aims to address: a clogged network that can only handle limited number of transactions per second and the large consumption of energy that comes with the “proof-of-work” mechanism. This new upgrade is envisioned to be more scalable, secure, and sustainable, although it remains unclear whether and how it may ultimately be implemented.

There is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the scale of settlement of cryptocurrency transactions will be effective, how long they will take to become effective or whether such mechanisms will be effective for all cryptocurrencies. There is also a risk that any mechanisms of increasing the scale of cryptocurrency settlement, such as the ongoing upgrades as part of Ethereum 2.0, may significantly alter

70

the competitive dynamics in the cryptocurrency market and may adversely affect the value of Bitcoin and the price of our common stock. Any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

The development and acceptance of competing blockchain platforms or technologies may cause consumers to use alternative distributed ledgers or other alternatives.

The development and acceptance of competing blockchain platforms or technologies may cause consumers to use alternative distributed ledgers or an alternative to distributed ledgers altogether. Our business intends to rely on presently existent digital ledgers and blockchains and we could face difficulty adapting to emergent digital ledgers, blockchains, or alternatives thereto. This may adversely affect us and our exposure to various blockchain technologies and prevent us from realizing the anticipated profits from our investments. Such circumstances could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results and potentially the value of any Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies we may potentially acquire or hold in the future.

If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control in excess of 50% of the processing power active on any digital asset network, including the Bitcoin network, it is possible that such actor or botnet could manipulate the blockchain in a manner that may adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

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 any digital asset network (the so-called “double-spend” or “51%” attacks), including the Bitcoin network, it may be able to alter the blockchain by constructing alternate blocks if it is able to solve for such blocks faster than the remainder of the miners on the blockchain 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 digital assets or transactions using such control.

Using alternate blocks, the malicious actor could “double-spend” its own digital assets (i.e., spend the same digital assets 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 or the digital asset community does not reject the fraudulent blocks as malicious, reversing any changes made to the blockchain may not be possible.

For example, in late May and early June 2014, a mining pool known as GHash.io approached and, during a 24- to 48-hour period in early June may have exceeded, the threshold of 50% of the processing power on the Bitcoin network. To the extent that GHash.io did exceed 50% of the processing power on the network, reports indicate that such threshold was surpassed for only a short period, and there are no reports of any malicious activity or control of the blockchain performed by GHash.io. Furthermore, the processing power in the mining pool appears to have been redirected to other pools on a voluntary basis by participants in the GHash.io pool, as had been done in prior instances when a mining pool exceeded 40% of the processing power on the Bitcoin network. In the recent years, there have been also a series of 51% attacks on a number of other cryptocurrencies, including Verge and Ethereum Classic, which suffered three consecutive attacks in August 2020.

The approach towards and possible crossing of the 50% threshold indicate a greater risk that a single mining pool could exert authority over the validation of digital asset transactions. To the extent that the cryptocurrency ecosystem does not act to ensure greater decentralization of cryptocurrency mining processing power, the feasibility of a malicious actor obtaining in excess of 50% of the processing power on any digital asset network (e.g., through control of a large mining pool or through hacking such a mining pool) will increase, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

71

The price of cryptocurrencies may be affected by the sale of such cryptocurrencies by other vehicles investing in cryptocurrencies or tracking cryptocurrency markets.

The global market for cryptocurrency is characterized by supply constraints that differ from those present in the markets for commodities or other assets such as gold and silver. The mathematical protocols under which certain cryptocurrencies are mined permit the creation of a limited, predetermined amount of currency, while others have no limit established on total supply. To the extent that other vehicles investing in cryptocurrencies or tracking cryptocurrency markets form and come to represent a significant proportion of the demand for cryptocurrencies, large redemptions of the securities of those vehicles and the subsequent sale of cryptocurrencies by such vehicles could negatively affect cryptocurrency prices and therefore affect the value of the cryptocurrency inventory we plan to hold. Such events could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

We may face risks of Internet disruptions, which could have a material adverse effect on the price of cryptocurrencies.

A disruption of the Internet may affect the use of cryptocurrencies and subsequently the value of our securities. Generally, cryptocurrencies and our business of mining cryptocurrencies is dependent upon the Internet. A significant disruption in Internet connectivity could disrupt a currency’s network operations until the disruption is resolved and have a material adverse effect on the price of cryptocurrencies and, consequently, our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

The impact of geopolitical and economic events on the supply and demand for cryptocurrencies is uncertain.

Geopolitical crises may motivate large-scale purchases of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, which could increase the price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies rapidly. This may increase the likelihood of a subsequent price decrease and fluctuations as crisis-driven purchasing behavior dissipates, adversely affecting the value of our inventory following such downward adjustment. Such risks are similar to the risks of purchasing commodities in general uncertain times, such as the risk of purchasing, holding or selling gold. Alternatively, as an emerging asset class with limited acceptance as a payment system or commodity, global crises and general economic downturn may discourage investment in cryptocurrencies as investors focus their investment on less volatile asset classes as a means of hedging their investment risk.

As an alternative to fiat currencies that are backed by central governments, cryptocurrencies, which are relatively new, are subject to supply and demand forces. How such supply and demand will be impacted by geopolitical events is largely uncertain but could be harmful to us and our investors.

Our interactions with a blockchain may expose us to SDN or blocked persons or cause us to violate provisions of law that did not contemplate distribute ledger technology.

The Office of Financial Assets Control of the U.S. Department of Treasury (“OFAC”) requires us to comply with its sanction program and not conduct business with persons named on its specially designated nationals (“SDN”) list. However, because of the pseudonymous nature of blockchain transactions, we may inadvertently and without our knowledge engage in transactions with persons named on OFAC’s SDN list. Our internal policies prohibit any transactions with such SDN individuals, but we may not be adequately capable of determining the ultimate identity of the individual with whom we transact with respect to selling digital assets. In addition, in the future, OFAC or another regulator, may require us to screen transactions for OFAC addresses or other bad actors before including such transactions in a block, which may increase our compliance costs, decrease our anticipated transaction fees and lead to decreased traffic on our network. Any of these factors, consequently, could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Moreover, federal law prohibits any U.S. person from knowingly or unknowingly possessing any visual depiction commonly known as child pornography. Recent media reports have suggested that persons have imbedded such

72

depictions on one or more blockchains. Because our business requires us to download and retain one or more blockchains to effectuate our ongoing business, it is possible that such digital ledgers contain prohibited depictions without our knowledge or consent. To the extent government enforcement authorities literally enforce these and other laws and regulations that are impacted by decentralized distributed ledger technology, we may be subject to investigation, administrative or court proceedings, and civil or criminal monetary fines and penalties, all of which could harm our reputation and could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Risks Related to Cryptocurrency Mining

Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency that we currently plan to mine and, thus, our future success will depend in large part upon the value of Bitcoin; the value of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies may be subject to pricing risk and has historically been subject to wide swings.

Our operating results will depend in large part upon the value of Bitcoin because it is the only cryptocurrency that we currently plan to mine. Specifically, our revenues from our cryptocurrency mining operations are expected to be based upon two factors: (1) the number of block rewards that we successfully mine and (2) the value of Bitcoin. For further details on how our operating results may be directly impacted by changes in the value of Bitcoin, see “—Our historical financial statements do not reflect the potential variability in earnings that we may experience in the future relating to bitcoin holdings.”

Furthermore, in our operations we intend to use application-specific integrated circuit (“ASIC”) chips and machines (which we refer to as “miners”), which are principally utilized for mining Bitcoin. Such miners cannot mine other cryptocurrencies, such as Ether, that are not mined utilizing the “SHA-256 algorithm”.

If other cryptocurrencies were to achieve acceptance at the expense of Bitcoin, causing the value of Bitcoin to decline, or if Bitcoin were to switch its “proof of work” algorithm from SHA-256 to another algorithm for which the miners we plan to use are not specialized (see “—There is a possibility of cryptocurrency mining algorithms transitioning to “proof of stake” validation and other mining related risks, which could make us less competitive and ultimately adversely affect our business”), or the value of Bitcoin were to decline for other reasons, particularly if such decline were significant or over an extended period of time, our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results would be adversely affected.

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency market prices have historically been volatile. Our business may be adversely affected if the markets for Bitcoin deteriorate or if its prices decline, including as a result of the following factors:

73

Furthermore, Bitcoin pricing may be the result of, and may continue to result in, speculation regarding future appreciation in the value of cryptocurrencies, inflating and making their market prices more volatile or creating “bubble” type risks for Bitcoin. Some market observers have asserted that the Bitcoin market is experiencing a “bubble” and have predicted that, in time, the value of Bitcoin will fall to a fraction of its current value, or even to zero. Bitcoin has not been in existence long enough for market participants to assess these predictions with any precision, but if these observers are even partially correct, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Our historical financial statements do not reflect the potential variability in earnings that we may experience in the future relating to Bitcoin holdings.

Our historical financial statements, including those for the period from January 7, 2021 (inception) to January 31, 2021, do not fully reflect the potential variability in earnings that we may experience in the future from holding or selling significant amounts of Bitcoin.

The price of Bitcoin has historically been subject to dramatic price fluctuations and is highly volatile. We intend to determine the fair value of our Bitcoin based on quoted (unadjusted) prices on the active exchange that we have determined is our principal market for Bitcoin. We intend to perform an analysis each quarter to identify whether events or changes in circumstances, principally decreases in the quoted (unadjusted) prices on the active exchange, indicate that it is more likely than not that any of our Bitcoin assets is impaired. In determining if an impairment has occurred, we will consider the lowest price of one Bitcoin quoted on the active exchange at any time since acquiring the specific Bitcoin held. If the carrying value of a Bitcoin exceeds that lowest price at any time during the quarter, an impairment loss is deemed to have occurred with respect to that Bitcoin in the amount equal to the difference between its carrying value and such lowest price, and subsequent increases in the price of Bitcoin will not affect the carrying value of our Bitcoin. Gains (if any) are not recorded until realized upon sale, at which point they would be presented net of any impairment losses. In determining the gain to be recognized upon sale, we intend to calculate the difference between the sale price and carrying value of the specific Bitcoin sold immediately prior to sale.

As a result, any decrease in the fair value of Bitcoin below our carrying value for such assets at any time since their acquisition will require us to incur an impairment charge, and such charge could be material to our financial results for the applicable reporting period, which may create significant volatility in our reported earnings and decrease the carrying value of our digital assets, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results.

The supply of Bitcoin is limited, and production of Bitcoin is negatively impacted by the Bitcoin halving protocol expected every four years.

The supply of Bitcoin is limited and, once the 21 million Bitcoin have been “unearthed”, the network will stop producing more. Currently, there are approximately 19 million, or 90% of the total supply of, Bitcoin in

74

circulation. Halving is an event within the Bitcoin protocol where the Bitcoin reward provided upon mining a block is reduced by 50%. Halvings are scheduled to occur once every 210,000 blocks, or roughly every four years, with the latest halving having occurred in May 2020, which revised the block reward to 6.25 Bitcoin.

Halving reduces the number of new Bitcoin being generated by the network. While the effect is to slow the pace of the release of new coins, it has no impact on the quantity of total Bitcoin already outstanding. As a result, the price of Bitcoin could rise or fall based on overall investor and consumer demand. Given a stable network hash rate, should the price of Bitcoin remain unchanged after the next halving, our revenue related to mining new coins would be reduced by 50%, with a significant impact on profit.

Furthermore, as the number of Bitcoin remaining to be mined decreases, the processing power required to record new blocks on the blockchain may increase. Eventually the processing power required to add a block to the blockchain may exceed the value of the reward for adding a block. Additionally, at some point, there will be no new Bitcoin to mine. Once the processing power required to add a block to the blockchain exceeds the value of the reward for adding a block, we may focus on other strategic initiatives, which may be complimentary to our mining operations. For further details, see “Information about Cipher—Our Strategy—Retain flexibility in considering strategically adjacent opportunities complimentary to our business model.”

Any periodic adjustments to the digital asset networks, such as Bitcoin, regarding the difficulty for block solutions, with reductions in the aggregate hashrate or otherwise, could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results. If the award of new Bitcoin for solving blocks and transaction fees for recording transactions are not sufficiently high to incentivize miners, miners may cease expending processing power, or hashrate, to solve blocks and confirmations of transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain could be slowed.

Bitcoin miners record transactions when they solve for and add blocks of information to the blockchain. They generate revenue from both newly created Bitcoin, known as the “block reward” and from fees taken upon verification of transactions, see “Information about Cipher—Our Planned Cryptocurrency Operations—Expected Revenue Structure”.

If the aggregate revenue from transaction fees and the block reward is below a miner’s cost, the miner may cease operations. If the award of new units of Bitcoin for solving blocks declines and/or the difficulty of solving blocks increases, and transaction fees voluntarily paid by participants are not sufficiently high, miners may not have an adequate incentive to continue mining and may cease their mining operations. For example, the current fixed reward for solving a new block on the Bitcoin network is 6.25 Bitcoins per block; the reward decreased from 12.5 Bitcoin in May 2020, which itself was a decrease from 25 Bitcoin in July 2016. It is estimated that it will “halve” again in about four years after the previous halving.

This reduction may result in a reduction in the aggregate hashrate of the Bitcoin network as the incentive for miners decreases. 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). Moreover, a reduction in the hashrate expended by miners on any digital asset network could increase the likelihood of a malicious actor or botnet obtaining control in excess of fifty percent (50%) of the aggregate hashrate active on such network or the blockchain, potentially permitting such actor to manipulate the blockchain, see “—If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control in excess of 50% of the processing power active on any digital asset network, including the Bitcoin network, it is possible that such actor or botnet could manipulate the blockchain in a manner that may adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results”.

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. We

75

believe that from time to time there may be further considerations and adjustments to the networks, such as Bitcoin and Ether, regarding the difficulty for block solutions. More significant reductions in the aggregate hashrate on digital asset networks could result in material, though temporary, delays in block solution confirmation time. Any reduction in confidence in the confirmation process or aggregate hashrate of any digital asset network may negatively impact the value of digital assets, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Transactional fees may decrease demand for Bitcoin and prevent expansion.

As the number of Bitcoins awarded in the form of block rewards for solving a block in a blockchain decreases, the relative incentive for miners to continue to contribute to the Bitcoin network may transition to place more importance on transaction fees.

If transaction fees paid for Bitcoin transactions become too high, the marketplace may be reluctant to accept Bitcoin as a means of payment and existing users may be motivated to switch from Bitcoin to another cryptocurrency or to fiat currency. Either the requirement from miners of higher transaction fees in exchange for recording transactions in a blockchain or a software upgrade that automatically charges fees for all transactions may decrease demand for Bitcoin and prevent the expansion of the Bitcoin network to retail merchants and commercial businesses, resulting in a reduction in the price of Bitcoin, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Our reliance on any particular model of miner may subject our operations to increased risk of failure.

The performance and reliability of our miners and our technology will be critical to our reputation and our operations. If there are any technological issues with our miners, our entire system could be affected. Any system error or failure may significantly delay response times or even cause our system to fail. Any disruption in our ability to continue mining could result in lower yields and harm our reputation and business. Any exploitable weakness, flaw, or error common to our miners may affects all our miners, and if a defect other flaw is exploited, our entire mine could go offline simultaneously. Furthermore, upon its availability, we plan to use miners equipped Bitfury Top HoldCo’s new eighth generation 5nm ASIC chip, the so-called NIVEN chip, see “Information about Cipher—Bitcoin Mining Technology”. Any technological issues with those miners or the NIVEN chip may force us to incur high replacement costs and lead to potential interruptions of our mining activities.

Any interruption, delay or system failure could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

There is a possibility of cryptocurrency mining algorithms transitioning to “proof of stake” validation and other mining related risks, which could make us less competitive and ultimately adversely affect our business.

“Proof of stake” is an alternative method in validating cryptocurrency transactions. Should the Bitcoin network shift from a “proof of work” validation method to a “proof of stake” validation method, mining would require less energy and may render companies, such as ours, that may be perceived as advantageously positioned in the current climate, for example, due to lower priced electricity, processing, real estate, or hosting, less competitive.

Our business model and our strategic efforts are fundamentally based upon the “proof of work” validation method and the assumption that use of lower priced electricity in our cryptocurrency mining operations will make our business model more resilient to fluctuations in Bitcoin price and will generally provide us with certain competitive advantage. See “Information about Cipher—Our Key Strengths— Cost leadership with low cost electricity supply and resilient business model with downside protection against drops in Bitcoin prices” and “—Bitcoin mining activities are energy intensive, which may restrict the geographic locations of miners and have a negative environmental impact. Government regulators may potentially restrict the ability of electricity

76

suppliers to provide electricity to mining operations, such as ours.” Consequently, if the cryptocurrency mining algorithms transition to “proof of stake” validation, we may be exposed to the risk of losing the benefit of our perceived competitive advantage that we hope to gain and our business model may need to be reevaluated. Furthermore, ASIC chips that we intend to use in our operations are also designed for “proof of work” mechanism. Many people within the Bitcoin community believe that “proof of work” is a foundation within Bitcoin’s code that would not be changed. However, there have been debates on mechanism change to avoid the “de facto control” by a great majority of the network computing power. With the possibility of a change in rule or protocol of the Bitcoin network, if our Bitcoin mining chips and machines cannot be modified to accommodate any such changes, our results of operations will be significantly affected. Such events could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results, including our ability to continue as a going concern.

We may not adequately respond to price fluctuations and rapidly changing technology, which may negatively affect our business.

Competitive conditions within the cryptocurrency industry require that we use sophisticated technology in the operation of our business. The industry for blockchain technology is characterized by rapid technological changes, new product introductions, enhancements and evolving industry standards.

New technologies, techniques or products could emerge that might offer better performance than the software and other technologies we currently plan to utilize, and we may have to manage transitions to these new technologies to remain competitive. We may not be successful, generally or relative to our competitors in the cryptocurrency industry, in timely implementing new technology into our systems, or doing so in a cost-effective manner. During the course of implementing any such new technology into our operations, we may experience system interruptions and failures during such implementation. Furthermore, there can be no assurances that we will recognize, in a timely manner or at all, the benefits that we may expect as a result of our implementing new technology into our operations. As a result, our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected.

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 Bitcoin rewards earned by mining in the market, thereby constraining growth of the price of Bitcoin that could adversely impact us, and similar actions could affect other cryptocurrencies.

Over the past several years, Bitcoin mining operations have evolved from individual users mining with computer processors, graphics processing units and first-generation ASIC servers. Currently, new processing power 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 miners and have more defined and regular expenses and liabilities. These regular expenses and liabilities require professionalized mining operations to maintain profit margins on the sale of Bitcoin.

To the extent the price of Bitcoin declines and such profit margin is constrained, professionalized miners are incentivized to more immediately sell Bitcoin earned from mining operations, whereas it is believed that individual miners in past years were more likely to hold newly mined Bitcoin for more extended periods. The immediate selling of newly mined Bitcoin greatly increases the trading volume of Bitcoin, creating downward pressure on the market price of Bitcoin rewards.

77

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 more rapidly, thereby potentially depressing Bitcoin prices. Lower Bitcoin prices could result in further tightening of profit margins for professionalized mining operations creating a network effect that may further reduce the price of Bitcoin until mining operations with higher operating costs become unprofitable forcing them to reduce mining power or cease mining operations temporarily.

The foregoing risks associated with Bitcoin could be equally applicable to other cryptocurrencies, whether existing now or introduced in the future. Such circumstances could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

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 that digital asset 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 certain or all digital asset networks, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Demand for Bitcoin is driven, in part, by its status as one of the most prominent and secure digital assets. It is possible that digital assets, other than Bitcoin, could have features that make them more desirable to a material portion of the digital asset user base, resulting in a reduction in demand for Bitcoin, which could have a negative impact on the price of Bitcoin and have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results

Bitcoin, as an asset, holds 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 mining power in use to secure its 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 blockchain; 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.

Despite the marked first-mover advantage of the Bitcoin network over other digital asset networks, 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 have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

78

Bitcoin and any other cryptocurrencies that could be held by us are not insured and not subject to FDIC or SIPC protections.

Bitcoin and any other cryptocurrencies that could be held by us are not insured. Therefore, any loss that we may suffer with respect to our cryptocurrencies is not covered by insurance and no person may be liable in damages for such loss, which could adversely affect our operations. We will not hold our Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrencies that we may hold with a banking institution or a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) or the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) and, therefore, our cryptocurrencies will also not be subject to the protections enjoyed by depositors with FDIC or SIPC member institutions.

Risks Related to GWAC and the Business Combination

Unless the context otherwise requires, all references in this subsection to the “Company,” “we,” “us” or “our” refer to GWAC prior to the consummation of the Business Combination.

We may face litigation and other risks as a result of the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting.

On April 12, 2021, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC Staff”) issued a public statement entitled “Staff Statement on Accounting and Reporting Considerations for Warrants issued by Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (“SPACs”)” (the “SEC Staff Statement”). In the SEC Staff Statement, the SEC Staff expressed its view that certain terms and conditions common to SPAC warrants may require the warrants to be classified as liabilities on the SPAC’s balance sheet as opposed to equity. Since issuance, our warrants were accounted for as equity within our previously reported balance sheets.

Following the issuance of the SEC Staff Statement, our management concluded that the warrants should be presented as liabilities with subsequent fair value remeasurement and that it was appropriate to restate our previously issued audited financial statements as of December 31, 2020 and for the period from June 24, 2020 (inception) through December 31, 2020. As part of the restatement, we identified a material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting, see “We have identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. This material weakness could continue to adversely affect our ability to report our results of operations and financial condition accurately and in a timely manner.”

As a result of such material weakness, the restatement, the change in accounting for the warrants, and other matters raised or that may in the future be raised by the SEC, we face potential for litigation or other disputes which may include, among others, claims invoking the federal and state securities laws, contractual claims or other claims arising from the restatement and material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting and the preparation of our financial statements. As of the date of this report, we have no knowledge of any such litigation or dispute. Any such litigation or dispute, whether successful or not, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition or our ability to complete a business combination.

We have identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. This material weakness could continue to adversely affect our ability to report our results of operations and financial condition accurately and in a timely manner.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of consolidated financial statements for external purposes in accordance with GAAP. Our management is likewise required, on a quarterly basis, to evaluate the effectiveness of our internal controls and to

79

disclose any changes and material weaknesses identified through such evaluation in those internal controls. A material weakness is 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.

In connection with the restatement of our audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2020, our management reassessed the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2020. As a result of that reassessment, we identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting related to the accounting for a significant and unusual transaction related to the warrants we issued in connection with the GWAC’s IPO. As a result of this material weakness, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of December 31, 2020. This material weakness resulted in a material misstatement of our warrant liabilities, change in fair value of warrant liabilities, additional paid-in capital, accumulated deficit and related financial disclosures for the affected period.

To respond to this material weakness, we have devoted, and plan to continue to devote, significant effort and resources to the remediation and improvement of our internal control over financial reporting. For a discussion of management’s consideration of the material weakness identified related to our accounting for a significant and unusual transaction related to the warrants we issued in connection with the GWAC’s IPO, see Note 2 to the accompanying GWAC’s audited financial statements included elsewhere in this proxy statement/prospectus.

Any failure to maintain such internal control could adversely impact our ability to report our financial position and results from operations on a timely and accurate basis. If our financial statements are not accurate, investors may not have a complete understanding of our operations. Likewise, if our financial statements are not filed on a timely basis, we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the stock exchange on which our common stock is listed, the SEC or other regulatory authorities. In either case, there could result a material adverse effect on our business. Failure to timely file will cause us to be ineligible to utilize short form registration statements on Form S-3 or Form S-4, which may impair our ability to obtain capital in a timely fashion to execute our business strategies or issue shares to effect an acquisition. Ineffective internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our stock.

We can give no assurance that the measures we have taken and plan to take in the future will remediate the material weakness identified or that any additional material weaknesses or restatements of financial results will not arise in the future due to a failure to implement and maintain adequate internal control over financial reporting or circumvention of these controls. In addition, even if we are successful in strengthening our controls and procedures, in the future those controls and procedures may not be adequate to prevent or identify irregularities or errors or to facilitate the fair presentation of our consolidated financial statements.

The Sponsors, the Anchor Investors, and our officers and directors, have agreed to vote their Private Shares in favor of the Business Combination, regardless of how GWAC’s public stockholders vote.

As of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, the Sponsor, the Anchor Investors and our officers and directors, own of record and are entitled to vote an aggregate of approximate 20.8% of the outstanding shares of GWAC common stock (excluding warrants). Pursuant to the GWAC Support Agreement and the GWAC Letter Agreement, they have agreed to vote their GWAC Founder Shares, GWAC Private Placement Shares and (except in the case of the Anchor Investors) any public shares held by them in favor of the Business Combination, regardless of how public stockholders vote. Accordingly, the agreement by the Sponsor, our officers and directors, to vote in favor of each of the proposals at the GWAC Special Meeting will increase the likelihood that GWAC will receive the requisite stockholder approval for the Business Combination and the transactions contemplated thereby.

80

The Sponsor and some of GWAC’s directors and executive officers have interests in the Business Combination that are different from or are in addition to other stockholders in recommending that stockholders vote in favor of approval of the Business Combination proposal and approval of the other proposals described in this proxy statement/prospectus.

When considering the GWAC Board’s recommendation that our stockholders vote in favor of the approval of the Business Combination Proposal and the other proposals described in this proxy statement/prospectus, our stockholders should be aware that the Sponsor and certain directors and officers of GWAC have interests in the Business Combination that may be different from, or in addition to, the interests of our stockholders generally. These interests include:

The personal and financial interests of our officers and directors may have influenced their motivation in identifying and selecting Cipher, completing the Business Combination and may influence their operation of New Cipher following the Business Combination. This risk may become more acute as the deadline of July 22, 2022 for completing an initial business combination nears.

In addition, we have not adopted a policy that expressly prohibits our directors, officers, security holders or affiliates from having a direct or indirect pecuniary or financial interest in any investment to be acquired or disposed of by us or in any transaction to which we are a party or have an interest. We do not have a policy that expressly prohibits any such persons from engaging for their own account in business activities of the types conducted by us. Accordingly, such persons or entities may have a conflict between their interests and ours.

81

The GWAC Board was aware of and considered these interests, among other matters, in evaluating and negotiating the Transactions and in recommending to the GWAC’s shareholders that they vote “FOR” the proposals presented at the Special Meeting. In considering the recommendations of the GWAC Board to vote for the proposals, its shareholders should consider these interests.

The GWAC Board has not obtained a third-party valuation or fairness opinion in determining whether or not to proceed with the Business Combination, and consequently, there is no assurance from an independent source that the merger consideration is fair to its stockholders from a financial point of view.

The GWAC Board is not required to, and did not obtain a third-party valuation or fairness opinion in connection with its determination to approve the Transactions. In analyzing the Business Combination, the GWAC Board and management conducted due diligence on Cipher. The fair market value of Cipher has been determined by GWAC Board based upon standards generally accepted by the financial community, such as potential sales and the price for which comparable businesses or assets have been valued. GWAC’s stockholders will be relying on the judgment of the GWAC Board with respect to such matters.

Accordingly, investors will be relying solely on the judgment of the GWAC Board in valuing Cipher’s business, and assuming the risk that the GWAC Board may not have properly valued such business. The lack of a third-party valuation or fairness opinion may also lead an increased number of stockholders to vote against the proposed business combination or demand redemption of their shares for cash, which could potentially impact GWAC’s ability to consummate the Business Combination. For more information on the GWAC Board’s decision-making process, see “Proposal No. 1—The Business Combination Proposal—GWAC Board’s Reasons for the Business Combination.”

Furthermore, since the Sponsor and GWAC’s directors and executive officers have interests that are different, or in addition to (and which may conflict with), the interests of our stockholders, a conflict of interest may have existed in determining whether the Business Combination with Cipher is appropriate as our initial business combination. See “—The Sponsor and some of GWAC’s directors and executive officers have interests in the Business Combination that are different from or are in addition to other stockholders in recommending that stockholders vote in favor of approval of the Business Combination proposal and approval of the other proposals described in this proxy statement/prospectus.”

The Sponsor is liable to ensure that proceeds of the trust are not reduced by vendor claims in the event a business combination is not consummated. The Sponsor has also agreed to pay for any liquidation expenses if a business combination is not consummated. Such liability may have influenced the Sponsor’s decision to approve the Transactions.

If the Transactions or another business combination are not consummated by GWAC within the completion window, the Sponsor will be liable under certain circumstances to ensure that the proceeds in the Trust Account are not reduced by the claims of target businesses or claims of vendors or other entities that are owed money by GWAC for services rendered or contracted for or products sold to GWAC. If GWAC consummates a business combination, including the Transactions, on the other hand, GWAC will be liable for all such claims. Neither GWAC nor the Sponsor has any reason to believe that the Sponsor will not be able to fulfill its indemnity obligations to GWAC. Please see the section entitled “Other Information Related to GWAC—Liquidation if no Business Combination” for further information.

These obligations of the Sponsor may have influenced the Sponsor’s decision to approve the Transactions and to continue to pursue such business combination. Each of the Founders has an indirect economic interest in the GWAC Founder Shares and the GWAC Private Placement Warrants purchased by the Sponsor as a result of his or her membership interest in the Sponsor. In considering the recommendations of the GWAC Board to vote for the Business Combination Proposal and the other Proposals described in this proxy statement/prospectus, GWAC’s stockholders should consider these interests.

82

The exercise of GWAC’s directors’ and officers’ discretion in agreeing to changes or waivers in the terms of the Transactions may result in a conflict of interest when determining whether such changes to the terms of the Transactions or waivers of conditions are appropriate and in GWAC’s stockholders’ best interest.

In the period leading up to Closing, events may occur that, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, would require GWAC to agree to amend the Merger Agreement, to consent to certain actions taken by Cipher or to waive rights that GWAC is entitled to under, or conditions of, the Merger Agreement. Such events could arise because of a request by Cipher to undertake actions that would otherwise be prohibited by the terms of the Merger Agreement or the occurrence of other events that would have a material adverse effect on Cipher’s business and would entitle GWAC to terminate the Merger Agreement. In any of such circumstances, it would be at GWAC’s discretion, acting through the GWAC Board, to grant its consent or waive those rights or conditions. The existence of the financial and personal interests of the directors described in the preceding risk factors (and described elsewhere in this proxy statement/prospectus) may result in a conflict of interest on the part of one or more of the directors between what he, she or they may believe is best for GWAC and what he, she or they may believe is best for himself, herself or themselves in determining whether or not to take the requested action. As of the date of this proxy statement/prospectus, GWAC does not believe there will be any material changes or waivers that GWAC’s directors and officers would be likely to make after the mailing of this proxy statement/prospectus. While certain changes could be made without further shareholder approval, GWAC will circulate a new or amended proxy statement/prospectus or supplement thereto if changes to the terms of the Transactions that would have a material impact on its stockholders are required prior to the vote on the Business Combination Proposal.

If GWAC is unable to complete the Transactions or another initial business combination by July 22, 2022, GWAC will cease all operations except for the purpose of winding up, redeeming 100% of the outstanding public shares and, subject to the approval of its remaining stockholders and the GWAC Board, dissolving and liquidating. In such event, third parties may bring claims against GWAC and, as a result, the proceeds held in the trust account could be reduced and the per-share liquidation price received by stockholders could be less than $10.00 per share.

Under the terms of Current Certificate of Incorporation, GWAC must complete a business combination before the end of the completion window, or GWAC must cease all operations except for the purpose of winding up, redeeming 100% of the outstanding public shares and, subject to the approval of its remaining stockholders and the GWAC Board, dissolving and liquidating. In such event, third parties may bring claims against GWAC. Although GWAC has obtained waiver agreements from certain vendors and service providers it has engaged and owes money to, and the prospective target businesses it has negotiated with, whereby such parties have waived any right, title, interest or claim of any kind they may have in or to any monies held in the trust account, there is no guarantee that they or other vendors who did not execute such waivers will not seek recourse against the trust account notwithstanding such agreements. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a court will uphold the validity of such agreements. Accordingly, the proceeds held in the trust account could be subject to claims which could take priority over those of GWAC’s public stockholders. If GWAC is unable to complete a business combination within the completion window, the Sponsor will be liable under certain circumstances to ensure that the proceeds in the trust account are not reduced by the claims of target businesses or claims of vendors or other entities that are owed money by GWAC for services rendered or contracted for or products sold to GWAC. However, they may not be able to meet such obligation. Therefore, the per-share distribution from the trust account in such a situation may be less than $10.00 due to such claims.