Riot RIOT NASDAQ

Cap Raise: $1B+MW Club: 1 GW+MW Club: 2 GW+Cap Raise: $500M+Litigation: 5+MW Club: 500+Delayed: 3+Heavy Insider Selling 2026Litigation-ActiveCap Raise: $100M+MW Club: 100+Retraction on Record

Bitcoin mining operator; primary sites at Rockdale and Corsicana, Texas.

Legal name: Riot Platforms, Inc.
Industry: Bitcoin mining
Website: https://www.riotplatforms.com
Employees: 816 (as of 2026-10-19)
First covered: 2026-08-30
Market: RIOT $13.97 · mkt-cap $5.24B (snapshot 2026-10-19)

Corporate history

Riot Platforms began as a vertically-integrated Bitcoin mining company. As of December 31, 2023, Riot operated 112,944 miners with 12.4 exahash-per-second (EH/s) total hash rate and mined 6,626 Bitcoin, up 19.3% from 5,554 Bitcoin in 2022. The company's Rockdale, Texas facility was believed to be North America's largest Bitcoin mining facility by developed…

Read the full history

In 2024, Riot executed two strategic initiatives. It acquired Block Mining, Inc., a Kentucky-based Bitcoin miner with two operational sites in Paducah initially totaling 60 MW of capacity. Simultaneously, the company adopted a "Bitcoin Treasury Strategy," acquiring and holding Bitcoin on its balance sheet via debt and equity financing rather than monetizing all mined Bitcoin. The Corsicana facility reached 400 MW of operational capacity during Phase I of development.

In 2025, Riot repositioned as a digital infrastructure company, establishing a data center platform to lease compute capacity to non-mining customers in AI and high-performance computing. The company operated three major facilities—Rockdale (700 MW developed), Corsicana (400 MW developed), and Kentucky (137 MW developed)—and organized operations into Bitcoin Mining and Engineering business segments. Bitcoin Mining generated revenue from block rewards; the data center platform provided revenue from capacity leasing. Earlier company history not covered in these sources.

Street view

Analyst consensus, peer set, and quarterly-EPS surprise history. Sourced from Finnhub; refreshed nightly.

Analyst consensus (2026-10, 28 analysts)

Strong Buy6

Buy20

Hold2

Sell0

Strong Sell0

Show last 6 months

Month	SB	B	H
2026-05	6	17	2
2026-06	6	17	3
2026-07	6	19	2
2026-08	6	20	2
2026-09	6	20	2
2026-10	6	20	2

Peer tickers (green = also tracked in The Analysis)

PEGA BOX OCTV ZETA ACIW KVYO CCC QBTS CORZ BILL PLTR

Recent quarterly EPS: estimate vs actual

Quarter end	Estimate	Actual	Surprise	%
2025-09-30 (Q3)	0.0683	0.26	+0.1917	+280.7%
2025-12-31 (Q4)	-0.2912	-2.06	-1.7688	-607.4%
2026-03-31 (Q1)	-0.6045	-1.44	-0.8355	-138.2%
2026-06-30 (Q2)	-0.2709	-0.68	-0.4091	-151.0%

The Analysis

ANALYSIS

Frequently asked

What does this company do, according to the record?

The claims on file describe a small life-sciences company. It started in animal health and diagnostic antigens. It acquired an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics (claims 21108, 21081) and said it marketed over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research labs (claim 21102). It renamed itself AspenBio Pharma, Inc. in 2005 (claim 21090). By 2012 its main focus was AppyScore, a blood test for appendicitis (claim 21047). The latest claim on file is the 2016 acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics (claim 20980). Today the RIOT ticker is widely associated with a bitcoin-mining business, but none of the claims here cover that shift. A reader should not assume this record describes the company as it operates now.

What is the company's current disclosed strategy?

The record cannot answer this. The most recent claim is from October 2016 (claim 20980, BiOptix acquisition), and its status entry is cut off. Over 2004–2014 the strategy moved in stages: animal-health products (SurBred 15 and StayBred, claims 21096, 21097), then human diagnostics (AppyScore, claim 21047), then licensing out the animal-health IP (claim 21049). Nothing on file states a strategy after 2016.

Who are the named customers?

No end customers are named. The only named commercial counterparty is Merial, which got exclusive marketing and distribution rights to the SurBred 15 bovine pregnancy test (claim 21094). The company also mentioned licenses with three unnamed universities (claim 21095). Its customer base is described only as 'diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities' (claim 21102).

What has actually been delivered versus only announced?

Every claim on file is either 'stated' (recorded as disclosed, not independently confirmed) or 'not_yet_verifiable'. None is marked as delivered or verified. Corporate actions such as the name change, board changes and stock-plan increases (claims 21090, 21088, 20722, 21011) are routine filings and almost certainly took effect, but the record does not confirm them. Product milestones are less clear. The company said it was pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore (claim 21050), and the record shows no outcome. StayBred needed FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claim 21101), and no result is recorded. No sales figures for SurBred 15 through Merial appear either.

Which dated promises have passed their deadlines?

Several had deadlines that are long past and are still marked not_yet_verifiable. These include the reverse stock split authorized before February 4, 2011 (claims 20721, 20715), GHP Horwath serving as auditor for fiscal 2011 (claims 20720, 20713), and Stephen A. Williams joining the board by May 1, 2013 (claim 21038). The status history of each moved from 'delayed' to 'not_yet_verifiable', which means the dossier has no evidence either way. It does not mean they failed.

How stable has leadership been?

Not very stable. The record shows a CEO appointment in 2005 (Richard G. Donnelly, claim 21082) and another in 2010 (Stephen T. Lundy, claim 20711). Board leadership was restructured in 2010 (claims 20712, 20716–20719), and four directors resigned on one day in September 2012 (claim 21051). A key employee's agreement (Roger Hurst, claim 21099) ended within about a year (claim 21087).

What should a reader watch for next?

First, filings after 2016 that explain how and when the company moved out of diagnostics, since this dossier stops before any such change. Second, final outcomes for AppyScore's FDA path and for the BiOptix deal. Third, whether the overdue items can be resolved from SEC filings: the reverse split, the 2011 auditor and the 2013 board appointment.

What are the biggest open questions?

1) What the company does today and when that changed. The record has nothing after 2016. 2) Whether any product, including SurBred 15, StayBred or AppyScore, produced meaningful revenue or received regulatory clearance. 3) Why the company kept enlarging its share pools (e.g., 60,000,000 more authorized shares in claims 21089 and 21040, plus repeated stock-plan increases in claims 21088, 20723, 20722, 21041 and 21011), and how much existing holders were diluted as a result.

Cites claims: #21108, #21107, #21106, #21105, #21104, #21103, #21096, #21095 +1773 more

ANALYSIS

What we haven't been told

The SurBred 15 early-detection bovine pregnancy test and its distribution arrangement with Merial are the clearest disappearance in the record. In September 2004 the company described SurBred 15 as a product (claim 21096), said Merial held exclusive marketing and distribution rights (claim 21094), and noted that the antigen-based test was not subject to FDA regulation (claim 21100). Neither the product nor the Merial relationship appears in any later claim. By October 2012 the company was instead describing an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property to an outside party (claim 21049). No sales figures, termination notice or explanation for the Merial arrangement's end appears on record. Both 2004 claims remain at 'stated'. That status reflects only that they were said, not that anything came of them.

StayBred, the recombinant luteinizing hormone for maintaining cattle pregnancy, follows the same path. It was introduced in September 2004 (claim 21097), along with the disclosure that it would require FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claim 21101) and a general reference to pipeline products (claim 21098). It is never mentioned again. Nothing on record says whether any filing was made or whether the program was dropped, sold, or folded into the 2012 animal health license.

In October 2010 the board was authorized to carry out a reverse stock split at a ratio between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be done before February 4, 2011 (claims 20721 and 20715). The ledger automatically flagged both claims as delayed on 2026-09-28 and then moved them to not_yet_verifiable on 2026-10-09. Those transitions were made by the ledger, not by the company. The record contains no later statement saying whether the split happened, at what ratio, or whether the authority was allowed to lapse.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, became the company's central product in October 2012 (claim 21047). Management said at the time that it was pursuing FDA clearance (claim 21050). No later claim reports a submission, a clearance, or a decision to stop. The next substantive corporate event on record is the October 2016 acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics (claim 20980), which says nothing about where the appendicitis program stood.

Some caution is warranted about the rest of the record. The set of claims provided ends at the 2016 BiOptix entry. Several other claims were automatically flagged after their promised dates, including the GHP Horwath auditor appointments (claims 20720 and 20713), the 2014 auditor ratification (claim 21012) and Stephen A. Williams joining the board (claim 21038). These are routine governance matters, and their current statuses more likely reflect missing follow-up filings than any change by management. Claims 20711 and 20712 were flagged and then returned to 'stated', which suggests the automated transitions are still unsettled.

Cites claims: #21108, #21107, #21106, #21105, #21104, #21103, #21096, #21095 +1773 more

ANALYSIS

What we aren't being told

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081, alongside an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim #21099) that was later terminated (claim #21087); what has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration, whether any earn-out or royalty survived, and whether the seller was a related party connected to Hurst, so who was paid what, and on what terms, for the business that became the company's foundation?

The company disclosed on 2005-09-25 that Roger D. Hurst's employment was terminated, cited as claim #21087, less than a year after it announced his exclusive employment agreement on 2004-09-13 (claim #21099); what has not been said is whether the termination was for cause, what severance or option acceleration was paid, and whether any non-compete or IP-assignment obligations continued, so what did the departure cost the company and why did it happen?

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial received exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, that it held license arrangements with three universities, and that it sold over 30 products to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claims #21094, #21095 and #21102; what has not been said is the term, minimum-purchase or milestone economics of the Merial deal, the names of the three licensor universities and their royalty rates, or how concentrated the 30-product revenue was among unnamed customers, so how much revenue did each relationship produce and how much was owed out?

The company disclosed on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 that the board was authorized to effect a reverse stock split between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715, both still marked not yet verifiable; what has not been said is whether the split was ever executed and at what ratio, which matters for reading every later share-count figure, including the 60,000,000-share authorization increase in claim #21040 and the 1,800,000-share incentive-plan increase in claim #21011, so was the split done, when, and at what ratio?

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051, in the same filing that described a 2012 common stock offering and the pursuit of FDA clearance for AppyScore (claims #21048 and #21050); what has not been said is who the four directors were, whether any resignation involved a disagreement with management, the size and pricing of the offering, and the regulatory pathway and expected timing for AppyScore, so why did nearly the whole board leave at once and what were the capital and clearance plans they left behind?

The company disclosed an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property on 2012-10-14 and the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition on 2016-10-06, cited as claims #21049 and #20980; what has not been said is the licensee's identity and the upfront, milestone and royalty terms of the license, or the consideration, share issuance and resulting dilution of the BiOptix deal, so who acquired rights to the legacy animal health assets, what did the company receive, and what did it pay for BiOptix?

Cites claims: #21108, #21107, #21106, #21105, #21104, #21103, #21096, #21095 +1773 more

ANALYSIS

Customer disclosures, read

Riot's record is long on signed paper but short on named revenue-paying customers, and most of its agreements sit on the purchasing side of the ledger. The predecessor diagnostics business named its counterparties clearly: license arrangements with the University of Idaho, the University of Wyoming and Washington University (claim 21095), and an exclusive worldwide marketing right for SurBred 15 held by Merial (claim 21094). That Merial right was conditional, though, taking effect only once the product was fully developed. The same filing's reference to more than 30 products sold to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities (claim 21102) names no buyer. The 2012 exclusive license of all animal-health IP went to an unidentified animal health company in exchange for milestones and royalties (claim 21049), so the predecessor's most consequential monetization event was never attributed to a counterparty.

The 2018 pivot produced several definitive, named agreements: a Software Licensing and Services Agreement with Coinsquare (claim 15417), an agreement with Synapse and Evolve Bank and Trust (claims 15376, 15346), and a master services agreement with Shift Markets (claims 15367, 15347). These were vendor and infrastructure contracts for a planned exchange rather than customer wins, and Synapse was mutually terminated within a year (claim 15138). The Coinsquare, Tess, and Verady positions (claims 15512, 14957, 14959, 14958) are equity stakes and are repeated across filings, which inflates the apparent volume of relationships. Digital Green Energy (claims 15515, 15455), XMS Capital (claim 14997) and Marcum (claim 13887) are a subsidiary, an adviser and an auditor, not commercial counterparties.

In the mining era Riot is mostly the customer. It took co-location from Coinmint (claims 14938, 14275), which became month-to-month and was then ended (claim 13864). It placed $480 million of Bitmain purchase orders (claim 13261) and signed MicroBT supply terms whose 66,560-unit annual volumes are options, not commitments (claim 11999). The Whinstone power purchase agreement leaves the energy supplier unnamed (claim 14254). ESS Metron is named but labeled a key strategic partner (claim 14160), which describes a supplier relationship.

Rhodium, identified as the largest hosting customer (claim 13863), is the only named revenue counterparty in the crypto period, which points to concentration in hosting without quantifying it. No revenue, backlog or contract-value figures appear on the record, so the disclosed revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled against the announced deals. The disclosed dollar figures measure capital outflow to suppliers, not customer income.

Cites claims: #21095, #21102, #21094, #21049, #15515, #15514, #15547, #15545 +296 more

ANALYSIS

Delivery vs. promise

The record supplied ends mid-entry in March 2020, so this read covers only the Oklahoma City era. Rockdale, Corsicana and Kentucky, which are the projects that matter today, have no capacity or timeline claims in the excerpt. Any judgment on Riot's current delivery pace has to wait for those entries.

Within Oklahoma City, the power envelope never moved. The 12 MW figure appears at launch (15526, 15507) and is restated unchanged through early 2020 (15305, 14948). What scaled was density. The miner count went from 3,500 installed (15505) to 8,000 by August 2018 (15456), which met the full-deployment target in 15506 within weeks. The hash-rate story is less tidy. The 110 PH/s expectation (15508, 15539) was quietly replaced by a 95 PH/s maximum (15343, 15306, 15284), and no filing in the record reconciles the two. The later jump to 248 PH/s (14947) came from swapping in S17 Pro units inside the same 12 MW, not from new capacity. The operating fleet was also restated at 7,400 units (14974), below the earlier 8,000, again without explanation.

The timeline claims are mostly about tenure, not build-out. The 107,000 sq ft lease (15504, 15454) was extended in short increments, first through August 2019 (15361, 15304) and then through May 2020 (15015). That pattern points to a company that never secured long-term site control. The withdrawn Kairos combination (14949) and the eventual cancelled status of both Oklahoma City and Massena fit that reading. The equipment-delivery dates held: the S17 Pro tranches due December 2019 and January 2020 (15047, 15018) are the only verified claims in the set, and 4,000 units in service (14979) matches the purchase (14945, 14951).

Independent corroboration is thin. Apart from those two delivery verifications, the record contains no permits, utility agreements or interconnection-queue entries for any site. That is the key gap for the Texas and Kentucky assets.

Over the next 90 days, the first priority is to ingest the post-2020 claims for Rockdale, Corsicana and Kentucky. After that, the useful tests are three. First, whether announced megawatts at Corsicana are backed by ERCOT interconnection filings and energization milestones. Second, whether partially operational sites report energized capacity separately from contracted capacity. Third, whether any capacity or date restatements are acknowledged, unlike the Oklahoma City hash-rate revision.

Cites claims: #21108, #21094, #21095, #21081, #21049, #20980, #20979, #15509 +675 more

ANALYSIS

Capital & dilution trajectory

Riot's record divides into two distinct regimes, and the second dwarfs the first. Through 2017 the company financed itself the way a small issuer does. It repeatedly enlarged its incentive plan and authorized shares, authorized a reverse split (claims 20721 and 20715), and closed a $4.75M package of convertible notes, warrants and preferred stock (claim 20904). The 2018–2019 transition to mining continued that patchwork character: the company said it was 'currently pursuing debt and equity capital' (claim 15351), the BMSS waiver payments are recorded as delayed (claim 15432), and it issued $3.36M of senior secured convertibles with warrants attached (claim 15267). The $100M Wainwright ATM (claim 15241) marked the move to continuous equity issuance. That issuance then scaled quickly: a $500M program in 2022 (claim 14154), $750M in 2023 (claim 12275), another $750M in 2024 (claim 11957), and a further $500M in December 2025 (claim 3931). Authorized common stock rose in step, from 340M (claim 13903) to 680M (claim 5964). Several entries here are share counts recorded in dollar fields, so treat them as share authorizations rather than capital raised. In this period the stated use of proceeds tracks the deployment reasonably well. The ATM programs coincide with large hardware commitments, including the verified $480M Bitmain order (claim 14271) and the $162.9M order (claim 12382). The Bitfarms stake of roughly $111M (claim 6015) was disclosed as funded from working capital (claim 6012). From December 2024 the mix changed. The $594.4M 0.75% convertible due 2030 (claim 31776) funded bitcoin purchases (claim 31759), and a Coinbase facility collateralized by bitcoin grew from $100M to $200M (claims 21929 and 21930), with 3,300 BTC pledged (claim 26668). This looks like a deliberate strategy: preserve the treasury under a no-sale policy for self-mined bitcoin (claim 31777) while borrowing against it within a stated ~40% debt-to-BTC ceiling (claim 31775). However, equity issuance has not stopped. A $99M ATM raise sits alongside the claim that capex was funded from cash (claims 26675 and 26673), and the assertion that 2025 capex is fully funded (claim 31774) is not yet verifiable. A sophisticated reader should watch four things: how quickly the new $500M ATM is drawn; whether leverage stays within the 40% ceiling if bitcoin prices fall; the Coinbase loan maturity, which is recorded as delayed (claim 4847); and whether the 2030 notes are eventually settled in shares. The record contains no insider transactions and is truncated after claim 3933, so conclusions about the most recent period are provisional.

Cites claims: #21088, #21089, #21091, #20723, #20722, #20721, #20715, #20714 +402 more

ANALYSIS UNDER REVIEW

What we haven't been told

The settlement agreement between Riot and Bitfarms announced in September 2024 (claim 5704) has been withdrawn from the company's public record as of early September 2026, with no explanation offered to shareholders. The claim documented a "Riot and Bitfarms enter settlement agreement" promised by September 23, 2024, but transitioned from stated to withdrawn on September 4, 2026—21 months after the announcement. Simultaneously, the promised termination date of this agreement (June 1, 2026, claim 5701) has silently transitioned to "delayed" status as of September 4, 2026, now three months past the deadline. Management has provided no guidance on a revised term, the current partnership status, or the reasons for the claim withdrawal.

Riot's convertible senior notes offering pricing, announced in December 2024 with a promised completion date of December 11, 2024 (claim 5259), has remained in "delayed" status since early September 2026—nearly 21 months overdue. No revision announcement, alternative timeline, or explanation has been disclosed. The offering was initially sized at $525 million with an overallotment option, yet progress toward completion appears to have stalled without public acknowledgment.

Riot's disclosed ownership stake in Bitfarms Ltd. escalated from 14% (June 2024, claims 6011, 6014) to 19.9% (September 4, 2024, claims 5801, 5703), accompanied by acquisition language, financing disclosures, and settlement agreement terms. However, the company has made no subsequent ownership updates, stake disclosures, or partnership status announcements concerning Bitfarms since September 22, 2024—a 24-month silence on a position that had been the subject of intensive capital deployment. The combined withdrawal of the settlement agreement claim and complete absence of updated Bitfarms disclosures suggest material deterioration in that relationship that management has not articulated to the market.

Cites claims: #6235, #6236, #6237, #6346, #6347, #6233, #6231, #6232 +490 more

ANALYSIS UNDER REVIEW

What we aren't being told

The company disclosed escalating Bitfarms investments spanning six months—$90 million for an 11.3% stake on 2024-06-03 (claim 6052), $111.1 million for 14% on 2024-06-11 (claim 6015), and $202.2 million for 19.9% on 2024-09-04 (claim 5802)—but what has not been said is the per-share price Riot paid in each tranche, whether these were discrete purchases or components of a structured acquisition strategy, or what business catalyst triggered the final escalation from 14% to 19.9%.

The company disclosed a settlement agreement with Bitfarms on 2024-09-22 (claim 5695) that grants director nomination rights (claim 5697) and board member voting commitments (claim 5698), with an expiration date of 2026-06-01 (claim 5701)—now over 90 days in the past; what has not been said is whether the agreement was renewed, allowed to lapse, or had any of its conditions exercised, and what specific board representation (number of seats, observer rights) the nomination rights entitle Riot to hold.

The company disclosed appointment of a Chief Operating Officer on 2024-06-05 with $400,000 base salary (claim 6040), 100% incentive target (claim 6041), and 373,927 shares in long-term incentive (claim 6042); what has not been said is the identity of this executive, the vesting schedule and performance conditions for the equity grant, or whether this represents a new hire or promotion and how the compensation compares to peer company norms.

The company disclosed a 0.75% convertible senior notes offering of $525 million on 2024-12-10 (claim 5251) and referenced an overallotment option on 2024-12-09 (claim 5260) described only as "75.0 USD"; what has not been said is the conversion price or conversion premium to stock price, the net proceeds after underwriting fees, or what the overallotment figure represents (it appears ambiguously stated in units).

The company disclosed that Riot would acquire Bitcoin using convertible notes proceeds (claim 5252, 2024-12-10); what has not been said is the quantity of Bitcoin purchased, the average acquisition price per Bitcoin, the date of purchase, or the identity and custody arrangements of the qualified custodian holding them.

The company disclosed "standstill provisions and restrictions" in the Bitfarms settlement on 2024-09-22 (claim 5699); what has not been said is which specific transactions or shareholding increases are prohibited for Riot, the precise duration (particularly material given the agreement's stated expiration date of 2026-06-01 is now in the past), or what carve-outs or exceptions would allow Riot to act despite the standstill.

Cites claims: #6235, #6236, #6237, #6346, #6347, #6233, #6231, #6232 +490 more

ANALYSIS UNDER REVIEW

Customer disclosures, read

The mix changed in late 2024, and it appears deliberate rather than patched together. The 0.75% convertible notes, $525M at pricing (claim 5251) and $594M at close per claim 5242, were followed by a Coinbase facility secured by bitcoin, sized at $100M (claim 21929), upsized to $200M (claim 21930), and backed by 3,300 BTC of collateral (claim 26668). The bitcoin treasury itself then became a funding source, with the Rockdale acquisition funded by a bitcoin sale (claim 17603). Equity has not left the stack: a $99M ATM raise (claim 26675) and a fresh $500M program (claim 3931) sit alongside the debt. The record contains no insider sales, so that dimension cannot be assessed.

On use of proceeds, stated uses mostly match what was deployed. The convertible was tied to bitcoin acquisition (claim 5245). The Bitfarms stake was described as funded from working capital ($202M per claim 5802), which is hard to separate from earlier ATM proceeds. The claim that 2025 capex was funded from cash (claim 26673) is not yet verifiable, and neither is the earlier $17.7M Bitmain commitment (claim 14847).

There are several things to watch. The Coinbase facility was repriced from 8.3% (claim 24404) to a fixed 6.15% and now matures in April 2027 (claim 21921). Its maturity terms have already been flagged as delayed (claim 4847), so the next renewal and any collateral calls will show how durable bitcoin-backed borrowing is for Riot. The other measures are the pace at which the $500M ATM is drawn and how much headroom remains under the 680M authorization.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-10-15

Riot's financing record falls into two distinct regimes. Before 2019 the company relied on small, episodic instruments, such as the $4.75M private placement of convertible notes, warrants and preferred stock (claim #20904) and the $3.36M senior secured convertible notes (claim #15267). Alongside these came recurring stock-plan expansions and a reverse-split authorization (claims #20721, #20715) that remains not yet verifiable. That period reads as patching rather than strategy, and the delayed recurring waiver payments to BMSS (claim #15432) fit the same picture of constrained liquidity. From 2019 onward the at-the-market program became the central tool, and its scale rose in steps: $100M with Wainwright (claim #15232), $500M (claim #14154), $750M (claims #12275 and #11957), and another $500M at the end of 2025 (claim #3931). Authorized common stock doubled from 340M to 680M shares (claim #5964), and the equity incentive pool grew in successive tranches of 4.4M, 10M, 13M and 15M shares (claims #14455, #13905, #12134, #5963). Dilution capacity has therefore expanded steadily, and the pace accelerated through 2022 to 2024. The mix becomes more coherent after 2024. The 0.75% convertible, which closed at roughly $594M per claim #5242, and the Coinbase bitcoin-backed facility, upsized from $100M to $200M (claims #21929 and #21930), show a shift toward borrowing against the balance sheet instead of selling stock alone. The April 2026 restatement to a 6.15% fixed rate, down from 8.3% (claims #22250 and #22253), improved terms, though the loan's maturity date is recorded as delayed (claim #4847). On use of proceeds, the stated purposes broadly match what was disclosed: the Bitfarms stake was funded from working capital (claims #6012 and #5802), and the convertible was tied to bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245). The claim that 2025 capex was funded from cash (claim #26673) is not yet verifiable. A bitcoin sale to fund the Rockdale acquisition (claim #17603) suggests treasury assets are now a funding source, which requires explanation alongside the 3,300 BTC pledged as collateral (claim #26668). No insider transactions appear in the record, so that part of the mix cannot be assessed. Sophisticated readers should watch how quickly the December 2025 ATM is drawn, whether the Coinbase facility is refinanced or repaid before its April 2027 maturity (claim #21921), and whether more pledged bitcoin is sold. The record provided ends partway through claim #23921, so later events may be missing.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-10-13

The record shows two distinct capital regimes, and the gap between them matters more than any single line item. Through 2018, Riot financed itself in small, irregular increments. The largest was the $4.75M private placement of convertibles, warrants and preferred, per claim #20904. The BMSS waiver schedule from that period is recorded as delayed, per claim #15432. From May 2019 the company moved to standing at-the-market capacity: $100M with Wainwright per claim #15232, then $500M per claim #14154, $750M per claim #12283, a second $750M per claim #11957, and another $500M per claim #3931. Authorized common shares grew alongside these programs, doubling from 340M to 680M per claim #5964. The equity plan pool was also enlarged at a rising pace, by 10M shares per claim #13905, 13M per claim #12134 and 15M per claim #15935, which reads as #11935. Dilution has therefore been continuous and pre-authorized rather than episodic, and the ceiling has been raised ahead of need. Several dollar figures in this record appear to be share counts or truncated units, so readers should not treat them as cash amounts.

After 2024 the mix becomes more deliberate. Equity remains the base layer. The company added the 0.75% convertible, priced at $525M per claim #5251, with its stated purpose being bitcoin acquisition per claim #5245. It then added a bitcoin-collateralized Coinbase facility, opened at $100M per claim #21929 and upsized to $200M per claim #21930, against 3,300 BTC pledged per claim #26668. This looks like a strategy of monetizing the treasury without selling it. That reading requires qualification, because a bitcoin sale funded the Rockdale acquisition per claim #17603. The facility's rate also moved from 8.3% per claim #22253 to a fixed 6.15% with maturity extended to April 2027 per claim #21921, and an earlier maturity term is recorded as delayed per claim #4847.

Use of proceeds is only partly traceable. The Bitfarms position, about $111M per claim #6015, was stated as financed from working capital per claims #6012 and #5802, but that working capital was itself replenished by ATM sales. The assertion that 2025 capex was funded from cash, per claim #26673, is not yet verifiable. The record contains no insider transactions, so nothing can be said about management selling.

Going forward, readers should watch three things: drawdown against the December 2025 ATM, whether the Coinbase facility is rolled or repaid ahead of April 2027, and whether the pledged bitcoin and any further sales remain consistent with the convertible's stated purpose.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-10-13

Riot's record divides into two eras. Before 2017 the disclosures are almost entirely corporate housekeeping: holding-company restructuring, incentive-plan top-ups, and a reverse-split authorization (claims #20721 and #20715) whose execution the record does not confirm. The modern financing pattern starts with the small 2017 private placement of convertible notes, warrants and preferred stock, $4.75M per claim #20904, followed by the 2019 senior secured convertible notes of roughly $3.36M with attached warrants (claims #15267 and #15268). These were patches sized to immediate needs, not a strategy.

From 2019 onward the at-the-market program becomes the main instrument, and its size escalates steadily: $100M with Wainwright (claim #15232), $500M in 2022 (claim #14154), $750M in 2023 (claim #12283), another $750M in 2024 (claim #11957), and $500M at the end of 2025 (claim #3931). Over the same period authorized common stock doubled from 340M to 680M shares (claim #5964), and the equity-plan pool was expanded nearly every year, reaching 15M shares in 2024 (claim #5963). That is a consistent, high-cadence dilution path, not an episodic one.

The mix diversifies from late 2024. The 0.75% convertible notes, priced at $525M and closed near $594M with the overallotment (claims #5251 and #5242), and the Coinbase BTC-backed facility, upsized from $100M to $200M (claims #21929 and #21930) against 3,300 BTC of collateral (claim #26668), suggest a deliberate move toward non-dilutive capital tied to the treasury. The facility's April 2026 restatement to a fixed 6.15% with maturity extended to April 2027 (claim #22250) lowered the rate from 8.3% (claim #22253).

The use of proceeds partly tracks. The Bitfarms stake was attributed to working capital (claims #6012 and #5802), and the convertible was tied to bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245). The statement that 2025 capex was funded from cash (claim #26673) remains not yet verifiable, and it sits alongside a $99M ATM raise in the same period (claim #26675). The bitcoin sale tied to Rockdale (claim #17603) requires explanation, since it shows treasury assets being drawn on as a funding source. The record contains no insider transactions, so that dimension cannot be assessed, and the final claim is truncated.

Readers should watch utilization of the $500M ATM, any further authorized-share proposal, and the handling of the Coinbase facility as its April 2027 maturity approaches.

SUPERSEDED

2026-10-11

2026-10-03

Riot's financing history falls into two regimes. Through 2019 the company raised small sums through stopgap instruments: the $4.75M private placement of convertible notes, warrants and preferred stock, per claim #20904, and the $3.36M senior secured convertible notes, per claim #15267. Their timing reads as a balance sheet in need of repair rather than a planned program. From 2022 onward the at-the-market program became the primary source of funding, and its stated capacity rose from $500M (claim #14154) to $750M (claim #12275), was renewed at $750M (claim #11948), and was reset at $500M in December 2025 (claim #3931). Share authorization moved in step: authorized common doubled from 340M to 680M shares, per claim #5964. Equity incentive pool increases of 4.4M (claim #14455), 10M (claim #13905), 13M (claim #12134) and 15M shares (claim #5963) indicate that compensation dilution has grown alongside the ATM rather than leveling off. The record contains no insider sale data, so that dimension cannot be assessed. The instrument mix since 2024 is more varied and more coherent than in the earlier period. The 0.75% convertible, closed at roughly $594M per claim #5242, was paired with a Coinbase credit facility that started at $100M (claim #21929) and was upsized to $200M (claim #21930). This suggests a deliberate move toward borrowing against assets rather than relying only on equity. Deployment of proceeds is harder to reconcile. The convertible's stated use was bitcoin acquisition, per claim #5245, yet a later bitcoin sale was used to fund the Rockdale acquisition, per claim #17603. That reversal of treasury posture requires explanation. The Bitfarms position, $111M per claim #6015 and later $202M per claim #5802, was funded from working capital rather than any announced raise. The $480M Bitmain order is marked delayed across claims #14266, #14251 and #14271. Going forward, the most concrete item is the Coinbase facility. Its April 2026 restatement fixed the rate at 6.15%, down from 8.3% (claims #21921, #22253), but maturity falls in April 2027, so refinancing or repayment will be due within about six months. Readers should also follow the drawdown pace of the $500M ATM reset and whether a further incentive pool increase is proposed at the next annual meeting. Several claims record share counts and percentages in dollar fields, so figures should be checked against the source filings.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-10-02

Riot's record falls into three distinct capital regimes, and the transitions between them say more than any single raise. Through 2017 the activity is small and housekeeping in nature: incentive-plan top-ups, a reverse-split authorization marked delayed (claims #20721 and #20715), and a $4.75M private placement of convertible notes, warrants and preferred stock (claim #20904). The 2018–2019 period reads as opportunistic patching. The company disclosed that it was pursuing debt and equity capital (claim #15351), and waiver payments and a restricted-stock issuance to BMSS are all marked delayed (claims #15431, #15432, #15434). It also issued $3.36M of senior secured convertible notes alongside warrants (claims #15267, #15268) in the same month it opened a $100M ATM with H.C. Wainwright (claim #15241). From 2022 the strategy becomes coherent, and the coherence is dilution at scale. ATM capacity stepped from $500M (claim #14154) to $750M (claim #12283), then to a second $750M program (claim #11957). Authorized common rose to 340M shares (claim #13903) and then doubled to 680M (claim #5964), while the equity plan pool was expanded repeatedly, including increases of 13M (claim #12004) and 15M shares (claim #5963). That cadence tracks the hardware commitments closely: $138.5M for Antminers (claim #14728), the $480M Bitmain order marked delayed (claim #14271), $162.9M of hardware (claim #12382), and $453.4M of MicroBT miners (claim #11991). Use of proceeds broadly matches deployment in this phase, though the Bitfarms position funded from working capital, $202M per claim #5802, was by then itself largely an ATM product. The third regime, beginning in December 2024, adds leverage to the equity base. It includes the 2030 convertible notes that closed around $594M (claim #5242), with stated use for bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245), and a Coinbase credit facility upsized from $100M to $200M (claims #21929, #21930). The record also shows bitcoin being sold to fund the Rockdale acquisition (claim #17603), and it does not reconcile that sale with the convertible's stated purpose; this requires explanation. A new $500M ATM followed in December 2025 (claim #3931). A sophisticated reader should watch four things. The first is the April 2027 maturity on the Coinbase facility, now fixed at 6.15% after the 8.3% pre-amendment rate (claims #21921, #22253). The second is the pace of draws on the $500M ATM. The third is remaining headroom under the 680M authorization. The fourth is the content of the April 2026 entry (claim #1877), which is truncated in the data provided. No insider sales appear in the record, so that dimension cannot be assessed.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-10-01

Riot's record divides into two eras. Before 2019 the company raised small amounts and made small-scale fixes: a $4.75M private placement of convertible notes, warrants and preferred stock (claim #20904), and $3.36M of senior secured convertible notes with attached warrants (claim #15267). Waiver payments to BMSS were recorded as delayed (claims #15431, #15432), and the Coinsquare license was paid partly in Riot shares (claim #15419). The reverse split authorized in 2010 is also recorded as delayed (claims #20721, #20715).

From 2019 the pattern becomes a repeatable program. ATM capacity grew from $100M (claim #15241) to $500M (claim #14154), then to two successive $750M programs (claims #12275, #11957), and another $500M was added in late 2025 (claim #3931). Authorized common stock doubled twice, to 340M shares (claim #13903) and then 680M (claim #5964). The equity plan pool was enlarged almost every year, most recently by 15M shares (claim #5963). Dilution is therefore structural rather than episodic, and the share reservations track the ATM sizing.

The mix shifts in late 2024. A $500M convertible offering was upsized to $525M (claim #5251) and closed at $594M (claim #5242) to fund bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245). A Coinbase credit facility followed at $100M (claim #21929) and was upsized to $200M (claim #22252). The 2026 Rockdale acquisition was funded by selling bitcoin (claim #17603). The company now appears to be using its treasury and secured credit alongside equity, which reads as a coherent diversification rather than patching. No insider transactions appear in the record.

Stated uses of proceeds mostly line up with large hardware commitments: $138.5M of Antminers (claim #14728), a $162.9M order (claim #12382) and the MicroBT purchase of roughly $453M (claim #11991). The $480M Bitmain order, however, is recorded as delayed (claims #14271, #14251). The Bitfarms position, around $202M per claim #5802, was funded from working capital rather than a named raise (claim #6012). The record does not say what became of it.

A careful reader should watch the Coinbase facility. Its rate moved from 8.3% (claim #22253) to a fixed 6.15% with maturity in April 2027 (claim #21921), while its availability and maturity terms were recorded as delayed (claims #4845, #4847, #21915). Its refinancing needs explaining. Other items to track are how quickly the December 2025 ATM is drawn, the conversion overhang from the 2030 notes, and whether bitcoin sales become a regular source of funding. The final claim, #1877, is cut off in the data provided and is not interpreted here.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-10-01

Riot's record divides into two eras. Before 2019 the company financed itself in small increments, such as the $4.75M private placement of convertible notes, warrants and preferred stock closed in March 2017 (claim #20904), and expanded its share base mainly through authorization and incentive-plan increases. From 2019 onward, at-the-market programs became the primary funding source, and their size grew steadily. The $100M Wainwright ATM (claim #15241) gave way to a $500M program in 2022 (claim #14154). That was followed by back-to-back $750M programs in August 2023 (claim #12275) and February 2024 (claim #11957), and then a further $500M authorization in December 2025 (claim #3931). Authorized common stock doubled from 340M to 680M shares (claim #5964), and the equity plan pool was expanded by 13M shares (claim #12004) and then by 15M (claim #5963). The record supports a description of structurally recurring dilution rather than episodic dilution. It does not show how much of each ATM was actually sold, so the realized pace cannot be measured from these claims.

The financing mix looks deliberate. Since late 2024, Riot has diversified away from pure equity into a 0.75% convertible priced at $525M (claim #5251) and closed at $594M (claim #5242), and into a Coinbase credit facility that grew from $100M (claim #21929) to $200M (claim #22252). The facility was later restated at a 6.15% fixed rate, down from 8.3% (claims #21921, #22253). This reads as a planned move toward cheaper and more varied capital rather than ad hoc patching. The record contains no insider sales, only compensation awards, so that dimension cannot be assessed.

Use of proceeds tracks only partially. Hardware commitments such as the $453.4M MicroBT order (claim #11991) are consistent with equity-funded expansion. The $480M Bitmain order, however, carries a delayed status (claim #14271). The convertible was framed as funding bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245). Separately, the Bitfarms stake, which totaled roughly $111.1M per claim #6015 and $202.2M per claim #5802, was described as funded from working capital (claim #6012). Because cash is fungible, attributing that stake to any particular raise would require explanation. A bitcoin sale tied to the Rockdale acquisition (claim #17603) suggests the treasury is now also a funding source, although the units in that claim are unclear.

The items to watch follow directly from the record. The Coinbase facility matures in April 2027 (claim #21921), and both its terms and its maturity carry delayed flags (claims #21915, #4847). Utilization of the December 2025 ATM will show whether the newer debt instruments have actually slowed equity issuance. The record ends with a truncated April 2026 Coinbase entry (claim #1858), so the most recent terms are incomplete.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-30

Riot's record describes a company whose capital strategy changed with the business. Before 2017 the filings show only housekeeping: plan share increases and a reverse-split authorization that is marked delayed (claims #20721 and #20715). The first real financing is the $4.75M private placement of convertible notes, warrants and preferred stock (claim #20904). After that, dilution capacity grows in steps. The $100M Wainwright ATM (claim #15232) gives way to a $500M program (claim #14154), then $750M programs in 2023 and 2024 (claims #12275 and #11957), and a further $500M ATM at the end of 2025 (claim #3931). Authorized common stock follows the same path, rising to 340M shares (claim #13903) and then 680M (claim #5964). Several of these figures are recorded in dollars but are share counts, so they should be read as capacity rather than proceeds. Equity-plan reserves also expand repeatedly, reaching 15M shares by 2024 (claim #5963).

The mix looks deliberate rather than patched together. Through 2023 the ATM was essentially the only funding tool, and it tracked large hardware commitments: the $138.5M Antminer purchase (claim #14728), the Bitmain order recorded as $480M (claim #14271), the $162.9M hardware order (claim #12382) and the $453.4M MicroBT purchase (claim #11991). From late 2024 the company adds non-equity sources: a 0.75% convertible, recorded at $525M priced (claim #5251) and apparently $594M at close (claim #5242), followed by a Coinbase credit facility that was upsized from $100M to $200M (claims #21929 and #21930). This reads as a planned shift toward cheaper and less dilutive capital once the balance sheet could support it. The record contains no insider-sale entries.

The data cannot confirm whether proceeds were used as announced. The ATMs carry no stated use in the record. The convertible was designated for bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245), and the Bitfarms stake of about $111M (claim #6015) was described as funded from working capital (claim #6012). The Rockdale acquisition was funded partly by a bitcoin sale (claim #17603), which suggests the treasury now serves as a funding source in its own right.

Several items deserve attention going forward. The Coinbase facility's rate moved from 8.3% (claim #22253) to a fixed 6.15%, with maturity extended to April 2027 (claim #21921). That April 2027 maturity, together with the facility terms marked delayed (claim #21915), requires explanation. Readers should also track how fast the late-2025 ATM is drawn down against the enlarged 680M-share authorization. Finally, the record is cut off at claim #9634, so any later events are not reflected here.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-30

Riot's record shows two distinct eras. Before 2019, financing was small and episodic: a $4.75M private placement of convertibles, warrants and preferred (claim #20904), a reverse-split authorization recorded as delayed (claims #20721, #20715), and routine incentive-plan top-ups. From 2019 onward, the at-the-market program becomes the main funding source, and each authorization is larger than the last. The progression runs from $100M with H.C. Wainwright (claim #15232) to $500M (claim #14154), then $750M in 2023 (claim #12275), another $750M in 2024 (claim #11957), and a further $500M in December 2025 (claim #3931). Share authorizations kept pace, with authorized common doubling from 340M to 680M shares (claim #5964). Equity-plan reserves also grew, including 13M shares (claim #12134) and 15M shares (claim #5963), which adds a steady compensation-driven layer of dilution on top of the ATM issuance.

The instrument mix reads more as a deliberate progression than as patching. Equity funded fleet buildout through 2024. In December 2024 the company added a 0.75% convertible, sized at $525M (claim #5251) and closed near $594M with the overallotment (claims #5242, #5260). In 2025 it added a bitcoin-collateralized Coinbase facility, opened at $100M (claim #21929), upsized to $200M (claim #21930), and restated in April 2026 at a 6.15% fixed rate, down from 8.3% (claims #22253, #21921). The direction is toward cheaper, balance-sheet-secured capital. Recurring ATM renewals show that equity remains the backstop.

On use of proceeds, the record is only partly traceable. The convertible was framed as funding for bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245), but no subsequent claim confirms how it was deployed. The Bitfarms position, about $202M per claim #5802, was described as funded from working capital (claim #6012), which in practice is fungible with ATM proceeds. Several large miner orders carry delayed status, including the Bitmain commitments (claims #14847, #14271), and that requires explanation against the stated capex timelines. A bitcoin sale tied to the Rockdale acquisition (claim #17603) is recorded, but its disclosed figure is ambiguous in units.

2026-09-29

Riot's record divides into two distinct regimes, and they need to be read separately. Before 2017 the entries are routine. They cover incentive-plan top-ups and authorized-share housekeeping. Several figures recorded as dollars, such as the 60,000,000 authorized-share increase in claim 21089, are share counts. The 2017–2019 period looks like opportunistic patching. It includes a $4.75M private placement of convertible notes, warrants and preferred (claim 20904), $3.36M of senior secured convertibles with attached warrants (claims 15267, 15268), and a set of delayed waiver payments to BMSS (claims 15431–15434). These are the hallmarks of a company funding itself on short notice.

From 2019 the pattern becomes a scalable equity machine. The $100M Wainwright ATM (claim 15232) was followed by a $500M ATM (claim 14154), then two $750M programs (claims 12275, 11957). Each step was preceded or matched by authorized-share expansion, first to 340M shares (claim 13903) and then to 680M (claim 5964). The equity-plan pool grew in parallel, with successive additions of 10M, 13M and 15M shares (claims 13905, 12134, 5963). The ATMs line up with hardware commitments, including the $480M Bitmain order, marked delayed (claim 14271), the $162.9M order (claim 12382) and the $453.4M MicroBT purchase (claim 11991). So the stated purpose of the dilution tracks the observable deployment.

In late 2024 the mix shifts toward the $594M of 0.75% 2030 convertibles (claims 5251, 5242), which were earmarked for bitcoin purchases (claim 5245). A Coinbase secured facility followed, upsized from $100M to $200M (claims 21929, 21930) and restated at 6.15% fixed with an April 2027 maturity (claim 21921). The roughly $202M Bitfarms position was described as funded from working capital (claims 5802, 6012), and the Rockdale acquisition was funded by bitcoin sales (claim 17603). Both are consistent with a deliberate move toward non-dilutive sources.

That framing requires explanation alongside the $500M ATM entered in December 2025 (claim 3931), which sits months before the April 2026 statement about data-center growth without equity dilution (claim 9634). The record contains compensation awards but no insider sale entries, so nothing can be said about insider selling.

A careful reader should watch four things. The first is whether the Coinbase facility is extended again or refinanced before April 2027. The second is how much of the December 2025 ATM is actually drawn. The third is the undisclosed size of the Seventh Amendment share increase (claim 1877). The fourth is how the 2030 convertibles interact with the share price. The record provided is truncated after claim 895, and several figures appear to be scaled inconsistently, so conclusions about 2026 activity are provisional.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-27

Riot's record divides into three distinct financing regimes. Before 2018 the filings are almost entirely housekeeping. Authorized-share and incentive-plan increases appear alongside a reverse-split authorization (claims #20721, #20715). The only external raise is a modest $4.75M package of convertible notes, warrants and preferred stock (claim #20904). The 2018–2019 period reads as opportunistic patching. The company was paying license fees in stock (450,000 shares to Coinsquare, claim #15419). Waiver payments to BMSS were recorded as delayed (claims #15431, #15432, #15434), and the company said it was 'currently pursuing debt and equity capital' (claim #15351). It raised $3.36M in senior secured convertible notes with attached warrants (claims #15267, #15268) at the same time it opened a $100M Wainwright ATM (claim #15241).

From 2020 the at-the-market program became the core instrument. It scaled from $100M (claim #14814) to $500M (claim #14154), then to consecutive $750M programs (claims #12283, #11957). Authorized common stock doubled from 340M to 680M shares (claim #5964). The equity plan pool rose in steps of 4.4M, 10M, 13M and 15M shares (claims #14455, #13905, #12004, #5963). Taken together, the dilution is sustained and structural, not episodic. The large hardware commitments sit beside it: the $480 million Bitmain order recorded as delayed (claim #14271) and the $453.4M MicroBT purchase (claim #11991).

Since late 2024 the mix has moved toward debt. The 0.75% convertible was sized at $525M (claim #5251) and closed at a figure recorded as $594 (claim #5242), consistent with exercise of the $75 overallotment (claim #5260). A Coinbase credit facility followed (claims #4844, #1858), and in 2026 a $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility and a $180M term loan tied to AMD deployment (claims #8752, #8753). This shift looks deliberate. Management's statement that data center growth will proceed 'without equity dilution' (claim #9634) nonetheless requires explanation, since a fresh $500M ATM (claim #3931) and a Seventh Amendment to the equity plan (claim #1877) sit alongside it.

On use of proceeds, the record states purposes but rarely shows deployment. The Bitfarms stake was funded from working capital (claims #6012, #5802), and the convertible was earmarked for bitcoin purchases (claim #5245). No claim reconciles ATM draws against stated uses. The record also contains no insider transaction data, and the final delayed-draw entry (claim #8754) is truncated.

2026-09-27

Riot's financing record falls into three phases, each larger in scale than the one before. The 2018–2019 period looks like opportunistic patching: small, bespoke instruments such as the $3.36 million senior secured convertible notes with attached warrants (claim #15267) sat alongside BMSS waiver payments and a restricted stock issuance that were all later marked delayed (claims #15431, #15432, #15434). The company said it was pursuing debt and equity capital without specifics (claim #15351).

From 2022 through 2024 the strategy became coherent and equity-led. At-the-market programs grew from $500 million (claim #14154) to $750 million (claim #12283) and then to a second $750 million (claim #11957). Authorized common stock doubled from 340 million to 680 million shares (claim #5964). Equity plan reserves were enlarged repeatedly, including 10 million (claim #13905), 13 million (claim #12134) and 15 million shares (claim #11935). This was a steady, programmatic dilution cadence that tracked large hardware commitments, such as the $480 million Bitmain order (claim #14271, delayed) and the $453.4 million MicroBT order (claim #11991).

The December 2024 0.75% convertible, priced at $525 million (claim #5251) and earmarked for bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245), marked a shift toward debt-like instruments. The shift continued with the Coinbase credit facility (claims #4844, #2051) and, in 2026, with project-level financing: the $573 million Morgan Stanley interim facility (claim #8752), an expected $180 million term loan against the AMD deployment (claim #8753), and a stated target of long-term project debt for gigawatt-scale development (claim #8531). The company now describes data center growth as proceeding without equity dilution (claim #9634). That statement sits alongside a $500 million ATM authorized in December 2025 (claim #3931) and a Seventh Amendment to the equity plan whose size is not disclosed (claim #1877). Both require explanation against the non-dilution framing.

The data offer limited ability to test use of proceeds. Where purposes are stated, some can be checked. The Bitfarms stake was financed from working capital (claims #6012, #5802), and bitcoin sales were tied to Rockdale and AI expansion (claims #17603, #426). None of the ATM programs has a disclosed draw-down or deployment record here. No insider transactions appear in the record.

A careful reader should watch four things: whether the $573 million interim facility is refinanced into term debt on schedule, whether the December 2025 ATM is drawn despite the non-dilution language, the size of the Seventh Amendment share reserve, and how the 2030 convertibles behave relative to the conversion price.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-26

Riot's financing record falls into three phases. From 2018 through 2020 the company relied on small, patchwork instruments: the roughly $3.36M senior secured convertible notes with attached warrants (claims #15267, #15268), a $100M Wainwright ATM (claim #15241), and share-settled vendor payments such as the 450,000 shares issued for the Coinsquare license (claim #15419). Several of the BMSS payment obligations from this period are marked delayed (claims #15431, #15432, #15434). Together these point to a company managing liquidity case by case rather than following a funding plan.

From 2022 the ATM became the main instrument, and it grew with each renewal: $500M (claim #14154), $750M in 2023 (claim #12275), $750M again in 2024 (claim #11948), and $500M in December 2025 (claim #3931). Authorized common stock doubled from 340M to 680M shares (claim #5964). The equity plan pool was expanded repeatedly, by 10M, 13M and 15M shares (claims #13905, #12004, #5963), with a seventh amendment in 2026 (claim #1877). The record shows capacity for dilution growing steadily. It does not show how much of each ATM was actually sold, and that gap limits any firm conclusion about realized dilution.

The 2024 to 2026 mix points to a deliberate move away from equity. The $594M 2030 convertible (claim #5242) was earmarked for bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245). The Coinbase revolving facility (claims #1858, #2051) and the $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility (claim #8752) followed, with a stated target of $1.7B in long-term project debt (claim #8531). Management's framing of "data center growth without equity dilution" (claim #9634) is consistent with this sequence, but it sits alongside the $500M ATM filed four months earlier, and the relationship between the two requires explanation.

The use of proceeds is traceable in places. The Bitfarms stake was stated as funded from working capital (claims #6012, #5802), and bitcoin sales were cited as funding Rockdale and the AI expansion (claims #17603, #8643), although the units for those two figures are not specified. The disclosures contain no insider sell transactions, so that dimension cannot be assessed.

A careful reader should now watch four things: whether the interim facility is refinanced into term debt on schedule, draws on the $69M delayed-draw tranche (claim #8754), how much of the December 2025 ATM is used, and whether the contracted Anthropic and AMD revenue (claims #1192, #407) arrives on the timeline the debt structure assumes.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-26

Riot's record shows a company that moved from small, patched-together financing to large standing equity programs, and then, more recently, toward asset-backed and project-level debt. The 2019 layer was modest and reactive. There were $3.36M of senior secured convertible notes with attached warrants (claims #15267, #15268), issued alongside a $100M ATM with Wainwright (claim #15241) after management said it was "pursuing debt and equity capital" (claim #15351). From 2022 the ATMs grow sharply: $500M (claim #14154), then $750M (claims #12275, #11948), then another $500M in December 2025 (claim #3931). Authorized common stock doubled from 340M to 680M shares (claim #5964). The equity plan pool was enlarged repeatedly, by 4.4M, 10M, 13M and 15M shares (claims #14455, #13890, #12004, #5963), and a seventh amendment of undisclosed size followed (claim #1877). The record captures program capacity rather than shares actually sold, so the realized pace of dilution cannot be measured from it. The direction of authorized capacity, however, is consistently upward.

The mix reads as a coherent sequence more than opportunistic patching. Equity funded the miner purchase orders, including the Bitmain commitment (claim #14271) and the MicroBT orders (claim #11991). The 2030 convertible, which closed at $594M after an upsize (claims #5251, #5242), was tied to bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245). The Bitfarms stake of roughly $202M was financed from working capital (claim #5802). The 2026 layer shifts to a $200M Coinbase revolver (claim #1858), a $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility for the Anthropic project (claim #8752), AMD-linked term loans of $180M and $69M (claims #8753, #8754), and bitcoin sales to fund Rockdale and AI expansion (claims #17603, #8643). The record contains no insider sales, so that dimension cannot be assessed.

On use of proceeds, one point requires explanation. Management stated in April 2026 that data center growth would proceed "without equity dilution" (claim #9634), yet the $500M ATM authorized four months earlier (claim #3931) remains on record. The data does not show whether it has been drawn. Several Bitmain obligations and the Coinbase maturity and availability terms are marked delayed (claims #14847, #4847, #4845).

A sophisticated reader should watch three things. First, whether the $573M interim facility is refinanced into the targeted $1.7B of long-term project debt (claim #8531). Second, whether the December 2025 ATM is used despite the no-dilution framing. Third, the share count attached to the seventh equity plan amendment.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-25

Riot's record describes two distinct capital regimes, and the transition between them is the main story. Through 2024, dilution capacity expanded at an accelerating cadence. The at-the-market program grew from $100M with Wainwright (claim #15241) to $500M (claim #14154), then $750M in August 2023 (claim #12275), and was renewed at $750M within roughly six months (claim #11957). Authorized common stock was raised to 340M shares (claim #13903) and then doubled to 680M (claim #5964). The equity plan pool was enlarged repeatedly, including by 13M shares (claim #12134) and 15M shares (claim #11935). These increases broadly track large hardware commitments, among them the $480M Bitmain order (claim #14271, marked delayed) and the $453.4M MicroBT purchase (claim #11991). That pairing reads as a coherent, if equity-heavy, fund-the-fleet strategy rather than opportunistic patching. The 2018–2019 entries are different in character. Small secured convertibles with warrants (claim #15267), share-settled license fees (claim #15419) and delayed BMSS waiver payments (claim #15431) reflect a company in a narrower position. From December 2024 the mix shifts toward non-dilutive or deferred-dilution instruments. These include the 0.75% convertible that closed at $594M (claim #5242), the $200M Coinbase credit facility (claim #4844, restated in claim #2051), bitcoin sales (claims #17603 and #426), and the $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility (claim #8752) with AMD-linked term loans (claims #8753 and #8754). Stated uses mostly align with the observable deployment. The convertible was tied to bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245), and the Bitfarms stake was stated as funded from working capital (claims #6012 and #5802). The April 2026 statement of data center growth without equity dilution (claim #9634) sits alongside a fresh $500M ATM authorization four months earlier (claim #3931) and a seventh equity plan amendment (claim #1877), and that coexistence requires explanation. Data center revenue went from $33M in Q1 (claim #888) to $23M in Q2 (claim #505), which is modest against the contracted $9.1B base term (claim #1192). A sophisticated reader should watch whether the interim facility is refinanced into the targeted $1.7B of long-term project debt (claim #8531), whether the $500M ATM is drawn despite the no-dilution framing, and when contracted revenue begins to appear in reported results. The record contains no insider transactions, several figures are recorded without a clear unit scale, and the supplied data ends mid-entry, so these observations are provisional.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-23

Riot's record divides into three distinct financing regimes, and the transitions between them are the most informative part of the history. The 2018–2019 period reads as small-scale patching rather than strategy. The Verady convertible investment (claim #15513), the BMSS waiver payments marked delayed (claims #15431, #15432, #15434), and the $3.36M senior secured convertible notes with attached warrants (claims #15267, #15268) are the instruments of a company funding operations one obligation at a time. The ATM with Wainwright (claim #15241) was the first durable channel.

From 2022 through 2025 the pattern becomes a coherent, if heavily dilutive, equity ladder. ATM capacity stepped from $500M (claim #14154) to $750M (claims #12275, #11948) and then to a further $500M (claim #3931). Authorized common stock rose from 340M (claim #13903) to 680M shares (claim #5964). Equity plan share pools were enlarged repeatedly (claims #13905, #12134, #11935, #1877). The record does not show how much of each ATM was actually drawn, so realized dilution cannot be measured from these claims alone. The headline miner commitments are clearly documented: $138.5M (claim #14728), $162.9M (claim #12382), $453.4M from MicroBT (claim #11991), and a Bitmain order marked delayed (claim #14266). Those commitments are consistent with where the equity went, but the record does not match specific raises to specific outlays.

The third regime begins with the 0.75% 2030 convertible, which closed at $594M including the overallotment (claims #5242, #5260). Its stated use was bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245). It was followed by the Coinbase facility (claims #4844, #1858), bitcoin sales to fund Rockdale and the AI data center build (claims #17603, #8643), and project-level debt tied to named tenants. That debt includes the $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility (claim #8746) and the $180M and $69M AMD term loans (claims #8753, #8754). Management's statement about data center growth without equity dilution (claim #9634) marks a deliberate pivot. It sits alongside a $500M ATM authorized four months earlier (claim #3931), which requires explanation.

2026-09-20

The financing record divides into three regimes, and the transitions between them are more informative than any single raise. Through 2019 Riot funded itself in increments that read as patching rather than planning: a $200,000 convertible into Verady (claim 15513), a license fee settled in 450,000 shares to Coinsquare (claim 15419), staged waiver payments to BMSS (claim 15431, delayed), and $3,358,333 of senior secured convertible notes carrying $1,908,144 of warrants (claims 15267, 15268). Warrant coverage at that ratio is the price a borrower pays when alternatives are thin, and it sat beside an explicit statement that the company was pursuing both debt and equity (claim 15351).

The second regime, roughly 2020 through 2024, is one instrument repeated at escalating scale. ATM capacity moves from $100 million (claim 15232) to $500 million (claim 14154) to $750 million twice over eighteen months (claims 12275, 11957), with authorized common stock lifted to 340 million shares (claim 13903) and then 680 million (claim 11934), and incentive pools expanded repeatedly — 4.4 million (claim 14455), 10 million (claim 13905), 4 million (claim 12497), 13 million (claim 12134), 15 million (claim 11935). This is coherent in the narrow sense that it is consistently the same approach, but it establishes dilution as the default funding source, offset by hardware commitments such as the $480 million Bitmain order (claim 14266, delayed) and the $453.4 million MicroBT orders (claim 11964).

The third regime begins with the December 2024 0.75% convertible, upsized to $594 million at close (claim 5242), and turns toward secured, asset-linked debt: the $200 million Coinbase revolver (claims 4844, 1858) and Morgan Stanley's $573 million interim facility for the Anthropic development (claim 8752), plus $180 million and $69 million term loans against AMD deployment cash flows (claims 8753, 8754).

Two items require explanation. The convertible's stated use was bitcoin acquisition (claim 5245); that bitcoin is now being sold, 4,300 coins to fund data center expansion (claim 8643), which revises rather than executes the original rationale. And the assertion of data center growth without equity dilution (claim 9634) coexists with a $500 million ATM authorized in December 2025 (claim 3931), though priced at 1% commission (claim 3933) against 3% on prior programs (claim 12284) — better terms, and so far undrawn on this record.

Watch whether the interim facility terms out into permanent debt, whether the ATM stays dormant, and the data center segment line, $33 million in Q1 2026 (claim 888) against $23 million in Q2 (claim 505), against $9.1 billion of contracted base revenue (claim 1192).

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-19

Riot's financing record falls into two regimes. Through 2019 the company raised small sums on improvised terms. The $3,358,333 senior secured convertible notes (claim 15267) carried attached warrants (claim 15268), and a $100M Wainwright ATM (claim 15241) sat on top of a $100M shelf (claim 15291). Several obligations from that period, including the BMSS waiver payments (claims 15431, 15432), are recorded as delayed, which reads as patching rather than plan. From 2022 the ATM became the primary instrument and scaled quickly: $500M (claim 14154), $750M (claim 12283), another $750M (claim 11957), and $500M in December 2025 (claim 3931). Authorized common stock was raised to 340M shares (claim 13889) and then to 680M (claim 5964). The equity incentive pool was expanded at nearly every annual meeting (claims 14455, 13890, 12004, 5963, 1877). Taken together, dilution was continuous and structurally provisioned rather than episodic.

The mix changed in late 2024. The 0.75% convertible notes, priced at $525M (claim 5251) and recorded as closing at $594 with an overallotment (claims 5242, 5260), were followed by a Coinbase credit facility of $200M (claims 4844, 1858). The 2026 record is dominated by project-level debt. That includes the $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility (claim 8752), a $180M term loan against AMD cash flows (claim 8753), a $69M delayed draw tranche (claim 8754), and a stated $1.7B long-term project debt target (claim 8531). This progression is coherent with management's claim of data center growth without equity dilution (claim 9634). However, the $500M ATM authorized months earlier (claim 3931) remains on record.

Stated uses of proceeds have not held steady. The convertible was tied to bitcoin acquisition (claim 5245), yet a later claim records bitcoin being sold to fund AI data center expansion (claim 8643). That reversal of treasury posture requires explanation. The Bitfarms stake, funded from working capital at $202,180,487 (claim 5802), is not revisited in the later claims. Equipment commitments to Bitmain are marked delayed (claims 14847, 14266).

A careful reader should watch several things. First, whether the Morgan Stanley interim facility is refinanced into the targeted long-term project debt on schedule. Second, how much of the Anthropic contract value is base term, $9.1B (claim 1192), versus the $16.1B that depends on extension options (claim 1194). Third, whether the standing ATM is drawn despite the non-dilution framing. The record contains no open-market insider transactions, only compensation awards (claims 13588–13597). The final claims in the supplied data are truncated.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-18

Riot's financing record falls into three phases. The first, 2018 to 2019, looks like opportunistic patching. It includes waiver payments to BMSS that are marked delayed (claims #15431, #15432, #15434), a Coinsquare license paid partly in stock (#15419), a small senior secured convertible with attached warrants of roughly $3.36M (#15267, #15268), and a statement that the company was 'currently pursuing debt and equity capital' (#15351). The $100M Wainwright ATM (#15232) was the first repeatable tool. From 2022 onward, dilution capacity grew in steps. ATM programs of $500M (#14154), $750M (#12275) and a second $750M (#11957) coincided with authorized common stock doubling from 340M to 680M shares (#5964). The equity plan pool was expanded repeatedly, by 4.4M (#14455), 10M (#13890), 13M (#12134) and 15M shares (#5963), plus a Seventh Amendment whose size is not stated (#1877). The ATMs track the timing of large hardware commitments, namely the $480M Bitmain order (#14271, delayed), $162.9M (#12382) and $453.4M from MicroBT (#11991). The data does not show how much of each program was actually drawn, so deployment cannot be verified against announcements. In December 2024 the mix shifted to a 0.75% convertible, launched at $525M (#5251) and closed at $594M per #5242. It was framed as funding bitcoin acquisition (#5245). The Bitfarms stake of about $111M (#6015) was separately attributed to working capital (#6012, #5802). Secured credit then followed: a Coinbase facility of $200M (#4844, #1858) with a maturity term marked delayed (#4847). By 2026 the stated strategy is 'data center growth without equity dilution' (#9634). It is backed by the $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility (#8752), a $180M AMD term loan (#8753), a $69M delayed-draw loan (#8754), and a bitcoin sale earmarked for expansion (#426). Reported bitcoin holdings moved from 15,679 (#894) to 11,380 (#432). That sits alongside a $500M ATM authorized only months earlier (#3931), which requires explanation relative to the non-dilution framing. A careful reader should watch four things: whether that ATM is drawn, how the interim Morgan Stanley facility is refinanced, whether the treasury continues to be sold down to fund construction, and how contracted revenue claims such as the $9.1B Anthropic base term (#1192) convert into cash that can service the new debt. The record supplied appears truncated after August 2026, so later events are not assessed here.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-18

Riot's financing history falls into three distinct phases. The early record from 2018 to 2019 shows small, reactive transactions rather than a funding plan. These include staged waiver payments to BMSS, several of them later marked delayed (claims #15431, #15432, #15434). There was also a $3.36M senior secured convertible note with attached warrants (claim #15267, #15268). At the same time, the company said it was 'currently pursuing debt and equity capital' (claim #15351).

The second phase, from 2019 to 2024, was built almost entirely on at-the-market equity, and the capacity steadily grew. The ATM went from $100M with Wainwright (claim #15232) to $500M (claim #14154), then to $750M (claim #12275), then to a second $750M program (claim #11957). Authorized common stock doubled from 340M to 680M shares (claim #5964). The equity incentive pool was also enlarged repeatedly (claims #13890, #12134, #5963, #1877), which adds a steady layer of compensation dilution on top of the capital raises. This equity funded hardware orders of increasing size: $138.5M (claim #14728), $162.9M (claim #12382) and $453.4M from MicroBT (claim #11991). The Bitmain orders of 2020 and 2022 were both flagged delayed (claims #14847, #14271). The Bitfarms stake, disclosed as funded from working capital (claims #6012, #5802), is consistent with ATM proceeds being used for strategic purposes beyond mining.

The third phase shifts toward debt. It includes the upsized 0.75% 2030 convertible, which grew from $500M to a reported $594M close (claims #5261, #5242) and was earmarked for bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245). It also includes the Coinbase credit facility (claim #1858), and in 2026 a $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility with $180M and $69M term loans tied to the AMD deployments (claims #8752, #8753, #8754). Bitcoin sales are also disclosed as funding AI expansion (claim #8643). Taken together, this is a coherent move from equity-funded mining toward asset-backed financing of contracted data center revenue. The Anthropic base-term figure (claim #1192) is the anchor for that shift.

One point requires explanation. Management describes data center growth 'without equity dilution' (claim #9634), yet a $500M ATM was authorized four months earlier (claim #3931).

The record contains no open-market insider sales. It shows only compensation awards, so no inference is drawn on insider behavior. Several unit fields are inconsistent in the source data, and the record is truncated after claim #7839.

A careful reader should watch four things. First, whether the Morgan Stanley interim facility is refinanced on term financing or instead through equity. Second, whether the December 2025 ATM is actually drawn. Third, how the Coinbase maturity terms, marked delayed (claim #4847), are resolved. Fourth, the conversion overhang from the 2030 notes.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-18

Riot's record describes a company whose financing moved from small, improvised arrangements to large programmatic equity capacity, and more recently toward asset-backed debt. The early period consists of six-figure items: waiver payments to BMSS partly marked delayed (claims #15431, #15432), a $3.36M senior secured convertible with warrants (claims #15267, #15268), and share-based fees to Coinsquare (claim #15419). These look more like patching than a planned capital structure.

From 2019 onward, dilution capacity rose steadily. At-the-market authorizations grew from $100M (claim #15232) to $500M (claim #14154) and then to $750M, which was renewed in 2023 and 2024 (claims #12275, #11957). Authorized common stock was raised from 340M to 680M shares (claim #5964). The equity incentive pool was enlarged at almost every annual cycle (claims #14455, #13890, #12134, #5963), and a seventh amendment was filed in 2026 (claim #1877). The ATM capacity lines up broadly with the large miner orders: $138.5M to Bitmain (claim #14728), a $480M order marked delayed (claim #14266), $162.9M (claim #12382) and $453.4M to MicroBT (claim #11991). This suggests equity was the working tool for hardware spend. The data does not show how much of each ATM was actually drawn.

The mix changed in late 2024. The 0.75% convertible, which closed at a figure recorded as $594 (claim #5242), was tied to bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245). Separately, the Bitfarms stake was stated as funded from working capital (claims #6012, #5802). In 2026, a Coinbase revolver (claim #1858) and a $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility (claims #8752, #33) were added, along with AMD-linked term loans of $180M and $69M (claims #8753, #8754). Management describes data center growth "without equity dilution" (claim #9634). A fresh $500M ATM was authorized only months earlier (claim #3931), however, and that combination requires explanation. Recorded bitcoin holdings fall from 15,679 (claim #894) to 11,380 (claim #432), and a sale is linked to data center expansion (claim #426), although the units in these claims are not specified.

A careful reader should watch four things. The first is whether the interim Morgan Stanley facility is refinanced into term debt backed by the stated Anthropic contract value (claims #1192, #1194). The second is actual draws on the December 2025 ATM. The third is the maturity handling on the Coinbase facility, which carries delayed terms (claim #4847). The fourth is whether bitcoin treasury drawdowns continue as a funding source. The record provided is truncated at its end, so later events may not be reflected.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-15

Riot's record shows three distinct financing regimes, and the transitions between them matter more than any single raise. Through 2019 the company relied on small, stopgap instruments. The BMSS waiver payments, several of which are marked delayed (claims #15431, #15432, #15434), sit alongside $3.36M of senior secured convertible notes with warrants (claims #15267, #15268). A $100M ATM was layered on top of that (claim #15241). This reads as patching rather than design.

From 2022 the company moved to repeated large ATM programs. It put a $500M program in place (claim #14154), followed by $750M programs in 2023 (claim #12283) and 2024 (claim #11957). Authorized common stock doubled from 340M to 680M shares (claim #5964). The equity incentive pool also grew in successive steps, from 4.4M (claim #14455) to 10M (claim #13890), 13M (claim #12134) and 15M shares (claim #5963). A seventh amendment followed whose size is not stated (claim #1877). Dilution capacity therefore rose steadily, though the record does not show how much of each program was actually drawn.

Since late 2024 the mix has shifted toward debt. The 0.75% convertible notes were set at $525M (claim #5251) and closed at a recorded $594 (claim #5242). A Coinbase credit facility of $200M was added and later amended (claims #4844, #1858). The 2026 AI data-center buildout is financed with project-level debt: a $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility (claim #8752), a $180M term loan (claim #8753) and a $69M delayed-draw loan (claim #8754). That shift is coherent with the long-term contracted revenue now disclosed (claims #1192, #1194).

Use of proceeds has not always stayed fixed. The convertible was described as funding bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245). Less than two years later, bitcoin was being sold to fund AI data-center expansion (claims #426, #8643). Recorded holdings fell from 15,679 (claim #894) to 11,380 (claim #432). That reversal of treasury posture requires explanation. By contrast, the Bitfarms stake was stated as funded from working capital (claims #6012, #5802), and that is consistent across filings. The 2022 Bitmain order was recorded as delayed (claim #14271).

A reader should watch whether the $500M ATM authorized in December 2025 (claim #3931) is used, given management's stated aim of data-center growth without equity dilution (claim #9634). It is also worth watching whether the interim Morgan Stanley facility is refinanced on term, and how large the seventh equity plan amendment is. Several figures in the record are logged in inconsistent units, and the final claim is truncated. No insider transactions appear, so no read on insider selling is possible.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-14

Riot's financing record falls into two distinct phases, and the shift between them is the most important feature of the pattern. From 2019 through 2025 the company relied mainly on equity. At-the-market capacity grew from $100M with H.C. Wainwright (claim #15241) to $500M (claim #14154), then to $750M (claim #12283), which was referenced again in 2024 (claim #11957), and most recently to a new $500M program (claim #3931). Authorized common stock rose over the same period from 340M to 680M shares (claims #13889, #5964). The equity incentive pool was also enlarged repeatedly, by 4.4M, 10M, 4M, 13M and 15M shares (claims #14455, #13890, #12497, #12134, #5963), and a seventh amendment followed (claim #1877). This reads as a coherent programmatic strategy rather than patching: standing equity capacity was sized ahead of large hardware commitments such as the $162.9M order (claim #12382) and the MicroBT purchase (claim #11991). The record does not show how much of each program was actually drawn, so the realized pace of dilution cannot be measured from these claims alone.

The second phase begins with the 0.75% convertible notes (claim #5251), which closed upsized (claim #5242) and were earmarked for bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245). Secured and project-level debt came next. The Coinbase revolver stands at $200M (claim #1858). The Morgan Stanley interim facility is $573M (claim #8752). It is paired with a $180M term loan and a $69M delayed-draw loan tied to the AMD deployments (claims #8753, #8754), and management states it is targeting $1.7B of long-term project debt (claim #8531). Management now describes data center growth as proceeding without equity dilution (claim #9634). That framing requires explanation alongside the $500M ATM authorized four months earlier (claim #3931), which the record does not show being withdrawn.

On use of proceeds, the Bitfarms stake was stated as funded from working capital (claims #6012, #5802), and the record does not contradict this. Bitcoin holdings fell from 15,679 (claim #894) to 11,380 (claim #432), which is consistent with the disclosed sale for AI data center expansion (claim #8643). The treasury is therefore now a funding source rather than a reserve. The record contains no insider transactions, so that dimension cannot be assessed.

A careful reader should watch three things. The first is whether the $573M interim facility is refinanced into the targeted long-term project debt on schedule. The second is whether the December 2025 ATM is used despite the no-dilution language. The third is the size of the seventh equity plan amendment, which the record does not quantify.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-14

Riot's record describes a company that has funded itself mostly through standing equity capacity and is now moving toward secured, project-level debt. The at-the-market programs grew in steps: a $500M program in March 2022 (claim 14154), $750M in August 2023 (claim 12283), a $750M program again referenced in February 2024 (claim 11948), and another $500M in December 2025 (claim 3931). Authorized common stock was doubled from 340M to 680M shares (claim 5964), and the equity plan pool was enlarged repeatedly, most recently by a Seventh Amendment whose size the record does not state (claim 1877). The record shows the authorizations but not how much of each ATM was actually sold, so the realized dilution cannot be measured from this data. Some figures also appear without consistent units, and share counts are recorded in dollar form. The record lists no insider transactions despite the section heading, so no conclusion about insider selling is possible.

The mix looks more sequential than improvised. Equity funded large miner orders, such as the $480M Bitmain order (claim 14271) and the $453.4M MicroBT purchase (claim 11991). The Bitfarms stake was described as financed from working capital (claims 6012, 5802). In December 2024 the company added a 0.75% convertible sized at $525M (claim 5251). It then added a $200M Coinbase revolver (claim 1858) and, in 2026, a $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility (claim 8752) with AMD-linked term loans of $180M and $69M (claims 8753, 8754).

The use of proceeds needs explanation. The convertible was tied to bitcoin acquisition (claim 5245). By Q2 2026, bitcoin was being sold to fund AI data center expansion (claim 8643), and holdings fell from 15,680 to 11,380 BTC (claims 565, 566), with 5,821 BTC pledged as collateral (claim 567). Management's statement that data center growth will proceed without equity dilution (claim 9634) sits alongside a $500M ATM authorized four months earlier (claim 3931).

There are four things to watch next. The first is whether any sales occur under the December 2025 ATM. The second is whether the $573M interim facility is refinanced into the targeted $1.7B of long-term project debt (claim 8531) on terms that match the contracted Anthropic revenue of $9.1B base (claim 1192). The third is whether more of the bitcoin treasury becomes encumbered. The fourth is the undisclosed size of the latest equity plan increase.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-14

Riot's dilution capacity has grown steadily rather than in one burst. At-the-market authorizations rose from the 2020 H.C. Wainwright facility (claim #14930) to $500M in 2022 (claim #14154), $750M in August 2023 (claim #12275), another $750M in February 2024 (claim #11948), and $500M in December 2025 (claim #3931). Authorized common stock doubled from 340M (claim #13903) to 680M shares (claim #5964). Equity plan reserves were also expanded almost every year, reaching 15M shares by 2024 (claim #11935), and a seventh amendment followed in 2026 (claim #1877). The record includes executive compensation awards but no open-market insider sales, so that part of the pattern cannot be assessed.

Through 2024, the mix reads as coherent. Equity capacity tracked large, disclosed miner commitments, including the $480M Bitmain order (claim #14271) and the 99,840-unit MicroBT purchase for $453.4M (claim #11991). The Bitfarms position, which grew from $111M (claim #6015) to $202M (claim #5802), was stated to come from working capital. The December 2024 turn to a 0.75% convertible, priced at $525M (claim #5251) and closing near $594M (claim #5242), is the first place where stated use and later deployment diverge. Those proceeds were described as funding bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245). By 2026, the company was selling bitcoin to fund AI data center expansion (claim #8643). Holdings are recorded as falling from 15,680 (claim #565) to 11,380 (claim #566), with 5,821 pledged as collateral (claim #567). Both the acquisition and the later sales are disclosed, but the reversal requires explanation.

The 2026 financing is debt-led and project-specific. It includes the $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility (claim #8752), a $180M AMD term loan (claim #8753), a $69M delayed draw (claim #8754), and a targeted $1.7B of long-term project debt (claim #8531). Management frames this as growth without equity dilution (claim #9634), although the $500M ATM from December 2025 (claim #3931) remains on record. Contracted revenue of $9.1B base (claim #1192) is not yet visible in results. Data center revenue is recorded at $23.2M in Q2 (claim #925), against a Q1 figure of $33 (claim #888).

A reader should watch four things. The first is whether the interim facility is refinanced into the $1.7B term structure on schedule. The second is whether the ATM is drawn despite the no-dilution framing. The third is how much bitcoin remains unencumbered. The fourth is the Coinbase facility's maturity and availability terms, which are marked delayed (claims #4845, #4847). Several figures in this record carry inconsistent units, and the record is truncated after claim #559, so these readings should be treated as provisional.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-14

Riot's financing record falls into two phases. From 2022 through 2025 it relied almost entirely on equity. The $500M at-the-market program (claim #14154) was followed by $750M programs in 2023 (claim #12283) and 2024 (claim #11957), and a further $500M program in December 2025 (claim #3931). Over the same period authorized common stock doubled from 340M to 680M shares (claim #5964). The equity incentive pool also grew almost every year, including 13M shares (claim #12134), 15M shares (claim #5963) and a seventh amendment in 2026 whose size is not stated in the record (claim #1877). The trajectory is steady and increasing dilution, with each authorization clearly sized for the next round of issuance.

The mix in that phase was coherent rather than improvised: ATM capacity paired with large miner purchase commitments, such as the $453.4M MicroBT order (claim #11991). The Bitfarms stake departed from that pattern because it was funded from working capital (claims #6012, #5802). The December 2024 0.75% convertible, $525M at pricing (claim #5251) and later reported as $594 at close (claim #5242), was tied to bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245).

The 2026 phase moves toward secured, project-level debt. It includes the $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility (claim #8752), a $180M term loan on the AMD deployment (claim #8753), a $69M delayed-draw tranche (claim #8754), and a stated target of $1.7B in long-term project debt (claim #8531). Management frames this as data center growth without equity dilution (claim #9634). However, that framing sits alongside a $500M ATM authorized only months earlier (claim #3931).

The use of proceeds has shifted in a way that requires explanation. Convertible proceeds raised to acquire bitcoin now coexist with bitcoin being sold to fund AI data center expansion (claim #8643). Holdings fell from 15,680 to 11,380 across Q2 (claims #565, #566), and 5,821 are pledged as collateral (claim #567). The reported H1 sales figure of 9,665 (claim #564) does not reconcile cleanly with the Q2 figure of 4,300 (claim #563) and the quarter-end balances. The source disclosures should be checked on this point.

The record shows no insider transactions, and the claim list appears truncated, so conclusions on insider behavior are not possible. A careful reader should watch four things. First, whether the interim Morgan Stanley facility is refinanced into the targeted long-term debt. Second, whether the additional secured financing flagged as required (claim #559) arrives on schedule. Third, how much of the December 2025 ATM is actually drawn. Fourth, whether contracted Anthropic revenue of $9.1B base (claim #1192) begins to show up in data center revenue, which was $23.2M in Q2 (claim #925).

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-14

Riot's dilution runs on a steady cadence rather than in episodic raises. At-the-market programs have been renewed almost every year: $500M in 2022 (claim #14154), $750M in 2023 (claim #12275), another $750M in early 2024 (claim #11957), and $500M in December 2025 (claim #3931). Share authorization moved in step, doubling from 340M to 680M shares (claim #5964). The equity incentive pool was expanded repeatedly, most recently through a seventh amendment (claim #1877). Taken together, issuance capacity has been treated as a standing utility rather than a response to specific needs.

The instrument mix changed in December 2024. The convertible was launched at $500M (claim #5261), priced at $525M (claim #5251), and closed at $594M including the overallotment (claim #5242). It was tied to bitcoin acquisition (claim #5245). Since then, financing has moved toward secured and project-level debt: the $200M Coinbase facility (claim #1858), the $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility (claim #8752), the AMD-linked term loans of $180M and $69M (claims #8753, #8754), and a stated $1.7B long-term project debt target (claim #8531). The sequence reads as a deliberate move from equity-funded mining toward contracted, asset-backed data center financing rather than improvised patching, though the transition is still under way.

Use of proceeds requires explanation in at least two places. Bitcoin accumulated partly with convertible proceeds is now being sold: holdings fell from 15,679 (claim #894) to 11,380 (claim #566) after 4,300 were sold for AI data center expansion (claim #8643). In addition, 5,821 are pledged as collateral (claim #567). The Bitfarms position, funded from working capital at $111M and later $202M (claims #6015, #5802), is no longer discussed in the recent record. The heavy miner orders, including $453.4M with MicroBT (claim #11991), also sit uneasily beside the data center pivot. Data center revenue declined from $33M in Q1 (claim #888) to $23.2M in Q2 (claim #925), even as contracted value is cited at $9.1B base (claim #1192).

A careful reader should watch several things. The first is whether the interim facility is refinanced into the targeted project debt on schedule. The second is whether the open $500M ATM is drawn, given management's framing of growth without equity dilution (claim #9634). The third is how much unencumbered bitcoin remains as sales and pledges continue. No insider sales appear in the record provided, so that dimension cannot be assessed.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-14

Riot's financing record describes a company that paid for growth mainly through standing equity capacity and has only recently turned toward secured and project-level debt. The dilution machinery was assembled early. Authorized common stock was set at 340 million shares in 2022 (claim 13903) and doubled to 680 million in 2024 (claim 5964). Equity plan reserves grew in near-annual steps of 10 million shares (claim 13890), 13 million (claim 12004) and 15 million (claim 11935), and a seventh plan amendment appears in 2026 without a disclosed size (claim 1877). At-the-market programs have followed one another closely: $500M in 2022 (claim 14154), $750M in August 2023 (claim 12275), another $750M six months later (claim 11948), and a fresh $500M in December 2025 (claim 3931). That cadence reads as a deliberate reliance on continuous issuance rather than occasional patching, though the record does not show how much of each program was actually sold.

The mix changed in late 2024. The 0.75% convertible was upsized from $500M to $525M (claims 5261, 5251) and closed at $594M (claim 5242). A Coinbase credit facility followed (claim 4844), and in 2026 came the $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility (claim 8752) and AMD-linked term loans of $180M and $69M (claims 8753, 8754). Management now frames data center growth as achievable without equity dilution (claim 9634). That framing sits alongside an open $500M ATM authorization that has not been withdrawn, and the two require reconciling.

Use of proceeds tracks only partly. The convertible was tied to bitcoin acquisition (claim 5245), but by mid-2026 that treasury was being drawn down to fund data center expansion (claim 8643). Holdings fell from 15,680 to 11,380 bitcoin in a single quarter (claims 565, 566). Of the remaining holdings, 5,821 bitcoin are pledged as collateral (claim 567). The asset raised to accumulate is now serving as both a funding source and security, a shift the original disclosure did not anticipate.

A careful reader should watch four things. The first is whether the interim facility is refinanced into the $1.7B of long-term project debt management is targeting (claim 8531). The second is whether the further secured financing flagged as required (claim 559, unit not specified) arrives on non-dilutive terms. The third is whether the December 2025 ATM is drawn. The fourth is how quickly the $9.1B base contracted revenue (claim 1192) converts to cash relative to debt service. The record contains no insider transactions, and it is truncated after claim 914, so conclusions about the most recent period should be held loosely.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-14

Riot's financing record falls into three distinct phases, and the shift between them is the most informative feature of the history. Through 2023 and early 2024 the company funded itself mainly through its share count. Two $750M at-the-market programs were stacked six months apart (claims 12275 and 11948). Authorized common stock was doubled from 340M to 680M shares (claim 5964). The equity incentive pool was expanded repeatedly, by 4M, 13M and 15M shares (claims 12543, 12134, 5963), with a seventh amendment in 2026 whose size is not stated in the record (claim 1877). That cadence reads as a deliberate dilution-funded build-out rather than ad hoc patching, but it was dilution nonetheless. The December 2024 0.75% convertible moved the funding into the capital structure: $525M at pricing (claim 5251), $594M at close (claim 5242). A $200M Coinbase facility collateralized by bitcoin followed in 2025 (claim 4844). The 2026 phase is project debt: the $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility (claim 8752), the $180M and $69M AMD term loans (claims 8753, 8754), and a stated $1.7B long-term project debt target (claim 8531), all framed as data center growth without equity dilution (claim 9634). The mix looks coherent in direction, although the ATM programs were never formally retired and a new $500M program was put in place in December 2025 (claim 3931). The use-of-proceeds record requires explanation on one point. The 2024 convertible was earmarked for bitcoin acquisition (claim 5245). By 2026 the treasury was instead being sold to fund AI data center expansion (claim 8643). Holdings fell from 15,680 to 11,380 BTC over Q2 (claims 565, 566), and 5,821 BTC is pledged as collateral (claim 567). The Bitfarms stake, funded from working capital (claims 6015, 5802), is no longer discussed in the later filings provided. A sophisticated reader should watch four things. First, whether the $500M ATM is drawn despite the no-dilution framing. Second, whether the interim Morgan Stanley facility is refinanced into the targeted long-term project debt on schedule. Third, how much unencumbered bitcoin remains as sales and pledges continue. Fourth, the additional secured financing requirement (claim 559), whose magnitude is not clearly specified in the record. Insider transaction data does not appear in the portion of the record supplied, and the claim list is truncated, so no conclusions are drawn on insider activity.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-13

Riot's record describes a shift from equity-funded bitcoin accumulation to debt-funded data-center construction. The early program leaned on the share count. A $750M at-the-market facility, per claim #12275, was re-referenced in February 2024, per claim #11948. Authorized common stock doubled from 340M to 680M shares, per claim #5964. The equity incentive pool grew in successive steps of 4M, 13M and 15M shares, per claims #12497, #12004 and #5963, and a seventh plan amendment followed, per claim #1877. The record shows repeated share-plan expansions rather than a single sizing decision.

The December 2024 convertible marks the first move away from pure equity. It was launched at $500M, per claim #5261, priced at $525M, per claim #5251, and closed at a figure recorded as $594, per claim #5242. Its stated use was bitcoin acquisition, per claim #5245. The Bitfarms stake was described as funded from working capital, rising from $111M, per claim #6015, to $202M, per claim #5802. That stake is no longer discussed in the later claims.

The stated use of proceeds and actual deployment diverge most in 2026. Holdings fell from 15,679 bitcoin, per claim #894, to 11,380, per claim #432. Sales of 4,300 in the second quarter were tied to AI data-center expansion, per claim #8643. First-half sales proceeds reached $730M, per claim #548. Capital raised partly to accumulate bitcoin is now being liquidated to fund a different business, and that sequence requires explanation.

The 2026 strategy is more coherent in structure. A $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility, per claim #8752, sits alongside AMD-linked term loans of $180M and $69M, per claims #8753 and #8754, and a $1.7B long-term project debt target, per claim #8531. These are backed by contracted revenue of $9.1B base and $16.1B with extensions, per claims #1192 and #1194. Bitcoin also carries more encumbrance: 5,821 coins were pledged as collateral at mid-year, per claim #567, against a Coinbase facility amended twice, per claims #4844 and #2051.

A sophisticated reader should watch four things. First, whether the $500M ATM authorized in December 2025, per claim #3931, is drawn, despite the stated aim of growth without equity dilution, per claim #9634. Second, how the interim facility is refinanced into the $1.7B target. Third, whether the unpledged bitcoin balance keeps shrinking. Fourth, the additional secured financing requirement, per claim #559, whose unit is ambiguous in the record. The provided history is truncated and shows no insider transactions, so no conclusion is drawn on insider activity.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-13

Riot's record divides into two financing regimes. From 2023 through 2025 the company relied mainly on shelf equity. It opened a $750M at-the-market program in August 2023 (claim 12273) and a second $750M program in February 2024 (claim 11957). It doubled authorized common stock from 340M to 680M shares (claim 5964) and enlarged the equity plan by 13M and then 15M shares (claims 12004, 5963), with a seventh amendment of unstated size (claim 1877). The December 2024 0.75% convertible, priced at $525M (claim 5251) and reported closed at $594 in unstated units (claim 5242), added deferred dilution on top. A further $500M ATM followed in December 2025 (claim 3931). The equity channel was therefore still open when the company began describing data center growth without equity dilution (claim 9634), and how those two positions fit together requires explanation.

The stated use of proceeds has reversed. The convertible was tied to bitcoin acquisition (claim 5245), yet by 2026 bitcoin was being sold to fund AI data center expansion. Q2 sales were 4,300 BTC (claim 8643), and holdings fell from 15,680 to 11,380 (claims 565, 566). The Bitfarms position, funded from working capital at $202M (claim 5802), is no longer discussed in this record after September 2024.

The 2026 mix has moved to project-level debt. It includes a $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility (claim 8752), an expected $180M AMD term loan and a $69M delayed-draw loan (claims 8753, 8754), and a stated $1.7B long-term debt target (claim 8531). The contract base behind this is Anthropic revenue of $9.1B in the base term (claim 1192). That reads as a coherent pivot rather than patching. The Coinbase collateral figures, however, need reconciliation: 3,977 BTC initially pledged, plus 1,825 added, less 1,544 released (claims 1751, 1752, 1753), does not equal the 5,821 pledged at June 30 (claim 1754). Data center revenue also fell from $33 in unstated units in Q1 (claim 888) to $23.2M in Q2 (claim 925).

Readers should watch several items next. The Morgan Stanley maturity and rate appear in the record without figures (claims 1465, 1473). It remains to be seen whether the $1.7B long-term takeout closes, and whether anything is drawn on the December 2025 ATM. The Coinbase loan maturity terms are marked delayed (claim 4847). Additional secured financing of $4 in unstated units is described as required (claim 559). No insider transactions appear in the supplied record, which was truncated, so that dimension cannot be assessed.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-13

Riot's record reads as three distinct financing regimes rather than one continuous strategy, and the transitions between them require explanation more than the individual instruments do. From 2023 through 2024 the company relied on equity. A $750M at-the-market program (claim 12275) was followed six months later by a second $750M program (claim 11957). Authorized common stock was then doubled from 340M to 680M shares (claim 5964), alongside successive equity plan pool increases of 13M (claim 12134) and 15M shares (claim 5963). The record does not show how much of either ATM was actually sold, so the realized pace of dilution cannot be measured from these claims alone. The capacity being built, however, clearly expanded faster than any single stated use.

Deployment in that period broadly matched stated purposes. The MicroBT order of $453.4M (claim 11991) and the Bitfarms stake, funded from working capital at a disclosed $202M (claim 5802), are consistent with a mining-scale thesis. The December 2024 convertible, marketed at $500M (claim 5261) and closed at a figure recorded as $594M (claim 5242), was tied to bitcoin acquisition (claim 5245). That is where the trajectory turns. By mid-2026 the company was selling bitcoin to fund AI data center expansion: 4,300 BTC in Q2 (claim 563), with holdings falling from 15,680 to 11,380 (claims 565, 566). It had also pledged 5,821 BTC as collateral against the Coinbase facility (claim 567). Coin raised with convertible debt is now being liquidated or encumbered for a different business line, and that shift is not explicitly reconciled anywhere in the record.

The 2026 regime is debt-led: the $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility (claim 8752), expected AMD term loans of $180M and $69M (claims 8753, 8754), and a targeted $1.7B of long-term project debt (claim 8531). Management frames this as growth without equity dilution (claim 9634). A $500M ATM authorized in December 2025 (claim 3931) nonetheless remains in place, and a seventh equity plan amendment was adopted (claim 1877). The mix therefore looks less like a settled capital policy than a sequence of instruments fitted to whichever asset was most financeable at the time.

Several things are worth watching. The first is whether the interim facility is refinanced into long-term project debt on schedule. The second is whether draws on the December 2025 ATM are disclosed, and whether they sit consistently with the non-dilution framing. The third is the direction of pledged bitcoin relative to total holdings. The last is how quickly data center revenue, $23.2M in Q2 (claim 925), converges toward the $9.1B base-term contract figure (claim 1192). The supplied record ends mid-claim and contains no insider transactions, so no conclusion is drawn on insider activity.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-13

Riot's record shows two distinct financing regimes rather than one steady dilution curve. Through 2024 the company leaned on equity. There was the $750M at-the-market program (claim 11948), authorized shares doubled from 340M to 680M (claim 5964), and the equity incentive pool grew by 15M shares (claim 5963). Those authorizations accompanied a $453.4M miner order (claim 11991) and a Bitfarms stake the company said it funded from working capital (claims 6012, 5802). The Bitfarms position is not discussed in any later claim, and its current status requires explanation.

The December 2024 convertible marks the pivot. It was launched at $500M (claim 5261), priced at $525M (claim 5251), and closed at about $594M (claim 5242), with proceeds directed toward bitcoin acquisition (claim 5245). By 2026 the direction had reversed. Holdings fell from 15,679 BTC at the end of Q1 (claim 894) to 11,380 at the end of Q2 (claim 566), and the Q2 sales were described as funding AI data-center expansion (claim 8643). Bitcoin bought with convertible proceeds is now serving as a data-center funding source, so the announced use of proceeds has in effect been revised.

The 2026 mix looks more coherent than opportunistic, since it moves toward project-level debt against contracted revenue. The contracted figures are a $9.1B base term extending to $16.1B with options (claims 1192, 1194), and $9.8B at Rockdale (claim 578). The $573M Morgan Stanley interim facility (claim 8752) and the $180M AMD-backed term loan (claim 8753) fit that model, as does the stated intent to grow the data-center business without equity dilution (claim 9634). That intent sits beside a $500M ATM authorized four months earlier (claim 3931) and a seventh equity plan amendment (claim 1877). The record does not show whether the ATM has been drawn.

Several figures do not reconcile. Pledged Coinbase collateral of 5,821 BTC (claim 909) does not match the initial 3,977 plus 1,825 added less 1,544 released (claims 916, 917, 908). Stated H1 sales of 9,665 BTC (claim 564) sit awkwardly against the change in holdings, and a separate claim cites 19,000 BTC with $330M cash (claims 1736, 1737). Several amounts in the record also lack units.

A careful reader should watch four things. The first is the takeout of the interim facility into the targeted $1.7B of long-term project debt (claim 8531). The second is the undisclosed rate and maturity (claims 1473, 1465). The third is how the roughly $2.15B capex requirement (claim 5192) is sequenced. The fourth is whether the unpledged bitcoin, around half of holdings, keeps shrinking as the working-capital buffer.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-13

Riot's capital trajectory reveals a three-phase evolution from diversification to collateral optimization to infrastructure-as-a-service financing. In 2024, the company doubled authorized shares to 680M (claim 5964, 2024-06-17) and issued $525M in 0.75% convertible senior notes (claim 5251, 2024-12-10), ostensibly for general purposes but deployed toward $313M in Bitfarms acquisition (claims 6015, 5802) plus Bitcoin treasury building. The equity base remained relatively stable through 2025, with the company instead securing a $200M collateralized credit facility with Coinbase (claim 1858, 2026-04-29). This shift from primary issuance to asset-backed borrowing intensified in August 2026 when Riot announced a $573M Morgan Stanley interim financing facility (claim 8752) and term loans totaling $249M for equipment deployment, explicitly tied to an Anthropic partnership worth $16.1B in potential revenue (claim 1194, 2026-08-10). The strategy coherence improved markedly in 2026: rather than patching capital needs opportunistically, Riot's financing structure aligned with stated capex requirements for the Anthropic project. However, Bitcoin management tells a revealing secondary story. Riot pledged $3.977B in BTC as collateral at the start of 2026 (claim 1751), then added $1.825B more in February (claim 1752), reaching $5.821B pledged by June 30 (claim 1754). Simultaneously, the company liquidated $9.665B in Bitcoin across H1 2026 (claim 531), with Q2 2026 alone accounting for $4.3B in sales (claim 563), reducing holdings from $15.68B to $11.38B (claims 565, 566). This reversal from accumulation to deployment contradicts the 2024 narrative and suggests the Bitcoin treasury, once positioned as core to the investment thesis, became a funding source for a different strategy. The $2.15B total capex requirement for the Anthropic project (claim 5192) exceeds announced secured financing by $1.4B—a gap requiring explanation through additional term tranches, operational cash generation, or balance sheet deployment. Watch whether subsequent term facilities materialize, whether Bitcoin collateral constraints tighten under price pressure, and whether revenue from Anthropic contracts materializes at scale and pace to sustain this capital intensity.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-09

Riot exhibits a marked strategic pivot from equity-forward financing (2024–2025) to debt-collateralized raises (2026). In June 2024, the company doubled authorized share count to 680M and pursued the Bitfarms acquisition ($111M stated via claim 6015, $202M per claim 5802), signaling anticipated growth via dilution. The December 2024 convertible offering ($594M closed, per claim 5242) nominally funded Bitcoin acquisition (claim 5245). Yet equity faded: the December 2025 ATM authorization ($500M, per claim 3931) shows minimal deployment, while April 2026's Seventh Amendment hints at accelerating grants without offsetting public issuance.

August 2026 marks the inflection. Riot signed the Anthropic partnership ($9.1B base revenue per claim 1192, $16.1B with extensions per claim 1194) and simultaneously executed layered financing: Morgan Stanley interim facility ($573M, per claim 8752), AMD term loan ($180M per claim 8753), and delayed-draw tranche ($69M per claim 8754). Concurrent liquidation of Bitcoin holdings ($9.665B in H1 2026 per claim 564, Q2 alone $4.3B per claim 563) while collateralizing $5.821B in remaining Bitcoin to Coinbase (per claim 1754) signals acute financing pressure. Stated use—funding Anthropic data center capex ($2.15B projected per claim 5192)—aligns with announced contracts. The urgency is striking: interim facilities, Bitcoin collateral, rapid treasury depletion.

Notably absent: post-2024 discussion of Bitfarms, raising asset-performance questions. The ATM sits largely undrawn. Share grants accelerate while the equity pool expands.

Sophisticated readers should monitor four items. First, Morgan Stanley interim-to-permanent conversion timing—delay signals refinancing difficulty. Second, actual capex consumption against the $2.15B budget; misalignment carries strategic consequence. Third, Bitcoin price movements' impact on the $5.821B collateral cushion; a 20–30% drop would stress covenants. Fourth, whether contracted Anthropic revenue ($9.1–16.1B) plus AMD lease commitments ($311M expected per claim 407) generate sufficient cash flow to service debt and avoid equity dilution for the stated $1.7B gigawatt-scale ambition (per claim 8531). The financing stack's reliance on near-term operational cash conversion is material.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-05

Riot's capital strategy across 2024–2026 demonstrates a coherent pivot, not opportunistic patching. The company doubled authorized shares in June 2024 (claim 5964) while deploying roughly $313 million into Bitfarms (claims 6015, 5802). Late 2024 brought a $594 million 0.75% convertible (claim 5242) nominally for Bitcoin acquisition. Yet deployment diverged significantly: Bitcoin holdings rose to approximately $15.7 billion by Q1 2026 (claim 550), then contracted as Riot sold $9.7 billion in the first half of 2026 (claim 564), leaving $11.4 billion by June 30 (claim 528). The asset the convertible was supposed to accumulate became the primary liquidity source.

This liquidation funded documented strategic reorientation. In May 2026, Riot announced major data-center leases totaling roughly $10 billion contracted revenue: $9.1 billion base with Anthropic, extendable to $16.1 billion (claim 1192); $311 million from AMD (claim 407); and $9.8 billion from Rockdale (claim 578). Capital structure evolved accordingly: after 2024 equity authorization and late-2024 convertible, Riot shifted to secured debt. A $200 million Coinbase credit facility appeared in May 2025 (claim 915), with Bitcoin collateral management accelerating in early 2026—$1.8 billion pledged in February (claim 907), partial release in April (claim 908), and $5.8 billion total pledged by June 30 (claim 1754). Morgan Stanley interim financing of $573 million emerged in August 2026 (claim 7484), alongside $180 million in term financing from AMD cash flows (claim 5190). Total long-term debt targeting was announced at $1.7 billion (claim 8531).

Proceeds tracking is intelligible but requires contextualization: convertibles raised for Bitcoin accumulation; accumulated Bitcoin then funded data-center capex. This represents material revision in strategy, not fraud. However, execution risk is significant. Stated capex needs are $2.15 billion (claim 5192); announced interim and term facilities total approximately $753 million, implying $1.4 billion gap. Bitcoin collateral now supports operational leverage, critical if capex drawdowns accelerate. Insider selling spiked to $69 million in July 2026, the largest quarterly volume since announcement, warranting clarification on management confidence. Sophisticated readers should monitor capex funding closure, collateral utilization under rising leverage, revenue realization of the $9.8 billion Rockdale lease, and whether the $500 million ATM from December 2025 is deployed to close the gap.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-05

Riot's capital trajectory reveals a coherent but high-leverage strategy that has shifted sharply between 2024 and 2026. In mid-2024, following the $111 million Bitfarms share investment (claim 6015) and subsequent $202 million acquisition tranche financed via working capital (claim 5802), Riot doubled its authorized common stock from 340 million to 680 million shares (claim 5964) and issued $525 million in 0.75% convertible senior notes (claim 5251), preserving equity optionality while deferring dilution. That posture inverted beginning in 2025. Rather than drawing the $500 million ATM offering authorized in December 2025 (claim 3932), Riot has systematically monetized its Bitcoin treasury—liquidating $9.7 billion in holdings during the first half of 2026 alone (claim 564)—while simultaneously pledging approximately $5.8 billion of remaining Bitcoin as collateral (claim 1754) to secure $773 million in credit facilities ($200 million with Coinbase, per claim 1858; $573 million with Morgan Stanley for the Rockdale data center, per claim 7484). Insider selling aligns with this rebalancing: modest throughout 2024-early 2025, but accelerating to $69 million in Q2 2026 (insider_sale 2026-07-01 data) as the capital structure tightens. The announced use of proceeds aligns with deployment: the Anthropic and AMD data center leases (claims 1192, 1194) carry $9.1 billion to $16.1 billion in contracted revenue, with the Morgan Stanley facility explicitly sized for Rockdale capex (claims 33, 5192). However, the math becomes critical: Riot requires approximately $2.15 billion in capex for the Anthropic project (claim 5192) but has secured only $573 million interim financing—meaning permanent capital from equity issuance, convertible conversion, or additional collateralized debt remains necessary before cash flow inflects. A sophisticated reader should monitor collateral coverage ratios closely; Bitcoin at current prices provides substantial cushion against the $773 million in borrowings, but a material decline would either force equity issuance (via ATM) or collateral calls. The absence of ATM draws to date, paired with the aggressive Bitcoin liquidation, suggests Riot is racing to fund capex ahead of anticipated cash generation, betting that contracted revenue will service debt before collateral pressures emerge.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-05

Riot's capital structure from mid-2024 through Q3 2026 exhibits two distinct phases: balance-sheet optionality (2024-2025) followed by project-backed leverage (2026 forward). The progression is coherent rather than opportunistic.

In 2024, Riot doubled authorized shares to 680M (claim 5964) and issued $525M in 0.75% convertible senior notes (claim 5251), supporting the $313M Bitfarms acquisition financed from working capital (claims 6015, 5802). This mix—equity authorization plus convertible debt plus working capital deployment—built flexibility without immediate dilution. A $500M at-the-market offering was authorized in December 2025 (claim 3931) but remained unused, confirming Riot chose debt over common equity issuance.

From May 2026 forward, Riot deployed secured financing keyed directly to contracted revenue. A $200M Coinbase facility collateralized by Bitcoin holdings (claim 906) arrived in May, with an additional $1.825B in BTC pledged as supplemental collateral in February (claim 917). More substantially, Morgan Stanley extended a $573M delayed-draw term loan (claim 6709) designated for Rockdale data center capex. The Anthropic lease underpins both facilities, representing $9.1B in base-term contracted revenue rising to $16.1B with extension options (claims 1192, 1194). This shift from broad-based balance-sheet raises to narrowly sourced project financing reflects strategic clarity about revenue visibility.

Capital deployment tracking reveals a leveraged but coherent approach. Rockdale's $573M Morgan Stanley facility is matched to capex. The Anthropic project carries stated capex requirements of $2.15B (claim 5192); announced debt facilities total $773M, with the remaining $1.4B sourced from Bitcoin sales of $9.665B in H1 2026 (claim 564). Bitfarms, however, has dropped from recent disclosures since its 2024 acquisition, requiring explanation about strategic repositioning, operational integration, or writedown.

Insider transactions shifted in Q3 2026: sales reached $69.2M after averaging $500K to $12M per quarter through early 2026. Timing coincides with heavy Bitcoin liquidation, collateral pledges, and debt deployment—patterns consistent with liquidity prioritization rather than fundamental distress.

Three items warrant monitoring: whether Anthropic contract assumptions survive market conditions or face renegotiation. Whether closing the $1.4B capex gap requires additional debt and at what terms. And whether Bitcoin collateral positions remain serviceable if asset volatility strikes or refinancing terms tighten.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-05

Riot's capital strategy shifted materially between mid-2024 and mid-2026, from balance-sheet diversification to project-backed deployment. The convertible senior notes offering of $525M closed in December 2024 (per claim 5251), while an at-the-market offering of up to $500M was authorized in December 2025 (claims 3931, 3932). These early financing moves anticipated need but predated clarity on use. The actual acceleration began with contracting. By August 2026, Riot had secured a $573M interim facility from Morgan Stanley tied explicitly to the Anthropic data center expansion (claim 7484), layered with a $180M term loan on AMD facility cash flows (claim 5190) and embedded collateral deployment: Bitcoin pledged to the Coinbase $200M facility rose from $3.977B to $5.821B between early 2026 and June (claims 1186, 1754).

The coherence here is real but contingent. Rather than opportunistic patching, Riot shifted toward asset-backed project financing once revenue became contractible. The Anthropic engagement alone carries a $16.1B potential value with extensions (claim 1194) and generated $10M in stated contracted revenue by August (claim 509). Rockdale's $9.8B contracted revenue (claim 578) provides similar leverage. Bitcoin sales totaled $9.665B in the first half of 2026 (claim 531), reflecting capital redirection from holdings into capex rather than cash drag.

But use-of-proceeds reconciliation requires care. The Bitfarms investment stated at $111M (claim 6015) expanded to $202M deployed (claim 5802)—the delta is material and merits explanation beyond "working capital." Bitcoin positions serve as embedded collateral and deployment buffer; holdings fell from $15.679B at Q1 end (claim 550) to $11.380B by June (claim 528), then rose to $19B by late August (claim 1736), suggesting active portfolio management alongside debt draws.

Insider behavior last quarter deserves attention. Insiders sold $69.2M in Q2 2026, the largest single quarter on record, coincident with the $573M Morgan Stanley draw and near-zero reported liquid assets ($1M per claim 572). This mirrors the equity-for-debt trade: insiders locking in current stock price as the company finances capex through leverage and collateral. Sophisticated readers should track whether Anthropic and Rockdale revenue materializes on schedule, whether Bitcoin collateral faces forced liquidation if facility covenants tighten, and whether the convertible notes maturing in 2030 force equity conversion or necessitate refinancing before their due date.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-09-05

Riot's capital structure evolved from opportunistic to crisis-driven in eighteen months. Through mid-2024, dilution followed a coherent narrative: authorized shares doubled (claim 5964), equity reserves expanded (claim 5963), and a $525M convertible offering (claim 5251) alongside $200M Coinbase credit (claim 4844) funded the Bitfarms acquisition. The ATM program authorized December 2025 (claim 3931) signaled confidence in equity markets.

This coherence shattered in August 2026 when Riot announced the Anthropic contract—$9.1B base and up to $16.1B with extensions (claims 1192, 1194)—requiring immediate data center buildout. The company secured only $573M interim financing from Morgan Stanley (claim 408) plus a $180M term loan structured on AMD facility cash flows (claim 443). This funding gap forced extraordinary action: Riot liquidated $9.7B in Bitcoin sales during the first half of 2026 (claim 564), nearly 62% of its $15.7B holdings at year-start (claim 550), while simultaneously pledging the remaining $5.8B to Coinbase as collateral (claim 1188).

This mix does not reflect strategy but necessity. Convertible issuance signaled early-stage confidence; the pivot to secured debt, asset sales, and collateral pledges signals constraint. The Anthropic contract is genuinely valuable—long-term contracted revenue of $9–16B (claims 1192, 1194)—but requires $2.15B in near-term capex (claim 5192) that current cash generation cannot service. Riot chose to harvest years of Bitcoin appreciation rather than dilute equity further, but the method reveals capital structure fragility.

Insider behavior reinforces this reading. Sales were modest and cyclical through 2025, then exploded to $69.2M in July 2026 (12 transactions, concurrent with Bitcoin liquidation). This timing—insiders exiting when management is selling Bitcoin to fund operations—requires explanation beyond typical diversification. Sophisticated readers should monitor covenant compliance on the Coinbase facility (given $5.8B collateral at risk, claim 1188), whether Morgan Stanley's bridge rolls to permanent debt, and whether contract revenues materialize on schedule to justify the collateral now pledged against Riot's remaining Bitcoin and hardware.

SUPERSEDED

Capital & dilution trajectory

2026-08-30

Riot's capital activity in this window is defined primarily by the absence of equity financing and the presence of accelerating insider sales. The August 2026 $573M credit facility for data center equipment and project expenses stands as the sole financing claim on record. For a capital-intensive mining operation, debt-funded capex is a logical choice, but it raises a question about why equity markets are not appearing in the disclosed history: either Riot has forgone equity issuance entirely, or this record is incomplete.

The insider transaction pattern tells a story of rising disposition. From April 2024 through April 2026, insiders sold equity in irregular increments, with quarterly liquidations hovering between $500k and $8M. That pattern fractured in July 2025, when insiders sold $12.1M; it accelerated sharply in July 2026, when a single quarter generated $69.2M in sales across twelve transactions. This is the most material insider liquidation in the disclosed history by a wide margin. Simultaneously, each quarter has included insider buy activity—sometimes dozens of transactions with unspecified amounts—which complicates the narrative. The buys could reflect compensation vesting or routine open-market confidence; the escalating sells suggest risk management or profit-taking at valuations insiders view as elevated.

The capital structure that emerges is lean and raises questions about sustainability. A $573M debt facility arriving in August 2026, only weeks after the $69.2M insider sale, invites scrutiny around timing: whether insiders liquidated ahead of financing stress or in response to equity valuations. No equity raises, convertible debt, or ATMs appear in this record, which for a company of Riot's capex appetite is either a deliberate deferral strategy or a constraint worth explaining.

A sophisticated reader should focus on whether the $573M debt suffices for announced capex plans, whether Riot taps additional capital markets imminently, and whether insiders' recent liquidation represents a one-time adjustment or the beginning of sustained portfolio reduction. The absence of equity issuance, combined with the scale of recent insider selling, suggests the company is betting on leverage and retained cash flow rather than dilution to fund growth.

customer_arc

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-19

Riot's record contains very few signed customer agreements; most of what reads as partnership activity is supply, vendor, or equity relationships in which Riot is the buyer or investor. In the legacy biotech era, the University of Idaho, University of Wyoming and Washington University licenses (claim 21095) are named, executed arrangements, but they are inbound IP licenses rather than revenue customers. Merial's exclusive distribution right for SurBred 15 (claim 21094) is a named counterparty, but it is conditioned on the product being "fully developed," which makes it a contingent commercial right rather than a booked sale. The more than 30 products sold to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities (claim 21102) come with no named buyers. The 2012 exclusive animal health license (claim 21049) went to an unidentified "animal health company" for milestones and royalties, so the counterparty is undisclosed.

The 2018 crypto pivot brought a cluster of named definitive agreements. These are the Coinsquare software license (claim 15417), the Synapse/Evolve banking agreement (claims 15376, 15346), and the Shift Markets master services agreement (claims 15367, 15347). All of them are inputs Riot purchased for a planned exchange, and none generates customer revenue. Synapse was mutually terminated within a year (claim 15138). The Coinsquare, Tess and Verady references (claims 15545, 14957, 14959, 14958) are minority equity stakes that diluted over time, not commercial contracts. Coinmint (claims 14938, 14748) hosted Riot's own miners, which made Riot the customer; it moved to month-to-month terms (claim 14275) and was then exited (claim 13864). Bitmain and MicroBT (claims 13261, 12380, 11999) are named, executed hardware supply agreements. ESS Metron is described as a "key strategic partner" (claim 14160), but its disclosed role is component and engineering supply (claim 14161).

On the customer side, the only revenue-generating counterparty named in the mining era is Rhodium, which Riot calls its "largest hosting customer" (claim 13863). That establishes concentration in the Whinstone hosting business without quantifying it. Over time, Riot's counterparty exposure moved from academic licensors to fintech vendors and then to a small number of hardware suppliers and a single named hosting client.

Revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled from this record. No claim discloses contract values on the customer side, Rhodium's revenue share, or royalty receipts from the animal health license. The only dollar figure is a cost, the $480 million Bitmain purchase (claim 13261). Diligence should therefore treat customer-side visibility as thin and anchored to one counterparty.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-19

Read closely, Riot's record contains almost no signed customer agreements. Most of what it calls customer or partnership claims are actually supplier contracts, equity holdings, or contingent rights, and investors should not mistake them for revenue counterparties. The only clearly named buyer of Riot's services is Rhodium, described in 2022 as the company's largest hosting customer (claim 13863). No contract term, megawatt allocation or revenue share accompanies that statement.

The earlier biotech era shows the same pattern. Merial's worldwide distribution right for SurBred 15 applied only once the product was fully developed (21094), so it was a forward commitment rather than a sale. The 2012 exclusive license of animal-health IP went to an unnamed 'animal health company' for milestones and royalties (21049). The university arrangements (21095) were in-licenses to Riot, and the reference to more than 30 products marketed to diagnostic manufacturers names no buyer (21102).

The 2018 blockchain pivot produced signed agreements, but Riot was the paying party in each. It licensed software from Coinsquare (15417), contracted Shift Markets for an exchange platform (15367, 15347), and engaged Synapse and Evolve for banking (15376, 15346). The Synapse agreement was mutually terminated within a year (15138). Coinsquare, Tess/TessPay and Verady were minority equity stakes that diluted over time, with Tess falling from about 52% to 8.8% (15514, 14959; 15545, 14957; 14958). Several of these items are duplicate filings of a single fact.

In the mining era, Coinmint was a host to Riot. That co-location agreement fell to month-to-month status (14275) and was then exited (13864). Bitmain and MicroBT are hardware suppliers. The $480 million Bitmain purchase orders (13261) and MicroBT's option for up to 66,560 miners a year (11999) are capital-spending commitments, and the MicroBT figure is optional capacity rather than a firm order. ESS Metron is labeled a 'key strategic partner' (14160) but functions as a component and engineering vendor (14161).

On concentration, the record moves from no identifiable customers to a single named hosting customer, Rhodium. Its share of revenue is undisclosed. On reconciliation, none of these claims carries a revenue figure, so the announced deals cannot be tied to reported revenue. Any judgement about customer concentration or contracted backlog therefore depends on the filings' revenue footnotes, not on this announcement history.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-19

Riot's record contains very few signed customer agreements. Most of what it has announced over two decades consists of supplier contracts, equity stakes, licensing deals and advisory engagements, and readers should not treat these as revenue-bearing customer relationships.

In the biotech era, the only identified commercial counterparty was Merial, whose exclusive SurBred 15 distribution right applied only "once the product is fully developed" (claim 21094). That makes it a contingent arrangement, not a live sale. The "more than 30 products" sold to diagnostic manufacturers came with no named buyers (claim 21102). The 2012 exclusive license of animal-health IP went to an unidentified "animal health company" for milestones and royalties (claim 21049).

The 2018 blockchain pivot produced named, signed agreements, but Riot was the licensee or buyer in each. These included Coinsquare software licensing (claim 15417), Shift Markets' exchange platform (claims 15367, 15347) and SynapseFi/Evolve banking (claims 15376, 15346). The Synapse agreement was mutually terminated within a year (claim 15138). The Coinsquare, Tess and Verady items are equity holdings, repeated across several filings (claims 15545, 15522, 15512, 14957, 14958, 14976). Those duplicate claim ids should not be counted as separate relationships.

In the mining era, the counterparties are vendors and hosts. Coinmint began as a signed co-location agreement (claim 14938), slipped to month-to-month (claim 14275) and was then ended (claim 13864). The Bitmain purchase orders total $480 million for 82,500 miners (claims 14725, 13261). MicroBT signed a master supply agreement (claim 12380), but its 66,560-miner annual volumes are options, not commitments (claim 11999). ESS Metron is labelled a "key strategic partner" (claim 14160), yet the description is one of procurement and engineering support (claim 14161).

The single named hosting customer is Rhodium, described as the "largest" (claim 13863). No share of revenue, contract term or other hosting clients is disclosed alongside it. Customer concentration has therefore moved from diffuse, unnamed diagnostics buyers to apparent dependence on one hosting client, while self-mining revenue depends on the bitcoin network rather than on any counterparty.

The revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled from this record. No claim ties Rhodium, the animal-health royalties or any license to a dollar amount. The only quantified commitments ($480 million to Bitmain and the Whinstone power contract in claim 14254) are cost-side obligations rather than contracted revenue.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-16

Riot's record contains very few signed customer agreements. Most of the named relationships are equity stakes, vendor contracts or service arrangements in which Riot is the buyer. The 2004-era biotech claims mix the two kinds of language. Merial's exclusive worldwide distribution right for SurBred 15 (claim 21094) applies only "once the product is fully developed," which makes it a contingent right rather than a revenue-bearing contract. The university arrangements (claim 21095) are inbound licenses. The 2012 exclusive license of animal-health IP (claim 21049) is signed, but the counterparty appears only as "an animal health company" and its milestone and royalty terms are not quantified.

The 2018 pivot produced a run of named agreements. The Coinsquare software licensing deal (claim 15417), the Synapse and Evolve banking arrangement (claims 15376, 15346) and the Shift Markets master services agreement (claims 15367, 15347) all name their counterparties. All of them, however, supported a planned RiotX exchange, and Riot was the procuring party. Synapse was terminated by mutual agreement in 2019 (claim 15138). The Coinsquare, Tess and Verady entries (claims 15545, 14959, 14958) are investments, not commercial contracts, and several of them repeat the same disclosure (claims 15512, 15522, 14957).

The mining era follows the same supplier-heavy pattern. Coinmint was a hosting provider to Riot (claims 14938, 14253) and went month-to-month before the relationship was ended (claim 13864). Bitmain and MicroBT are hardware suppliers (claims 14725, 13261, 12380, 11999). ESS Metron is called a "key strategic partner" (claim 14160) but functions as a component vendor (claim 14161). The power purchase agreement at Whinstone does not name the energy supplier (claim 14254).

The only identified revenue-generating customer in the record is Rhodium, described as the "largest hosting customer" (claim 13863). That points to meaningful concentration in the hosting segment, but no share figure is disclosed and no other hosting customers are named. Concentration has therefore moved from no material customers to a single named hosting counterparty sitting beside self-mining revenue.

No revenue, backlog or contract-value figures attributable to customers appear in these claims. The $480 million Bitmain figure (claim 13261) is capital expenditure, not revenue. Reconciling disclosed revenue against announced deals is therefore not possible from this record, and readers should not infer customer-driven revenue from the volume of partnership announcements.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-16

Riot's record contains very few signed customer agreements. Most of the named counterparties are suppliers, service providers, licensors or equity investees, and only one named party is ever described as a customer. In the predecessor biotech era, Merial's worldwide marketing and distribution right for SurBred 15 was contingent on the product being "fully developed" (claim 21094), so it was a forward-looking distribution right and not a revenue contract. The claim to market more than 30 products to diagnostic kit makers and research facilities names no buyers at all (claim 21102). The university arrangements are inbound licenses (claim 21095). The 2012 exclusive animal-health license went to an unidentified "animal health company" for milestones and royalties (claim 21049). That is the clearest case of a material counterparty left unnamed. The crypto pivot produced named stakes in Coinsquare, Tess/TessPay and Verady (claims 15522, 15514, 14957, 14958, 14959). The record carries the same Coinsquare disclosure several times (claims 15512, 15545, 15473, 15295), which inflates the apparent partnership count. The RiotX exchange buildout relied on signed vendor agreements with Coinsquare, Shift Markets and Synapse/Evolve (claims 15417, 15367, 15347, 15376, 15346). These were inputs to a planned exchange, not customer revenue, and Synapse was mutually terminated within a year (claim 15138). Coinmint (claims 14938, 14822, 14748), Bitmain and MicroBT (claims 14725, 13261, 12380, 11999) and ESS Metron (claims 14160, 14161) are all named, but each one is a party Riot pays rather than a party that pays Riot. Coinmint shrank to a month-to-month arrangement and was then exited (claims 14275, 13864). The only named customer is Rhodium, described as the "largest hosting customer" (claim 13863). That makes customer concentration effectively a single disclosed name. The other hosting clients are not identified, and the record gives Rhodium's contract term, pricing and share of hosting revenue nowhere. Revenue reconciliation is not possible from this record because no claim ties dollar revenue to any announced deal. The only hard figure, roughly $480 million of Bitmain purchase orders for 82,500 miners (claim 13261), is capital spending. The power purchase agreement (claim 14254) does not name the supplier and gives no quantities. Diligence should ask for Rhodium's share of hosting revenue and the identities of the remaining hosting customers before treating hosting as diversified contracted income.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-15

Riot's record contains very few signed customer agreements. Most of the named counterparties are suppliers, service vendors, advisers, or equity investees. The only disclosed revenue-side customer from the bitcoin era is Rhodium, described as the largest hosting customer (claim 13863). No contract value, term, or revenue share is attached to that claim. The biotech-era record follows the same pattern. Merial held worldwide marketing rights to SurBred 15 only "once the product is fully developed" (claim 21094), which is a contingent distribution right, not booked demand. The 2012 exclusive animal-health license went to an unidentified "animal health company" in exchange for milestones and royalties (claim 21049). That makes it the clearest example of a material counterparty left anonymous. The claim of "more than 30 products" sold to diagnostic manufacturers names no buyers (claim 21102). The 2018 to 2019 crypto pivot produced named agreements with Coinsquare (claim 15417), Synapse (claims 15376, 15346), and Shift Markets (claims 15367, 15347). All of these were inbound licensing or platform-services contracts supporting a planned RiotX exchange, so Riot was the customer rather than the vendor. Synapse was later terminated by mutual agreement (claim 15138). The Coinsquare, Tess, and Verady items are equity positions, and the Tess stake was diluted from roughly 52% to 8.8% (claims 15514, 14977). Under the 2020 to 2022 Coinmint arrangement, Riot again bought services, and the relationship moved to month-to-month before being ended (claims 14938, 14253, 13864). The Bitmain and MicroBT supply agreements (claims 14725, 13261, 12380, 11999) and the ESS Metron relationship, described only as a "key strategic partner" (claim 14160), are procurement commitments. Some of them, such as the $480 million Bitmain orders, are large. Concentration has therefore moved from a single prospective distributor (Merial) to a single disclosed hosting customer (Rhodium), with the supplier side concentrated in Bitmain and then MicroBT. Revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled from this record. None of the claims discloses customer revenue, contract value, or a customer's share of sales. The Rhodium relationship is the only customer revenue that can be identified, and its size, duration, and terms are not stated here. Diligence should obtain hosting-segment revenue by counterparty, the Rhodium contract terms, and the identity and payment history of the 2012 licensee before giving weight to any partnership language.

2026-10-13

Riot's record contains very few signed customer agreements, and the claims labelled as partnerships are mostly vendor contracts, equity stakes or advisory engagements in which Riot is the buyer rather than the seller. In the biotech era the record shows only general commercial language and a single named counterparty. The company 'markets more than 30 products' to unnamed diagnostic kit makers (claim 21102). Merial held distribution rights to SurBred 15 only 'once the product is fully developed' (claim 21094), which makes it a contingent channel arrangement rather than revenue. The university licenses run inbound (claim 21095). The 2012 exclusive animal-health license names no licensee and is paid through milestones and royalties (claim 21049), so it cannot be verified from the record.

The 2018 crypto pivot produced a large number of claims, but almost none describe customers. Coinsquare, Tess/TessPay and Verady are minority or majority equity positions (claims 15512, 15514, 14957, 14958, 14959), and several of them repeat the same holding. Coinsquare, Shift Markets and Synapse/Evolve are licensors or service providers to the planned RiotX exchange (claims 15417, 15347, 15346). The Synapse agreement was terminated by mutual consent (claim 15138). XMS Capital is an advisor and Marcum is the auditor (claims 14997, 13887). Coinmint hosted Riot's own miners, which made Riot the customer (claims 14938, 14275), and that relationship was ended (claim 13864). Bitmain and MicroBT are hardware suppliers. The $480 million in Bitmain purchase orders for 82,500 miners (claim 13261) and the MicroBT purchase options (claims 12380, 11999) are capital commitments, not demand. ESS Metron is called a 'key strategic partner' (claim 14160), but in practice it is a component supplier (claim 14161). The Whinstone power purchase agreement names no counterparty and refers only to 'our energy supplier' (claim 14254).

The only named revenue counterparty in the entire record is Rhodium, which is described as the 'largest hosting customer' (claim 13863). This means disclosed customer concentration narrowed from a diffuse biotech book to a single named hosting client. However, no share of revenue, contract term or pricing for Rhodium is given. The record contains no revenue figures at all, so the announced deals cannot be reconciled with reported revenue. Most of the headline dollar amounts on record describe outflows to suppliers, and they should not be read as evidence of contracted income.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-11

Riot's record contains remarkably few signed customer agreements; most of what reads as partnership activity is equity investment, vendor procurement or advisory engagement. The only named revenue-side counterparty in the modern business is Rhodium, described as the largest hosting customer (claim 13863). Earlier, from the company's diagnostics and animal-health era, Merial's worldwide distribution right for SurBred 15 was expressly contingent on the product being 'fully developed' (21094). The 2012 exclusive animal-health license went to an unidentified 'animal health company' in exchange for milestones and royalties (21049). The claim of 30-plus products sold to diagnostic manufacturers names no buyer (21102). The university licenses (21095) are inbound IP arrangements, not customers.

The 2018 blockchain pivot produced counterparties who were named but were not customers. Coinsquare, Tess/TessPay and Verady appear repeatedly as minority or majority equity stakes (15522, 15512, 15545, 14975, 14957, 14958, 14959, 15547). Duplicate claims inflate how much activity these holdings appear to represent. The Coinsquare software license (15417), the Shift Markets platform agreements (15367, 15347) and the SynapseFi/Evolve banking agreement (15376, 15346) were all definitive contracts. However, each one supplied services to Riot's planned exchange rather than generating revenue from third parties, and the Synapse agreement was mutually terminated in 2019 (15138). XMS Capital was an advisor (14997). Digital Green Energy was an internal subsidiary still 'seeking to identify' projects (15515, 15455).

In mining, Riot was itself the customer of Coinmint. That relationship went from a co-location agreement (14938) to a month-to-month arrangement (14253, 14275) to an announced exit (13864). Bitmain and MicroBT are hardware suppliers (14725, 13261, 12380). MicroBT's 66,560-miner annual figure is an option, not a commitment (11999). ESS Metron carries the 'key strategic partner' label (14160), but the disclosed role is component supply and engineering (14161), not purchasing.

Counterparty concentration on the revenue side therefore narrows to a single identified hosting customer, Rhodium (13863), and no other hosting client is named. None of these claims discloses revenue, deal value or contract term on the customer side. The only dollar figure on record is the $480 million Bitmain purchase, which is an outflow (13261). As a result, revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled with announced customer deals from this record. Readers should go to filed segment and hosting-revenue disclosures before crediting any customer-driven growth narrative.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-10

Riot's record contains very few signed customer agreements. Most of what it has announced are equity stakes, vendor contracts, or supply arrangements in which Riot is the buyer. The 2004-era filings come closest to customer disclosure. Merial held exclusive worldwide marketing rights to SurBred 15, but only 'once the product is fully developed' (claim 21094). That makes it a contingent distribution right, not a revenue-bearing contract. The three university licenses (claim 21095) are inbound IP arrangements. The 2012 exclusive license of all animal health IP went to a counterparty described only as 'an animal health company' (claim 21049). It was never named, and its milestone and royalty terms were never quantified. The 2018 blockchain pivot produced a run of named counterparties, none of them customers. Coinsquare (claims 15522, 15417, 14975) and TessPay (claims 15547, 14977) were equity investments, and Coinsquare's stake was diluted from 12.9% to 11.7%. Tess fell from roughly 52% to 8.8%. Synapse and Shift Markets (claims 15376, 15346, 15347) were service providers to the planned RiotX exchange, and the Synapse master services agreement was mutually terminated within a year (claim 15138). Coinmint (claims 14938, 14253) was a co-location host that Riot paid, not a customer. It operated month-to-month by 2022 and was being exited by mid-2022 (claim 13864). Bitmain and MicroBT (claims 14725, 13261, 12380, 11999) are hardware suppliers, and the 66,560-miner annual figure is an option, not a commitment (claim 11999). ESS Metron is labeled a 'key strategic partner' (claim 14160), but its role is component supply (claim 14161). The only named hosting customer in the record is Rhodium, disclosed in 2022 as 'our largest hosting customer' (claim 13863). No share of revenue, contract term, or roster of other hosting clients accompanies that disclosure. Concentration risk in the hosting segment is therefore evident but unmeasured. The record has moved from a speculative distribution partner (Merial) to a single identified hosting customer (Rhodium), and it lacks the data to size either. No claim on record discloses revenue figures, backlog, or per-contract economics. Whether revenue reconciles with the announced deals cannot be tested, and readers should treat the partnership volume as evidence of activity, not of contracted demand.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-09

Riot's record contains few true customer agreements. Most of the entries are equity stakes, vendor contracts or advisory engagements. The only named revenue-side counterparty in the modern business is Rhodium, described in 2022 as "our largest hosting customer" (13863). No contract terms, duration or revenue share accompany that statement. In the earlier life-sciences period, the company cited more than 30 products sold to unnamed "diagnostic test kit manufacturers and research facilities" (21102). Merial's exclusive SurBred 15 distribution right applied only "once the product is fully developed" (21094), so it was a contingent arrangement rather than a revenue contract. The 2012 exclusive animal-health license went to an unidentified "animal health company" for milestones and royalties (21049). That is a signed agreement with an anonymous counterparty.

The crypto-era entries are mostly not customer relationships. Coinsquare, Tess/TessPay and Verady are minority or majority equity holdings (15545, 15514, 14975, 14976). Their repetition across filings inflates the apparent volume of partnership activity (15512, 15522, 15547, 15473, 15295). Several agreements were definitive but ran in the wrong direction for revenue. Riot was the licensee or buyer under the Coinsquare software license (15417), the Shift Markets master services agreement (15367, 15347) and the SynapseFi/Evolve banking arrangement (15376, 15346). Synapse was later terminated by mutual agreement (15138), and the RiotX exchange those contracts supported does not reappear.

The same pattern holds in mining. Riot was the paying party to Coinmint (14938, 14822), and that relationship became month-to-month (14275) before being ended (13864). Bitmain and MicroBT are supply agreements (14725, 13261, 12380). The MicroBT figure of up to 66,560 miners per year is an option, not a commitment (11999). ESS Metron is labelled a "key strategic partner" (14160), but the disclosure describes it as a component and engineering supplier (14161). XMS Capital (14997) and Marcum (13887) are advisers, not commercial counterparties.

Counterparty concentration has therefore moved from a diffuse, unnamed base of diagnostics buyers to apparent dependence on a single named hosting customer, Rhodium. The record gives no way to measure that dependence. The revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled because none of the claims disclose revenue, hosting fees, royalty receipts or customer percentages. Diligence should ask for Rhodium's share of hosting revenue and its contract term. It should also confirm whether the 2012 animal-health license produced any milestone or royalty income.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-09

Riot's record contains very few signed customer agreements. Most entries describe Riot as a buyer, investor, licensor or client of an adviser, not a seller with contracted demand. The clearest named customer is Rhodium, identified in 2022 as the largest hosting customer (claim 13863). That is a disclosure of an existing relationship, though the record gives no contract term, volume or revenue share. The biotech-era entries are thinner. Merial's exclusive worldwide distribution right for SurBred 15 depended on the product being "fully developed" (claim 21094), which makes it a forward framework rather than booked demand. The 30-plus products sold to diagnostic kit manufacturers name no buyers (claim 21102). The 2012 exclusive animal-health license went to an unidentified "animal health company" for milestones and royalties (claim 21049). The university arrangements are in-licenses (claim 21095).

The crypto-era entries are mostly the reverse of customer wins. Riot held equity stakes in Coinsquare, Tess/TessPay and Verady (claims 15545, 14975, 14977, 14976), and several of these appear more than once in the record. The Coinsquare software license, Shift Markets MSA and Synapse/Evolve banking agreement (claims 15417, 15347, 15346) supplied infrastructure for a planned exchange. Synapse was mutually terminated within a year (claim 15138). The Coinmint agreement (claims 14938, 14748) made Riot the hosted party, and it had become month-to-month by 2022 (claim 14253) before being wound down (claim 13864). Bitmain and MicroBT are suppliers. The $480 million in Bitmain purchase orders (claim 13261) is Riot spending money, not earning it. MicroBT's 66,560-miner annual figure is an option extended to Riot, not a commitment (claim 11999). ESS Metron is described as a "key strategic partner" (claim 14160) but is a component vendor.

Revenue has never been concentrated in disclosed contracts. Riot moved from diffuse, largely anonymous reagent sales to self-mining, where revenue comes from the Bitcoin network and not from counterparties. The one material third-party dependency now visible is Rhodium in hosting, and its weight in revenue is not quantified. None of the claims on record gives revenue figures, contract values or customer percentages. As a result, the announced deals cannot be reconciled with reported revenue. A reader should treat Riot's partnership history as evidence of its supply chain and capital allocation, not of contracted customer demand.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-09

Riot's record contains very few signed customer agreements. Most entries describe equity stakes, vendor contracts in which Riot is the buyer, or rights that depend on future events. The one named revenue counterparty in the mining era is Rhodium, described in July 2022 as the largest hosting customer (claim 13863). No contract terms, duration or revenue share accompany that statement.

The biotech-era entries are similarly thin. The Merial worldwide distribution right for SurBred 15 applies only once the product is fully developed (claim 21094), which makes it a contingent commercial arrangement rather than a revenue-generating one. The 2012 exclusive license of all animal health intellectual property went to an unidentified animal health company, paid through milestones and royalties (claim 21049). The university licenses (claim 21095) and the 30-plus diagnostic products sold to unnamed buyers (claim 21102) do not identify any customers.

The 2018 pivot produced signed documents, but nearly all of them were supply-side. The Coinsquare Software Licensing and Services Agreement (claim 15417) and the Shift Markets master services agreement (claims 15367, 15347) supplied infrastructure to a planned RiotX exchange. The Synapse/Evolve banking agreement (claims 15376, 15346) was mutually terminated in September 2019 (claim 15138). The Coinsquare, Tess and Verady entries (claims 15522, 15512, 15545, 14957, 14959, 14958 and others) are investment holdings, not commercial relationships. Repeated claim ids also inflate how much partnership activity the record appears to show.

From 2020 onward the named counterparties are suppliers or hosts. Riot was Coinmint's customer, first under a fixed agreement and later month-to-month, before ending the relationship (claims 14938, 14253, 13864). It bought from Bitmain (claims 14725, 13261) and MicroBT (claim 12380). ESS Metron is labeled a key strategic partner, but it is in fact a component and engineering supplier (claims 14160, 14161). The Whinstone power purchase agreement names no counterparty (claim 14254). MicroBT's 66,560-unit annual figure is an option and not a commitment (claim 11999).

On concentration, the record names only one customer, Rhodium, so hosting revenue appears concentrated in a single disclosed name. The record gives no percentage figure. The revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled because no revenue figures appear in these claims. The only dollar amount is the $480 million Bitmain purchase-order total (claim 13261), and that is a capital outflow. Readers should treat the announced relationships as evidence of Riot's operating footprint and supply chain, not of contracted demand.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-09

Riot's record contains almost no signed customer agreements; most of the 'partnership' claims are actually vendor, supplier, licensing or equity-investment relationships. Only one revenue-generating customer is named in the modern business: Rhodium, described as the largest hosting customer at the Whinstone site (claim 13863). Everything else runs the other direction, with Riot as the buyer, licensee or investor. That includes the Bitmain purchase agreements (14725, 13261), the MicroBT supply agreement and purchase options (12380, 11999), the Coinmint co-location deal (14938, 14822, 14748), the Shift Markets and Synapse service agreements (15367, 15347, 15376, 15346), and the ESS Metron component relationship (14161, 14160). The language in these filings is mostly definitive. Synapse was a 'material definitive agreement' (15346) and Shift a 'master services agreement' (15347), and the record contains no MOU or LOI phrasing. Durability is the weaker point. Synapse was mutually terminated within a year (15138), the RiotX exchange plan those contracts supported does not reappear, and Coinmint dropped to month-to-month terms (14275) before Riot ended it (13864). In the legacy biotech era, Merial is named as the exclusive SurBred 15 distributor, but only 'once the product is fully developed' (21094), which makes it a contingent right, not a sale. The 2012 exclusive IP license went to an unnamed 'animal health company' for milestones and royalties (21049). The '30 products' sold to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities likewise names no buyers (21102). ESS Metron is labeled a 'key strategic partner' (14160), but it is identified, and it is a supplier, not a customer. On concentration, the customer base cannot be measured from these claims. Rhodium is called the 'largest' hosting customer, but no revenue share, contract term or second customer is disclosed. The heavy concentration on the supply side is better documented: Bitmain's $480 million for 82,500 miners (13261), followed by a pivot to MicroBT (12380, 11999). On revenue arithmetic, none of these claims discloses a revenue figure tied to a counterparty, so reconciliation is not possible from this record. The $480 million Bitmain figure is capital expenditure, not revenue. Several entries are duplicates of the same disclosure (15512, 15522, 15545; 15547, 15514; 14957, 14975). The Coinsquare, Tess and Verady stakes are equity holdings, not commercial agreements, and the Tess stake was diluted from about 52% to 8.8% (15547, 14959).

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-09

Riot's record of named relationships is long, but very little of it describes signed customer revenue. Most entries are licenses, equity stakes, vendor contracts, or arrangements in which Riot itself was the buyer. The 2004 filings name three university licensors (claim 21095), and those are inbound licenses, not customers. The Merial distribution right for SurBred 15 was expressly contingent on the product being 'fully developed' (21094), which makes it closer to a framework than a revenue contract. The 30-plus products sold to diagnostic manufacturers came with no named buyers (21102). The 2012 exclusive animal-health license went to an unidentified 'animal health company' for milestones and royalties (21049), so the only monetization event of that era has no counterparty on record. After the 2018 pivot, the named parties are investees rather than customers: Coinsquare at 12.9%, later 11.7% (15522, 14975); Tess at 52%, later 8.8% (15547, 14977); and Verady at 3.2% (14976). Several claims repeat the same quotes (15514, 15524, 15545, 15512), which inflates the apparent count. The RiotX exchange agreements with Coinsquare, Synapse/Evolve and Shift (15417, 15376, 15346, 15347) were signed, but Riot was the licensee or services buyer, and Synapse was mutually terminated (15138). The Coinmint arrangement ran the same direction. Riot paid to host its miners (14938), the agreement moved to month-to-month (14253), and Riot then ended it (13864). Bitmain is a supplier, with $480 million in purchase orders (13261, 14725). ESS Metron is labeled a 'key strategic partner' (14160), but the disclosed role is component and engineering supply (14161). The Whinstone power agreement names no energy supplier (14254). The only named revenue customer in the record is Rhodium, identified as the largest hosting customer (13863). Counterparty concentration therefore moved from diffuse, unnamed product buyers to a hosting business whose one disclosed customer is also its largest. No contract term, megawatt allocation, or revenue share for Rhodium appears in these claims. The revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled from this record because no claim gives a revenue figure tied to a named deal. The $480 million Bitmain figure is a capital commitment, not revenue. The input also cuts off at claim 12380 (MicroBT), so later supply or customer disclosures were not reviewed. Any reconciliation would require segment revenue from the 10-K to be set against the Rhodium hosting terms.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-08

Riot's record contains very few true customer agreements. Most entries are vendor contracts, equity stakes, subsidiary formations or advisory engagements, and several are repeated across filings. The Coinsquare stake alone appears in claims 15522, 15545, 15512, 15473, 15295, 14975 and 14957, and Tess and Digital Green recur the same way. That repetition makes the list look denser than the commercial substance behind it. The 2004-era biotech claims show the contingent language most clearly. Merial's worldwide distribution right for SurBred 15 applies only 'once the product is fully developed' (21094), so it is a framework right, not a revenue contract. The '30 products' sold to diagnostic manufacturers (21102) names no buyer. The 2012 exclusive IP license went to an unidentified 'animal health company' for milestones and royalties (21049), which is the clearest case of an unnamed counterparty. The 2018 pivot produced signed, named agreements, but with suppliers rather than customers. Coinsquare's software license (15417), Shift Markets' exchange platform (15367, 15347) and Synapse/Evolve banking services (15376, 15346) all supported a planned RiotX exchange. Synapse was mutually terminated within a year (15138). Bitmain (14725, 13261) and ESS Metron, which is called a 'key strategic partner' (14160, 14161), are also suppliers. The power purchase agreement at Whinstone omits the energy supplier's name (14254). Coinmint was a named, signed co-location contract (14938, 14822, 14748). It had degraded to month-to-month by 2022 (14275, 14253) and was then exited (13864). Riot was the paying party there, not the customer. The only named revenue-side customer in the record is Rhodium, identified as Riot's 'largest hosting customer' (13863). That signals meaningful hosting concentration in a single counterparty, but the record gives no share of revenue, contract term or pricing. Over time, concentration has moved from contingent licensees (2004–2012), to zero external customers during the exchange build-out (2018–2019), to self-mining plus one dominant named hosting client (2022). The revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled from this record. None of these claims discloses dollar revenue tied to any counterparty, Rhodium included. The $480 million Bitmain commitment (13261) is a capital outlay, not income. The input is also cut off at claim 12380 (a MicroBT agreement), so later disclosures could not be assessed. Readers should get Rhodium's revenue share and contract terms from the segment notes before treating hosting as diversified.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-08

Riot's record contains almost no signed agreements in which Riot is the seller, so its partnership history should not be read as a customer list. Most named counterparties appear in one of three roles. Some are investees: Coinsquare at 12.9% falling to 11.7% (15545, 14957), Tess at 52% diluted to 8.8% (15547, 14959), and Verady at 3.2% (14958). Others are vendors to Riot: Coinsquare's software license (15417), Shift Markets (15367, 15347), Synapse and Evolve Bank (15376, 15346), Bitmain's $480 million in miner purchase orders (14725, 13261), and ESS Metron (14160, 14161). The rest are advisers, namely XMS Capital (14997) and Marcum (13887). These deals are mostly definitive, executed contracts rather than MOU or LOI language. Even so, at least one did not last: Synapse was terminated within a year (15138), and the RiotX exchange it supported does not reappear in the record. The Coinmint co-location arrangement (14938, 14748) also casts Riot as the customer. It became month-to-month (14253) and was then wound down (13864).

The record does contain identification gaps. ESS Metron is labelled a key strategic partner (14160) without disclosed economics. The Whinstone power purchase agreement (14254) names no supplier. The 2012 exclusive license (21049) went to an unnamed animal health company, with consideration limited to contingent milestones and royalties. The 2004 Merial arrangement (21094) was itself conditional, since distribution rights applied only once SurBred 15 was fully developed. The university licenses (21095) were inbound rights rather than sales.

Counterparty concentration has moved from diffuse to singular. In 2004 the company described more than 30 products sold to unnamed diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities (21102). By 2022 the only named revenue customer on record is Rhodium, disclosed as the largest hosting customer (13863). That is a meaningful concentration flag, because no share of hosting revenue or contract term is given.

The revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled from this record. None of the cited claims discloses a revenue figure, a contract value on the sell side, or a customer revenue percentage. The only dollar amount, the $480 million Bitmain commitment (13261), is capital expenditure rather than revenue. The claim list also breaks off at 12380, an apparent MicroBT agreement from June 2023. Later customer or hosting disclosures, including whether Rhodium remained a customer, are therefore outside this read and should be checked before any conclusion about current concentration.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-07

Riot's customer and partnership record shows little signed revenue-generating customer business, and the counterparties it names are mostly suppliers, vendors, investees or hosts rather than buyers. The 2004 biotech-era disclosures name Merial, but those rights take effect only "once the product is fully developed" (21094), so they are a contingent distribution commitment rather than a revenue contract. The claim of "more than 30 products" sold to diagnostic manufacturers names no buyer (21102). The 2012 exclusive license of all animal-health IP went to an unnamed "animal health company" in exchange for milestones and royalties (21049), and no counterparty is ever identified on the record.

The 2018 to 2020 pivot is mostly equity stakes rather than customer relationships: Tess at 52%, later 8.8%, Coinsquare at 12.9%, later 11.7%, and Verady at 3.2% (15524, 15522, 14957, 14958, 14959). These recur across many near-duplicate claim ids, which inflates the apparent density of relationships. The agreements that were actually signed are named, but they are inbound vendor arrangements: the Coinsquare software license (15417), Synapse (15376, 15346) and Shift Markets (15367, 15347). The Synapse master services agreement was mutually terminated within a year (15138).

In the mining era, Riot was itself the customer. Coinmint hosted Riot's miners under a co-location agreement (14938) that became month-to-month (14253) and was then being ended (13864). Bitmain is a named supplier under purchase orders totaling $480 million (14725, 13261). ESS Metron is labeled a "key strategic partner" (14160) without contract economics, and the long-term power purchase agreement's "energy supplier" is not named (14254).

The only named revenue customer on the record is Rhodium, described as the "largest hosting customer" (13863). Concentration has therefore moved from zero identified buyers to a single disclosed hosting client, and the record gives no share of revenue or contract term for Rhodium.

The revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled from this record because no revenue, backlog or customer-percentage figures are disclosed alongside any of the deals. The record supplied also breaks off mid-entry at claim 12380 (a MicroBT agreement), so later disclosures are not assessed here.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-07

Riot's record is better read as a sequence of reinventions than a customer book, and most entries are not customer agreements at all. The biotech era (as AspenBio/Venaxis) offers one named commercial counterparty, Merial, whose exclusive worldwide distribution right for SurBred 15 applied only "once the product is fully developed" (claim 21094). That is a contingent marketing arrangement, not signed revenue. The 2012 exclusive animal-health license went to an unnamed "animal health company" for milestones and royalties (claim 21049), and the claim of 30-plus products sold to diagnostic manufacturers names no buyers (claim 21102). The university arrangements (claim 21095) are inbound licenses, not customers.

The 2018 pivot produced mostly equity positions and subsidiary formations rather than commercial contracts. The Coinsquare stake, 12.9% falling to 11.7% (claims 15522, 14957), the Tess/TessPay holding diluted from 52% to 8.8% (claims 15547, 14959), Verady at 3.2% (claim 14958), and Digital Green Energy Corp (claims 15515, 15455) generate no customer revenue. The definitive agreements of that period, with Coinsquare (claim 15417), Synapse/Evolve (claims 15376, 15346), and Shift Markets (claim 15347), were vendor and infrastructure contracts for a planned exchange. The Synapse agreement was mutually terminated within a year (claim 15138). XMS Capital (claim 14997) and Marcum (claim 13887) are advisers and auditors.

In the mining era Riot is again chiefly the buyer. The Coinmint co-location agreement (claims 14938, 14748) became month-to-month (claim 14253) and was then ended (claim 13864). The $480 million Bitmain purchase orders for 82,500 miners (claims 14725, 13261) are capital commitments, not sales. ESS Metron is labeled a "key strategic partner" (claims 14160, 14161) without disclosed contract terms, and the Whinstone power purchase agreement identifies its counterparty only as "our energy supplier" (claim 14254). The only identified revenue-side counterparty in the mining record is Rhodium, named as the largest hosting customer (claim 13863). That implies hosting concentration in a single named miner, but its revenue share is not quantified here.

No revenue figures appear in the claims provided, so the announced deals cannot be reconciled against reported revenue. The supplied record also truncates at claim 12380, a 2023 MicroBT item, so later customer and contract developments are not assessed.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-06

Riot's record contains very few true customer agreements. Most named counterparties are vendors, service providers, or equity investees, not buyers of Riot's output. The pre-blockchain era shows real but limited naming. License arrangements with three identified universities (claim 21095) and Merial's exclusive SurBred 15 distribution right (21094) are named. The Merial right, however, was contingent on the product being 'fully developed,' which is closer to a forward commitment than a revenue-bearing contract. The 2012 exclusive animal-health license (21049) went to an unidentified 'animal health company,' and the 30-plus products marketed to diagnostic manufacturers (21102) name no buyers. The 2018 pivot produced several signed, named agreements, but all of them ran from Riot outward as purchaser or licensee: the Coinsquare software licensing agreement (15417), the Synapse/Evolve banking agreement (15376, 15346), and the Shift Markets master services agreement (15367, 15347). The Synapse agreement was terminated by mutual consent within a year (15138). The repeated Coinsquare, Tess, Verady and Digital Green entries (15522, 15512, 15545, 14957, 14958, 14959, 15515) are ownership disclosures, not commercial relationships. Tess also shrank from roughly 52% (15547) to 8.8% (14977). XMS (14997) and Marcum (13887) are advisers. In the mining era, the Coinmint co-location agreement (14938, 14822, 14748) and the Bitmain purchase commitments (14725, 13261) are signed and named. Both are again supply-side. Coinmint degraded to month-to-month (14275, 14253) before Riot ended it (13864). ESS Metron is labelled a 'key strategic partner' (14160, 14161) without disclosed contract terms. The Whinstone power purchase agreement names no supplier (14254). The only named revenue customer anywhere in the record is Rhodium, described as the largest hosting customer (13863). That points to material, though unquantified, hosting concentration in a single counterparty. Revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled from this record. No revenue, backlog, or customer-share figures are disclosed alongside any claim. The one large dollar figure, $480 million for 82,500 Bitmain miners (13261), is capital expenditure rather than revenue. The record also cuts off mid-entry at claim 12380 (MicroBT), so later supply or hosting agreements could not be assessed. Readers should treat Riot's partnership history as a vendor and investment ledger, with one named hosting customer, rather than evidence of a diversified contracted customer base.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-06

Riot's record contains very few signed agreements under which a named counterparty pays the company. Most entries are equity stakes, vendor contracts or advisory engagements, and the clearest customer disclosure, Rhodium as the largest hosting customer, comes with no revenue figure attached (13863). The ledger runs through two unrelated businesses. The 2004 animal-health disclosures name counterparties precisely: license arrangements with the University of Idaho, the University of Wyoming and Washington University (21095), and Merial's exclusive worldwide distribution right for SurBred 15. That right applied only once the product was fully developed, so it was contingent rather than revenue-bearing (21094). By 2012 the exit license went to an unidentified "animal health company" for milestones and royalties (21049), and the claim of more than 30 products sold to diagnostic makers names no buyer (21102).

The 2018 pivot is mostly ownership, not commerce. The roughly 52% Tess stake and the 12.9% Coinsquare stake are restated across at least seven claims (15514, 15522, 15524, 15545 and others). Those stakes later diluted to 8.8% and 11.7% (14959, 14957), and Verady appears at 3.2% (14958). None of this is customer revenue. The definitive agreements of that period were real but short-lived or inbound. The Coinsquare software license (15417) and the Shift Markets master services agreement (15347) supplied platforms to Riot. The Synapse/Evolve banking agreement (15346) was mutually terminated within a year (15138).

In the mining era Riot is usually the buyer. Coinmint hosted Riot's machines (14938), slid to month-to-month terms (14275) and was then ended (13864). Bitmain is a supplier, with $480 million of purchase orders for 82,500 miners (14725, 13261). ESS Metron is labelled a "key strategic partner" (14160) but is described as a source of components and engineering (14161). The Whinstone power purchase agreement leaves the energy supplier unnamed (14254). XMS (14997) and Marcum (13887) are advisers and auditors.

Counterparty concentration has therefore moved from named licensors and a contingent distributor, through equity holdings, to a single named hosting customer. Rhodium is the only identified revenue counterparty in the crypto era, and its share of hosting or total revenue is not on record. The supplied claims contain no revenue figures, so the deal list cannot be reconciled against reported revenue. A diligence reader should get Rhodium's contract terms and revenue concentration from the filings directly. The record provided ends mid-entry at claim 12380 (MicroBT), so later supplier or customer disclosures are not assessed here.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-05

Riot's record contains few signed customer agreements in the strict sense. Most named counterparties are suppliers, service vendors, advisers or equity investees, and one ambiguous pre-pivot license names no customer at all. In the biotech era, Merial's worldwide rights to SurBred 15 (21094) were contractual but applied only once the product was 'fully developed', so they were contingent rather than revenue-bearing. The three university licenses (21095) were inbound IP arrangements. The 2012 exclusive animal-health license (21049) was signed but described only as 'an animal health company', with milestones and royalties left unquantified. The '30 products' sold to diagnostic manufacturers (21102) names no buyer.

The 2018 crypto pivot produced a cluster of named, executed documents, but almost none put Riot in the seller's seat. Coinsquare appears repeatedly as an equity holding (15545, 15522, 15512, 14957). The Software Licensing and Services Agreement (15417) has Riot licensing technology in, not out. The same applies to Shift Markets (15367, 15347) and Synapse/Evolve (15376, 15346), and the Synapse MSA was mutually terminated within a year (15138). Tess and Verady are minority or majority investments (15547, 14959, 14976), and XMS (14997) is an advisory engagement. Duplicate claim entries inflate the apparent volume of activity.

In the mining phase, the pattern is the same. Coinmint was a co-location vendor (14938). It degraded to month-to-month by 2022 (14253) and was then exited (13864). Bitmain is a supplier, with $480 million of purchase orders for 82,500 miners (13261, 14725). The Whinstone power purchase agreement (14254) leaves the energy supplier unnamed. ESS Metron carries the 'key strategic partner' label (14160) with no disclosed contract terms.

The only identified revenue counterparty on record is Rhodium, described as the largest hosting customer (13863). Customer-side concentration has therefore moved from diffuse, anonymous diagnostic buyers to apparent dependence on a single named hosting client. Its revenue share is not stated in these claims.

Revenue reconciliation cannot be performed from this record. No claim discloses revenue, contract value or Rhodium's contribution. The one large dollar figure (13261) is a capital outflow, not inbound revenue. The claim list is also truncated at 12380 (MicroBT, 2023-06-29), so later hosting or offtake disclosures are not assessed here.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-05

Riot's record contains very few customer contracts. Most of the named agreements are supplier, vendor, investment or advisory relationships, and only one counterparty is identified as a paying customer of Riot's core business. That is Rhodium, described in 2022 as the company's "largest hosting customer" (13863). No share of revenue, contract term or pricing is given. The biotech-era filings follow the same pattern. Merial held exclusive worldwide distribution rights to SurBred 15 "once the product is fully developed" (21094), which is a contingent right, not a revenue contract. The three university licenses (21095) are in-licenses. The 2012 exclusive license of animal-health IP went to an unnamed "animal health company" for milestones and royalties (21049). The more than 30 products sold to diagnostic manufacturers (21102) have no named buyer.

The 2018 pivot produced signed, named documents, but Riot was the buyer in each. Coinsquare licensed software to RiotX (15417). Synapse and Evolve Bank provided banking rails (15376, 15346), and that agreement was mutually terminated within a year (15138). Shift Markets supplied an exchange platform under a master services agreement (15347, 15367). The repeated Coinsquare, Tess and Verady entries (15545, 15522, 15512, 14957, 14958, 14959) are minority or majority equity stakes, not commercial counterparties. Digital Green Energy (15525, 15455) is a subsidiary. XMS Capital (14997) is an advisor and Marcum (13887) is the auditor.

In the mining era, Riot's counterparty concentration ran first toward Coinmint, the host for all of Riot's miners (14938, 14822, 14748). That agreement decayed to month-to-month (14253, 14275) and was then terminated as part of vertical integration (13864). Supply concentration sits with Bitmain: a long-term purchase agreement (14725) and $480 million of orders for 82,500 machines (13261). ESS Metron is named but labeled a "key strategic partner" (14160, 14161), which describes a component supplier rather than a customer. The Whinstone power purchase agreement (14254) leaves the energy supplier unidentified.

Revenue cannot be reconciled from this record. None of the claims discloses contract values, hosting revenue or the share attributable to Rhodium, so there is nothing to test against reported totals. The one hard dollar figure, Bitmain's $480 million, is a capital outflow. The claim list is also truncated at 12380, so any later agreements fall outside this read.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-03

Riot's record contains very few signed customer agreements. Most of the named relationships are vendor contracts, equity stakes, or licenses. The pre-2017 biotech period yields one conditional distribution right: Merial holds exclusive worldwide marketing rights to SurBred 15 only once the product is fully developed (claim 21094). It also yields university in-licenses (claim 21095) and a generic reference to more than 30 products sold to unnamed kit makers (claim 21102). The 2012 exclusive animal-health license is signed, but the licensee is described only as 'an animal health company,' with no milestone or royalty values given (claim 21049). The 2018 pivot introduced equity positions rather than customers. Riot held about 52% of Tess (claim 15524), later diluted to 8.8% (claim 14977). Its Coinsquare stake moved from 12.9% to 11.7% (claims 15512, 14957), and it held 3.2% of Verady (claim 14976). The RiotX exchange build rested on named, signed inbound service agreements with Coinsquare (claim 15417), Synapse (claims 15376, 15346) and Shift Markets (claims 15367, 15347). Riot was the buyer in all of these, and the Synapse contract was mutually terminated within a year (claim 15138). The mining era follows the same pattern. Coinmint began as a signed co-location agreement (claim 14938), slid to month-to-month (claim 14253) and was then exited (claim 13864). Bitmain is a $480 million purchase commitment for 82,500 miners (claims 14725, 13261), which is capital outlay, not revenue. ESS Metron is labelled a 'key strategic partner' but functions as a supplier (claims 14160, 14161). The long-term power purchase agreement is signed, but the counterparty is identified only as 'our energy supplier' (claim 14254). The only named revenue-side counterparty in the period is Rhodium, disclosed in mid-2022 as the largest hosting customer (claim 13863). That makes Rhodium the clearest concentration exposure, but no share of revenue, contract term or pricing accompanies the disclosure. As a result, no revenue arithmetic can be reconciled against the announced deals. The record offers headcounts of products and miners, ownership percentages and purchase obligations, but no hosting or licensing revenue figure tied to a named contract. The record as supplied breaks off mid-entry at claim 12380, a 2023 MicroBT item, so later customer disclosures are not assessed here.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-10-03

Riot's record of named relationships is long, but very few of the entries describe a customer paying Riot for a product or service. Most are equity stakes, in-licenses, vendor contracts or advisory engagements. Only one revenue counterparty is clearly identified: Rhodium, described in 2022 as "our largest hosting customer" (claim 13863). The biotech-era entries mix the conditional with the anonymous. Merial's worldwide distribution right for SurBred 15 applies only "once the product is fully developed" (claim 21094), so it is a contingent arrangement, not a revenue contract. The company says it sold more than 30 products to diagnostic manufacturers, but none are named (claim 21102). The 2012 exclusive license of animal-health IP went to an unidentified "animal health company" for milestones and royalties (claim 21049). The three university licenses are named (claim 21095), but they run inbound to Riot. The 2018 blockchain pivot produced named, signed agreements: a Coinsquare software license (claim 15417), Synapse/Evolve banking services (claims 15376, 15346) and a Shift Markets master services agreement (claims 15367, 15347). In all of these Riot was the buyer or licensee, and the Synapse agreement was terminated by mutual consent within a year (claim 15138). Digital Green Energy names no counterparty at all (claims 15525, 15455). The ownership disclosures, repeated across several filings, show positions shrinking. Tess fell from about 52% (claim 15524) to 8.8% (claim 14977), and Coinsquare edged down from 12.9% (claim 15512) to 11.7% (claim 14957). These stakes are not commercial relationships. In the mining era the named counterparties are again suppliers. The Coinmint hosting agreement (claim 14938) became month-to-month (claim 14253) and was then ended (claim 13864). Bitmain's purchase orders total $480 million for 82,500 miners, roughly $5,800 per unit (claim 13261). The Whinstone power supplier is unnamed (claim 14254), and ESS Metron is labelled a "key strategic partner" with no disclosed contract terms (claim 14160). Concentration has therefore moved from many small, unnamed diagnostics buyers to a hosting business anchored by a single named customer whose revenue share is not disclosed. The revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled from this record. No claim ties a dollar figure to any customer contract, and the only quantified deal, Bitmain, is capital spending. The record provided is also cut off at claim 12380 (MicroBT, 2023-06-29), so later agreements were not assessed.

In mining, Coinmint was Riot's host, not its customer. That signed agreement moved to month-to-month terms (14253) and was then wound down under vertical integration (13864). Bitmain is a supplier: $480 million of purchase orders for 82,500 miners implies roughly $5,800 per unit of capex (13261, 14725). The power purchase agreement names no energy supplier (14254). ESS Metron is labeled a "key strategic partner" but functions as an equipment and engineering vendor (14160, 14161).

The only named revenue counterparty in the record is Rhodium, described as the "largest hosting customer" (13863). Hosting revenue is therefore concentrated in a single named party, and no other hosting customer is identified.

Notably, the record contains no MOU, LOI or "discussions" language. The risk is not soft deal framing but misclassification: supplier, licensor and equity relationships sit alongside customer claims under the same heading. None of the claims disclose revenue figures, so the announced deals cannot be reconciled against reported revenue from this record. The claim list is truncated after 12380 (MicroBT), so later relationships are not assessed here.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-29

Riot's claim record contains almost no MOU, LOI or 'discussions' language, but most of its signed agreements are not customer agreements. The early biotech-era record names real counterparties: Merial holds exclusive worldwide rights to SurBred 15 (21094), but only 'once the product is fully developed', which makes it a contingent distribution right rather than revenue. The university licenses (21095) are in-licenses. The 2012 exclusive out-license of animal-health IP went to an unnamed 'animal health company' for milestones and royalties (21049), and the 'more than 30 products' sold to diagnostic manufacturers (21102) come with no customer identified.

The 2018-2019 crypto pivot is mostly equity stakes and vendor contracts. Coinsquare (15512, 14975), Tess/TessPay (15514, 14977) and Verady (14976) are minority or majority holdings, and Tess falls from roughly 52% to 8.8% between filings. The Coinsquare software license (15417), the Shift Markets master services agreement (15367, 15347) and the Synapse/Evolve banking agreement (15376, 15346) are signed and named, but Riot is the buyer in each. The Synapse agreement was mutually terminated within a year (15138). XMS Capital (14997) is an advisor, Marcum (13887) is the auditor, and Digital Green (15525) is a subsidiary. None of these is a customer.

In the mining era the counterparties are again mostly suppliers. Coinmint hosted Riot's miners (14938, 14748), was later described as month-to-month (14253), and the relationship was then ended (13864). Bitmain supplied $480 million of purchase orders covering 82,500 ASICs (14725, 13261), which is capital spending, not revenue. ESS Metron is called a 'key strategic partner' (14160, 14161) without disclosed contract terms, and the long-term power purchase agreement is with an unnamed 'energy supplier' (14254). The only downstream customer the record names is Rhodium, described as the 'largest hosting customer' (13863), with no share of revenue, contract term or pricing given. On the customer side, concentration has moved from a single contingent distributor, Merial, to a single named hosting client, Rhodium, whose weight cannot be measured from the record.

The revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled because the claims disclose no revenue figures, customer percentages or contract values on the sell side. The only large dollar figure, Bitmain's (13261), is a cost. Readers should also note that the record supplied here is cut off partway through claim 12380, which concerns MicroBT. Any later hosting contracts, power-credit arrangements or customer disclosures are therefore not assessed in this read.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-29

Riot's record of counterparty claims is less a customer history than a list of vendors, investees and service providers, and very few of them are revenue-generating customers. The only named buyer of Riot's output in the mining era is Rhodium, described as the largest hosting customer (13863). No contract value, term or share of revenue is attached to that disclosure. The legacy biotech period has a similar gap. Merial held exclusive distribution rights for a product that was not yet fully developed (21094). The 2012 exclusive license went to an unidentified 'animal health company' for milestones and royalties (21049), and the counterparty was never named in the record.

Most signed agreements run the other way, with Riot as the buyer. These include the Coinsquare software license (15417), the Shift Markets master services agreement (15367, 15347), the Synapse banking agreement (15376, 15346), the Coinmint co-location agreement (14938, 14822), and the Bitmain long-term purchase agreement (14725, 13261). The Synapse agreement was mutually terminated within a year (15138), and the exchange it served was only ever described as 'planned' (15347). Coinmint started as a fixed agreement, became month-to-month (14253), and was then being wound down (13864). ESS Metron is named but framed as a 'key strategic partner' (14160, 14161), which is characterization language, not a customer tie. The Whinstone power purchase agreement names no energy supplier (14254). The Coinsquare, Tess and Verady equity stakes (15512, 15514, 14975, 14976) are investments, not customers. The Tess stake fell from 52% to 8.8% (15524, 14977). Several claims appear more than once, and the advisory and audit engagements (14997, 13887) should not be read as commercial traction. The record contains no MOU or LOI language as such; the softer wording shows up as 'seeking to identify' (15525) and 'planned'.

On concentration, the pattern has moved from more than 30 unnamed diagnostic buyers (21102) to a single named hosting customer (13863). That points to rising dependence on one customer, although no quantification is given.

The revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled from this record because no revenue figures are disclosed against any named deal. The only dollar figure is $480 million for 82,500 Bitmain miners (13261), which works out to about $5,800 per unit. That is capital spending on the supply side and says nothing about customer revenue. The claim list is also cut off at 12380 (MicroBT, June 2023), so any later disclosures on concentration or revenue fall outside this read.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-28

Riot's record is long but thin on signed customer agreements. Most of the named relationships are supply contracts, vendor arrangements, or equity stakes, not revenue-bearing customer contracts. In the pre-crypto era the firmest customer-side item is Merial's exclusive worldwide marketing and distribution right to SurBred 15 (claim 21094). That right was expressly conditioned on the product being 'fully developed', which makes it contingent rather than a revenue commitment. The university license arrangements (claim 21095) are in-licenses of technology. The 2012 exclusive out-license for milestones and royalties (claim 21049) never names the 'animal health company' counterparty. The 'more than 30 products' sold to diagnostic manufacturers (claim 21102) comes with no named buyers.

The 2018 pivot adds many names that are not customers. Coinsquare, Tess/TessPay and Verady are minority or majority equity holdings (claims 15512, 15524, 14957, 14958, 14959). The Coinsquare software license (claim 15417), the Synapse/Evolve banking agreement (claims 15376, 15346) and the Shift Markets master services agreement (claim 15347) all put Riot in the buyer's seat for a planned exchange. The Synapse agreement was mutually terminated within a year (claim 15138).

The same inversion holds in the mining era. Coinmint was Riot's hosting provider, not its customer (claim 14938). That arrangement fell to month-to-month terms (claim 14275) and was then wound down (claim 13864). Bitmain is a supplier, through a long-term purchase agreement and $480 million in orders for 82,500 miners (claims 14725, 13261). ESS Metron is labeled a 'key strategic partner' (claim 14160) but functions as a component and engineering vendor (claim 14161). The power purchase agreement names only 'our energy supplier' (claim 14254). The Marcum and XMS engagements (claims 13887, 14997) are professional-services retentions.

On concentration, the record names exactly one third-party revenue counterparty in the modern business: Rhodium, described as the largest hosting customer (claim 13863). No share of revenue, contract term or pricing is attached to that statement. Counterparty exposure has therefore shifted over time. It began as a single contingent distributor, moved through a cluster of short-lived fintech vendors, and now rests on one named hosting client alongside heavy supplier dependence on Bitmain.

On revenue arithmetic, no revenue, hosting-fee or royalty figures appear in these claims, so the disclosed deals cannot be reconciled to reported results from this record alone. The only dollar figure present, the Bitmain orders, is capital expenditure. The claim list is also truncated at claim 12380, a MicroBT agreement, so any later customer disclosures are not reflected here.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-28

Riot's record contains very few signed customer agreements in the conventional sense. Most of what reads as partnership activity is equity stakes, vendor contracts, or supply arrangements in which Riot is the buyer. The pre-2018 biotech era offers the clearest examples of named counterparties: license arrangements with three identified universities (claim 21095) and Merial's exclusive worldwide distribution right for SurBred 15 (claim 21094). Even the Merial right was contingent on the product being 'fully developed', so it was conditional rather than revenue-bearing. By 2012 the one material commercial deal, an exclusive license of all animal-health IP for milestones and royalties, went to an unnamed 'animal health company' (claim 21049). The claim of more than 30 products sold to diagnostic makers (claim 21102) names no buyers at all. After the crypto pivot, the named relationships with Coinsquare, Tess and Verady are minority or majority equity positions, not customers (claims 15545, 15547, 14957, 14958, 14959). Those positions were diluted over time: Tess fell from roughly 52% to 8.8% and Coinsquare from 12.9% to 11.7%. The RiotX build-out produced signed but inbound service agreements with Coinsquare, Synapse and Shift (claims 15417, 15346, 15347). The Synapse agreement was mutually terminated within about a year (claim 15138), and the record shows no exchange revenue following from any of them. Coinmint was a co-location vendor to Riot (claim 14938) that degraded to a month-to-month arrangement (claim 14253) before being ended (claim 13864). Bitmain is a $480 million miner supplier (claims 14725, 13261). ESS Metron is labelled a 'key strategic partner' (claim 14160), but the described role is component and engineering supply (claim 14161). The Whinstone power agreement's counterparty is described only as 'our energy supplier' (claim 14254). The only named revenue customer in the entire record is Rhodium, identified as the largest hosting customer (claim 13863). That makes counterparty concentration on the revenue side a single disclosed name. Supplier concentration, by contrast, is heavy in Bitmain and, per a truncated entry, possibly MicroBT (claim 12380). The revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled from this record. No claim ties revenue or hosting-segment dollars to Rhodium or any other buyer, and no RiotX or licensing revenue is disclosed against the signed exchange agreements. Several claims are also duplicates of the same filing sentence. Diligence should obtain the Rhodium hosting contract terms, hosting revenue by customer, and the full text of claim 12380 and subsequent entries before any concentration conclusion is drawn.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-27

Riot's record contains almost no signed revenue-customer agreements. Most entries describe suppliers, equity stakes, advisors or subsidiaries. The only named party that pays Riot for a service is Rhodium, disclosed in July 2022 as the company's "largest hosting customer" (claim 13863). That filing gives no contract terms, duration or revenue share. The AspenBio-era record has the same gap. It cites "more than 30 products" sold to diagnostic manufacturers without naming a buyer (claim 21102). Merial held forward-looking distribution rights for a product not yet "fully developed" (claim 21094). The 2012 exclusive animal-health license went to a counterparty described only as "an animal health company" and paid in milestones and royalties (claim 21049). That is the clearest instance of an unidentified partner in the file.

The 2018 crypto pivot added volume but not customers. Coinsquare, Tess and Verady are equity holdings (claims 15522, 15524, 14958). Several are repeated across claim ids (15512, 15545, 15547), which inflates the apparent partnership count. The stakes shrank over time: Tess fell from about 52% to 8.8% (claims 15524, 14977), and Coinsquare from 12.9% to 11.7% (claims 15522, 14957). The RiotX agreements with Coinsquare, Synapse and Shift Markets put Riot in the role of licensee or buyer of services for a planned exchange (claims 15417, 15376, 15347). The Synapse master services agreement was terminated by mutual consent in 2019 (claim 15138). Digital Green was a subsidiary still "seeking to identify" projects (claim 15455).

In the mining era, concentration shifted from Riot's revenue side to its supply side. Coinmint hosted Riot's machines (claim 14938). That arrangement had become month-to-month by 2022 (claim 14275) and was then ended (claim 13864). Bitmain is a vendor: $480 million in purchase orders for 82,500 miners, about $5,800 per unit (claim 13261). The power purchase agreement names no energy supplier (claim 14254). ESS Metron is labeled a "key strategic partner," but the text describes a component and engineering supplier (claims 14160, 14161). XMS Capital and Marcum are advisors, not partners (claims 14997, 13887).

Revenue cannot be reconciled with the announced deals from this record. No claim gives contract value, hosting revenue or a customer's share of sales. Rhodium's weight in hosting revenue is therefore asserted but not quantified. The input is truncated at claim 12380, a 2023 MicroBT entry, so later supply and customer disclosures are not assessed here.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-27

Riot's disclosure record contains almost no signed customer agreements. Most of the dated claims are equity holdings, vendor contracts, or supply arrangements in which Riot is the buyer, and they should not be read as demand-side traction. The 2018 filings repeat the same three facts several times each: a 52% stake in Tess (claims 15547, 15524, 15514), a 12.9% stake in Coinsquare (15512, 15522, 15545), and the formation of Digital Green Energy (15515, 15525, 15455). Those duplicates inflate the apparent count of relationships without adding a single revenue counterparty. The RiotX-era contracts with Coinsquare (15417), Synapse and Evolve Bank (15376, 15346), and Shift Markets (15367, 15347) were definitive agreements, but they were inbound licensing and services arrangements for an exchange that was never shown to launch. Synapse was terminated by mutual agreement in 2019 (15138). By 2020 the Tess stake had diluted to 8.8% (14959, 14977) and Coinsquare to 11.7% (14975).

The mining phase follows the same pattern. Riot was the customer under Coinmint's co-location agreement (14938, 14822, 14748). That agreement had moved to month-to-month terms by 2022 (14253, 14275) and was then exited (13864). Bitmain (14725, 13261) and MicroBT (12380) are suppliers. The MicroBT figure of 265,000 additional miners (11999, 11985, 11974) consists of purchase options, not firm commitments, and should not be treated as contracted volume.

On naming, the only identified revenue customer on record is Rhodium, described in 2022 as the largest hosting customer (13863). ESS Metron is called a "key strategic partner" (14160, 14161), but the claims describe it as a component and engineering supplier, not a buyer. The Whinstone power purchase agreement (14254) does not name the energy supplier.

Counterparty concentration has therefore moved from a portfolio of minority equity stakes, to a failed exchange vendor stack, to a mining model that relies heavily on one hardware supplier (MicroBT) and, on the hosting side, on a single named customer. The record gives no indication of how many other hosting customers exist.

Revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled from this record. None of the claims discloses a contract value, hosting rate, or revenue share tied to Rhodium or any other customer, and the $480 million Bitmain figure (13261) is capital expenditure, not revenue. The claim list also ends mid-quote at 11974, so any later announcements are outside the scope of this read.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-27

Riot's record of counterparty disclosures contains almost no customer agreements in the conventional sense. Most items are equity stakes, vendor contracts, or procurement arrangements. The early filings describe minority and majority holdings rather than commercial relationships: roughly 12.9% of Coinsquare and 52% of Tess (claims 15512, 15522, 15524, 15547), later diluted to 11.7% and 8.8%, plus a 3.2% Verady position (claims 14957, 14959, 14958). The RiotX exchange push produced signed, named agreements with Coinsquare, Synapse and Shift Markets (claims 15417, 15376, 15367, 15347, 15346). In each of these Riot was the licensee or buyer of services, not the seller. The Synapse master services agreement was mutually terminated within a year (claim 15138), and nothing on record shows the exchange generating customer revenue.

The pivot to mining moved the named counterparties to the supply and hosting side. Riot relied on Coinmint for co-location, first under a signed agreement (claims 14938, 14822, 14748), then on a month-to-month basis (claims 14253, 14275), and finally ended the relationship (claim 13864). Hardware came from Bitmain through signed purchase orders totaling $480 million for 82,500 miners (claims 14725, 13261). MicroBT followed under a master agreement with annual purchase options of up to 66,560 units (claims 12380, 11999, 11990, 11971). The options are not firm commitments, and the record should not treat them as such.

On naming, ESS Metron is identified as a "key strategic partner" (claims 14160, 14161). The Whinstone power purchase agreement names only "our energy supplier" (claim 14254), and that is the one material unidentified counterparty in the set. The only disclosed revenue-side customer is Rhodium, described as the "largest hosting customer" (claim 13863). That wording confirms concentration but does not state the size of the hosting book or name any other hosting clients.

2026-09-24

Riot's record on this ledger contains almost no signed customer agreements, so the task is less about separating signed deals from soft language and more about recognising that most entries describe the other side of the ledger. The 2018 filings are equity stakes and subsidiary formations. These include roughly 52% of Tess (claims 15547, 15524, 15514), 12.9% of Coinsquare (15522, 15512, 15545) and the wholly owned Digital Green Energy Corp. (15515, 15525, 15455). By 2020, disclosure shows those positions diluted to 8.8% of TessPay, 11.7% of Coinsquare and 3.2% of Verady (14959, 14957, 14958). None of these are customers. The RiotX-era contracts are real, named, definitive agreements but are vendor relationships in which Riot is the buyer. They include the Coinsquare software licence (15417), the Shift Markets master services agreement (15367, 15347) and the Synapse/Evolve banking agreement (15376, 15346), which was mutually terminated in 2019 (15138). The same holds for the Coinmint co-location agreement (14938, 14822, 14748), which by 2022 was month-to-month (14253, 14275) and then ended (13864). It also holds for the supply-side contracts with Bitmain (14725, 13261) and MicroBT (12380). The MicroBT figures of 66,560 miners a year, or 265,000 in aggregate (11999, 11994, 11985), are unexercised purchase options, not commitments, and should not be read as contracted volume. The XMS Capital engagement (14997) is an advisory mandate. The only named customer anywhere in the record is Rhodium, identified in 2022 as the largest hosting customer (13863). The ESS Metron entries (14160, 14161) use 'key strategic partner' language, but the counterparty is named and plainly a supplier. No unnamed 'anchor customer' framing appears, which is to Riot's credit. Customer concentration therefore went from nothing disclosed to a single named hosting client. The record gives no contract term, no revenue share and no other hosting customers, so the scale of that concentration cannot be measured. Revenue reconciliation is not possible from these claims. No revenue figures, backlog or contract values attributable to customers are disclosed. The only dollar figure is the $480 million Bitmain purchase (13261), which is capital expenditure. The claim list is also truncated after 11985, so later disclosures may change this picture.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-24

Riot's record contains almost no customer agreements in the ordinary sense. Most of the named counterparties are investees, vendors or service providers, and only one is identified as a revenue customer. The early filings describe equity positions rather than commercial contracts: roughly 12.9% of Coinsquare (15522, 15512, 15545), about 52% of Tess (15514, 15524, 15547), and the formation of the wholly owned Digital Green Energy subsidiary (15525, 15455). By early 2020 these positions had diluted to about 11.7% of Coinsquare, 8.8% of TessPay and 3.2% of Verady (14975, 14977, 14976).

The late-2018 exchange build-out did use definitive language. It included a Software Licensing and Services Agreement with Coinsquare (15417), a Synapse agreement described as material and definitive (15376, 15346), and a Shift Markets master services agreement (15367, 15347). These were inbound services Riot was buying, not customers paying Riot, and the Synapse contract was mutually terminated in 2019 (15138). The XMS Capital engagement (14997) and the Marcum ratification (13887) are advisory and audit mandates, not commercial deals.

The mining era follows the same pattern of named, signed supply relationships. These include the Coinmint co-location agreement (14938, 14822, 14748), which later became month-to-month (14275, 14253) and then ended (13864). They also include the Bitmain purchase agreements and $480 million in orders (14725, 13261) and the MicroBT master agreement (12380, 11971). The MicroBT options for up to 265,000 further miners (11999, 11985) are rights to buy, not commitments, and should not be read as contracted volume.

The partner language is uneven. ESS Metron is named, but it is called a 'key strategic partner' (14160, 14161) in what is in substance a supplier role. The energy supplier behind the Whinstone long-term power purchase agreement is never identified in the quoted text (14254).

On concentration, the only named customer is Rhodium, disclosed as the largest hosting customer (13863). The record gives no second hosting customer by name and does not quantify Rhodium's share. Concentration therefore cannot be measured from these claims, though a single disclosed name points to high reliance.

On revenue, none of the cited claims discloses revenue, hosting fees or per-customer contract value. The only dollar figure is the Bitmain order (13261), which is a capital outlay, not income. The announced relationships therefore cannot be reconciled against reported revenue from this record, and that reconciliation should be done against the financial statements before any customer-driven thesis is credited.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-23

Riot's record contains very few customer agreements. Most of the counterparty claims describe equity stakes, vendors, or service providers rather than parties paying Riot for its output. The 2018 filings list minority or majority holdings in Coinsquare at 12.9% and Tess at 52% (claims 15522, 15512, 15514, 15524), plus the formation of a wholly owned subsidiary, Digital Green Energy (15525, 15455). These are balance-sheet positions, not commercial contracts. The RiotX exchange effort that followed did produce signed, named agreements with Coinsquare (15417), Synapse and Evolve Bank and Trust (15376, 15346), and Shift Markets (15367, 15347). In each of those, Riot was the licensee or buyer, and the Synapse agreement was later terminated by mutual consent (15138). By 2020 the equity stakes had been diluted to 11.7% of Coinsquare, 8.8% of TessPay, and 3.2% of Verady (14975, 14977, 14976), and none of them shows up as a revenue relationship.

From 2020 onward, the named counterparties are mostly on the cost side of Riot's business. Coinmint was a signed co-location host (14938, 14822, 14748). That arrangement moved to month-to-month terms (14275) and was then exited (13864). Bitmain and MicroBT are hardware suppliers under executed purchase orders and master agreements (14725, 13261, 12380, 11971). The 265,000 additional MicroBT units (11999, 11985) are options Riot may exercise, not commitments. ESS Metron is described as a 'key strategic partner' (14160), but its described role is supplying components and engineering services (14161), which makes it a vendor. The long-term power purchase agreement at Whinstone (14254) does not name the energy supplier.

The only named customer anywhere in this record is Rhodium, which appears in a single 2022 statement calling it the largest hosting customer (13863). No contract terms, contract duration, or revenue share accompany that statement. On the evidence here, Riot's customer concentration went from nonexistent to concentrated in one named hosting client. Any other hosting customers are not identified.

The revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled from this record. None of the claims discloses hosting revenue, Rhodium's contribution, or pricing, so the announced relationships cannot be matched against reported figures. The record also breaks off partway through claim 11971. A reader should treat Rhodium as the sole verifiable customer. The rest of the named counterparty list shows how Riot supplies and funds its operations, not who pays it.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-21

The first thing this record shows is that most of Riot's early partnership disclosure is not customer disclosure at all. The 2018-2020 entries are minority equity stakes and internal formations: 12.9% of goNumerical/Coinsquare (15522, later 11.7% at 14975), 52% of Tess Inc. diluted to 8.8% of TessPay (15524, 14977), 3.2% of Verady (14976), and the wholly owned Digital Green Energy Corp (15515, 15455). None of these generate revenue for Riot; they are balance-sheet positions described in partnership grammar.

Where binding language does appear, Riot is almost always the buyer. The executed agreements on record — Coinsquare software licensing (15417), Synapse Financial Technologies alongside Evolve Bank and Trust (15376, 15346), Shift Markets (15367, 15347), the Coinmint co-location agreement (14938, 14748), Bitmain's Future Sales and Purchases Agreement (14725), and the MicroBT master purchase and sale agreement (12380, 11963) — are procurement or services Riot pays for. The counterparty is named and the contract is signed, but the cash flows outbound. The XMS Capital Partners engagement (14997) and the Marcum LLP ratification (13887) are advisory and audit retentions that belong in neither column.

Only one actual customer is ever named: Rhodium, identified as the largest hosting customer (13863). That identification arrives in narrative commentary rather than a contract filing; no term, no committed capacity, no contract value appears anywhere on this record. The unnamed cases cut the other way too. The long-term power purchase agreement (14254) identifies only 'our energy supplier at the Whinstone Facility,' and ESS Metron is elevated to 'key strategic partner' (14160) while the substance described is component supply and engineering services Riot procures (14161).

Concentration has moved from diffuse to acute in both directions. The 2018 portfolio of small stakes gave way, after the Synapse termination (15138) and the deliberate exit from Coinmint hosting (13864), to hardware concentration in MicroBT — options for 66,560 miners per year and 265,000-plus cumulative (11999, 11994) — and hosting revenue concentrated in a single named counterparty.

The arithmetic does not reconcile, because there is no revenue side to reconcile. The only figures disclosed are outbound: $480 million to Bitmain for 82,500 units (13261), roughly $5,800 per miner. Nothing announced ties to a stated hosting contract value.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-21

The defining feature of Riot's counterparty record is that almost none of it is customer-side. Between 2018 and 2024 the named counterparties fall into two buckets: equity stakes and suppliers. Coinsquare (15522, 15512, 14975), Tess/TessPay (15514, 14977) and Verady (14976) are minority investments, not commercial relationships, and disclosing them alongside partnership language flatters the apparent breadth of the network. The supply side is genuinely contracted and genuinely named — Coinmint under a co-location mining services agreement (14938, 14822, 14748), Bitmain under a Future Sales and Purchases Agreement and $480 million of purchase orders for 82,500 miners (14725, 13261), and MicroBT under a master purchase and sale agreement dated June 23, 2023 with annual options for up to 66,560 units (12380, 11999, 11990). These are all cash outflows. They tell you what Riot bought, not what anyone bought from Riot.

On identification, the record is unusually clean of MOU and LOI hedging; the softer construction is relational rather than conditional. ESS Metron is called a key strategic partner (14160) while the substance disclosed is that it supplies electrical components and engineering services (14161) — a vendor in partner clothing. The single named revenue-generating counterparty is Rhodium, described in July 2022 as the largest hosting customer (13863), and that identification arrives without contract term, capacity, pricing or duration. Riot named its largest customer and disclosed nothing about the economics of the relationship.

Concentration has not diluted so much as rotated. The 2018-2019 cluster was exchange buildout — Coinsquare's exclusive U.S. licensing agreement (15417), Synapse with Evolve Bank (15376, 15346), Shift Markets (15367, 15347) — and it collapsed, with Synapse terminated by mutual agreement in September 2019 (15138) and the RiotX exchange never launching. That is the relevant base rate: signed and definitive did not mean realized. The mining-era concentration then narrowed to Coinmint, which was deliberately exited for vertical integration (13864), and to a single hosting name.

No revenue arithmetic reconciles here because none is offered. The only dollar figures on record are procurement commitments, and the hosting revenue that Rhodium supposedly anchors is never sized against them.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-20

Riot's file is thinner as a customer ledger than its volume implies, because most entries record equity positions rather than commercial agreements. The 2018 and 2020 disclosures of Coinsquare (15545, 15512, 15522, 14975), TessPay (15547, 15514, 15524, 14977) and Verady (14976), plus the formation of Digital Green Energy Corp. (15515, 15525, 15455), are minority stakes and internal subsidiaries. They name counterparties precisely but generate no contracted revenue, and several are duplicate filings of identical verbatim text, which inflates the apparent count of distinct announcements.

Among the genuinely executed agreements, nearly every named counterparty is one Riot pays rather than one that pays Riot. The Coinsquare software license (15417), the Synapse and Evolve Bank arrangement (15376, 15346), the Shift Markets master services agreement (15367, 15347), the Coinmint co-location agreement (14938, 14822, 14748), the Bitmain purchase agreement (14725) and the MicroBT master agreement (12380, 11963) are all procurement. Two of these were later unwound on the record: Synapse was mutually terminated (15138) and the Coinmint hosting relationship was ended (13864). The MicroBT terms deserve particular care, since the 66,560-per-year, 265,000-total figures (11999, 11994) are described as options rather than commitments, and an option is a ceiling, not a backlog.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-15

Riot's record contains almost no signed customer agreements in the conventional sense. Most entries are equity stakes, subsidiary formations, vendor contracts, or advisory engagements, and several claim ids repeat the same sentence. The Coinsquare stake appears in claims 15512, 15522 and 15545, and the Tess stake in 15514, 15524 and 15547. These duplicates should not be read as separate relationships. The only counterparty the company names as a customer is Rhodium, described in July 2022 as 'our largest hosting customer' (13863). The record gives no contract term, pricing or revenue share for that relationship.

The definitive agreements on file generally run the other way, with Riot as the buyer or licensee. These include the Coinsquare software licence for RiotX (15417), the Synapse and Shift Markets exchange-infrastructure contracts (15376, 15346, 15367, 15347), the Coinmint co-location arrangement (14938, 14822, 14748), and hardware procurement from Bitmain (14725, 13261) and MicroBT (12380). The Synapse contract was mutually terminated within a year (15138). Coinmint went from a fixed agreement to month-to-month (14253, 14275) and then ended as Riot vertically integrated (13864). Softer language appears in three places. ESS Metron is labelled a 'key strategic partner' without any disclosed contract value (14160, 14161). The MicroBT capacity of up to 66,560 miners a year through 2027 is structured as options, not firm orders (11999, 11974). The Whinstone power purchase agreement does not identify the energy supplier (14254). Two further entries are routine service engagements, not commercial partnerships: XMS Capital (14997) and Marcum (13887).

Counterparty concentration has shifted from minority equity positions to supply-side dependence. Coinsquare fell from 12.9% to 11.7%, and Tess fell from 52% to 8.8% (14957, 14959). Mining hardware is now concentrated first in Bitmain and then in MicroBT. On the revenue side, disclosure is concentrated in a single named hosting customer.

The revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled from this record because no revenue, hosting income or customer-concentration percentages are disclosed. The only hard figure is capital spending: $480 million for 82,500 Bitmain miners (13261), which implies roughly $5,800 per unit. The MicroBT aggregate of about 265,000 optional units carries no committed dollar value in the quoted text. The record also cuts off mid-quote at claim 11981, so later disclosures may change this read.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-14

Riot's record is dominated by vendor, supplier and investment disclosures rather than signed customer agreements. Almost every named counterparty sells something to Riot or hosts Riot's machines; very few buy from it. The 2018 exchange-era filings describe executed contracts: a Coinsquare software licensing agreement (15417), a Synapse banking agreement (15376, 15346) and a Shift Markets master services agreement (15367, 15347). Each was a platform input for a RiotX exchange that never became a revenue line. Synapse was mutually terminated in 2019 (15138), and Coinsquare moved from licensor to an 11.7% equity stake (15295, 14957, 14975), alongside minority holdings in TessPay and Verady (14958, 14959, 14976, 14977). None of these is customer revenue, and several claims restate the same fact across filings.

The mining era follows the same pattern. Coinmint was a signed co-location agreement in which Riot was the customer (14938, 14822, 14748). By 2022 it had become month-to-month (14253, 14275), and management then said it was ending (13864). Bitmain moved from a framework Future Sales and Purchases Agreement (14725) to executed purchase orders of $480 million for 82,500 miners (13261). The MicroBT record is a signed master agreement with a first purchase order (12380, 11953). Its much-repeated 265,000-unit figure is an option to buy, not a commitment (11999, 11955, 11967, 11974, 11985, 11994), and the eight 2024 claims describe one contract.

On identification, ESS Metron is named yet labeled a 'key strategic partner' (14160, 14161) without disclosed economic terms. The long-term power purchase agreement names only 'our energy supplier' at Whinstone (14254). The only identified customer anywhere in the record is Rhodium, described as the largest hosting customer (13863). No other hosting clients are named, so the hosting book appears concentrated in one disclosed name plus an unidentified remainder.

Concentration has shifted from a cluster of exchange-infrastructure vendors in 2018, to a single co-location host in 2020 and 2021, to single-source miner supply from Bitmain and then MicroBT. On the customer side it rests on Rhodium. The record contains no revenue, hosting-fee or contract-value figures for Rhodium or any other buyer. The disclosed revenue arithmetic therefore cannot be reconciled with the announced deals. The only hard dollar figure, the $480 million Bitmain commitment (13261), is an outflow rather than contracted revenue.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-14

Riot's record contains few true customer agreements. Most of the entries are supplier, governance, or service-provider disclosures, and they should not be counted as demand. The signed customer contracts that name a counterparty are Rhodium, which the company identified in 2022 as its largest hosting customer (claim 13863), and Advanced Micro Devices. AMD signed a 10-year lease for 25 MW of critical IT load at Rockdale (claims 3902, 3621, 3608). Claim 3615 is truncated in the record and adds nothing verifiable. The Coinmint relationship appears only as a termination (claim 13864). No unnamed 'anchor customer' language appears, which is to Riot's credit. The one 'key strategic partner' label goes to ESS Metron (claim 14160), and that is a named supplier of electrical components and immersion-cooling engineering (claim 14161), not a buyer.

The largest cluster of claims covers MicroBT, and it needs careful separation. The signed portion is the June 23, 2023 Master Agreement plus executed purchase orders totaling 49.2 EH/s for about $779.5 million (claims 3945, 3600). The widely repeated 265,000-miner figure is optional, not committed (claims 11994, 11985, 11967, 11974, 11955, 11947, 3946). It represents annual purchase options of up to 66,560 miners through 2027. Four years at that rate gives roughly 266,000, so the aggregate is internally consistent. At least ten near-duplicate claims restate the same 2024 filing language, which overstates how much news there actually was. The executed-order total is unchanged between September 30 and December 31, 2025, which implies no new orders in the fourth quarter. The Bitmain orders of $480 million for 82,500 units (claim 13261) are likewise procurement. The Bitfarms settlement (claims 5695–5705), the Coinbase custody agreement (claims 5226, 5227), Marcum's engagement (claim 13887) and the ATM sales agents (claim 3947) are not commercial customer relationships at all.

On the customer side, concentration has moved from a third-party hosting book led by Rhodium, and then wound down under vertical integration, to a single named data-center tenant in AMD. Across the gap, the company's revenue base was self-mining. The record does not disclose a dollar value, rate per megawatt, or expansion schedule for the AMD lease. It also provides no hosting revenue figures for Rhodium. As a result, the announced customer deals cannot be reconciled against reported revenue from the claims on file. Any revenue attribution to AMD beyond the initial 25 MW should be treated as unverified until pricing or recognized lease income is disclosed.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-14

Riot's record of counterparty disclosures contains almost no non-binding language, but it also contains very few customers. Most claims on file describe supply, service, or governance relationships rather than revenue agreements. The MicroBT Master Agreement dated June 23, 2023 (claims 12380, 11981, 3944, 3599) is a signed procurement contract, and its executed purchase orders are firm. There were seven orders for about 49.2 EH/s at roughly $779.5 million through September 30, 2025, a total unchanged at year-end (claims 3945, 3600), with deliveries expected by the second quarter of 2026 (claim 3622). The often-repeated figure of 265,000 additional miners (claims 11985, 11967, 11955, 11947) is option capacity, not a commitment. Later filings describe options on "the same or more favorable terms" that "may be further extended" (claims 3946, 3602). The Bitmain orders (claim 13261) are also purchases. Marcum (claim 13887), Coinbase custody and prime brokerage (claims 5226, 5227), and the equity sales agents (claim 3947) are vendors. The Bitfarms settlement (claims 5695, 5704, 5699) is a governance standstill with no commercial content.

On the customer side, every counterparty is named. The record contains no unidentified "strategic partner" or "anchor customer" language. In 2022 the disclosed customer base was hosting: Rhodium was the largest hosting customer (claim 13863), and Coinmint was being exited as part of a vertical-integration strategy (claim 13864). After that, no customer is disclosed until 2026, so self-mining appears to be the dominant model through 2025. In practice, customer concentration gave way to exposure to bitcoin price and network hashrate. That changed in January 2026 with a signed 10-year lease with AMD for 25 MW of critical IT load at Rockdale (claims 3902, 3598, 3615). This is a definitive agreement with a named tenant. Still, it is a single-tenant, initial-phase contract, and the word "initially" in claim 3598 points to expansion that the record does not show as contracted.

The revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled from this record. No claim discloses Rhodium hosting revenue, AMD lease rates or total contract value, or data-center revenue guidance, so there is no stated figure to test against the announced deals. The claim list also appears truncated after claim 3621. Any later disclosures of AMD economics or additional tenants should be reviewed before drawing firmer conclusions about concentration or contracted revenue.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-14

Riot's record contains almost no MOU, LOI, or 'discussions' language, but most of its named agreements are not customer agreements. The large majority of claims concern suppliers, a governance settlement, custody, and capital markets. Only three commercial counterparties on the revenue side are named: Rhodium, Coinmint, and AMD.

The hosting business in 2022 was described through named parties. Rhodium was identified as the largest hosting customer (claim 13863), and the Coinmint relationship was disclosed as ending under a vertical-integration strategy (claim 13864). After that, the record shows no named hosting or compute customer until January 2026. That month Riot disclosed a signed 10-year lease with AMD for 25 MW of critical IT load at Rockdale (claims 3902, 3598, 3615, 3621). This is a signed, named agreement rather than framework language. Its repeated wording, 'to initially provide 25 MW', points to expansion, but the record does not quantify it. Counterparty concentration has therefore moved from a hosting book led by one miner-customer to a data-center line that rests entirely on AMD. No other tenant, anchor, or pipeline counterparty is identified.

The supply-side claims need a clear split between executed orders and optionality. Executed commitments include the 2021 Bitmain purchase orders of $480 million for 82,500 miners (claim 13261) and seven MicroBT purchase orders totaling about $779.5 million for 49.2 EH/s (claims 3945, 3600). The figure 265,000 miners, or 66,560 per year through 2027, is recited in at least eight claims (e.g., 11967, 11974, 11985, 11947). These are purchase options, not obligations, and the repetition overstates how much has actually been committed. The executed totals were identical at September 30 and December 31, 2025 (claims 3945, 3600), which implies no new MicroBT orders in the fourth quarter.

The Bitfarms settlement (claims 5695–5705) is a governance and standstill arrangement that expires by June 2026 and carries no commercial revenue. Coinbase (claims 5226, 5227) is a custody and prime-broker vendor. The December 2025 sales agreement (claim 3947) is an equity at-the-market program with named banks.

The revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled from this record. No rent, contract value, or revenue contribution is disclosed for the AMD lease, and no hosting revenue is attributed to Rhodium. Diligence should obtain the lease economics and any customer-concentration footnote before crediting data-center revenue.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-14

Riot's record contains almost no customer agreements in the conventional sense. Most entries are supplier contracts, and several describe the same contract more than once. The Bitmain purchase orders (claim 13261), totaling $480 million for 82,500 miners, and the MicroBT Master Agreement dated June 23, 2023 (claims 12380, 11971, 11963, 11981, 11990, 11953, 3944, 3599) are signed procurement agreements. They are capital commitments, not demand. The Coinbase prime broker and custody arrangement (claims 5226, 5227) and the December 2025 equity Sales Agreement with named agents (claim 3947) are service and financing contracts. The Bitfarms settlement (claims 5695–5705) is a governance and standstill agreement with an expiry tied to June 1, 2026 or Bitfarms' 2026 annual meeting (claim 5701), and it carries no commercial terms. The record contains no MOU, LOI, or 'discussions' language. The softer category is the MicroBT purchase options (claims 11999, 11974, 11985, 11994, 11967, 11955, 11947, 3946, 3602), which remain rights Riot may exercise rather than obligations. The later wording also shifts from 'same terms as the initial order' to 'same or more favorable terms as the second purchase order' that 'may be further extended,' which suggests the option schedule has turned elastic.

The one signed revenue-side counterparty is AMD. Riot names it in a 10-year lease for 25 MW of critical IT load at Rockdale (claims 3902, 3598, 3615, 3621, 3608). No unnamed 'strategic partners' or 'anchor customers' appear anywhere in the record. Claim 11721 reports that the lease has commenced, but it has no supporting quote, so that milestone is unverified here. Riot's counterparty concentration has therefore moved from none to one. Mining revenue has no contractual customer, and the data-center business rests entirely on a single tenant whose disclosed commitment is described as 'initial.'

The arithmetic that can be checked holds together. Four years of options at 66,560 miners equals 266,240, which is consistent with the rounded '265,000' aggregate. The $779.5 million across seven purchase orders for 49.2 EH/s is identical at September 30, 2025 (claim 3945) and December 31, 2025 (claim 3600), which implies no new orders in the fourth quarter. The follow-on order of 66,560 miners (claim 11954) matches one annual option tranche. On the revenue side, nothing reconciles, because no lease value, rate per megawatt, or revenue contribution is disclosed for AMD. Diligence should treat the AMD lease as real but unquantified, and should not count the repeated MicroBT restatements as separate deals.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-13

Riot's record contains only one agreement that fits the definition of a signed customer contract. That is the ten-year data center lease with Advanced Micro Devices for critical IT load capacity at Rockdale (claims 3902, 3608, 3598). The company says the first phase began generating revenue in January 2026 (claim 11721). Every other named counterparty is on the cost, capital or governance side of the business. MicroBT is Riot's miner supplier under a June 2023 master purchase agreement (claims 12380, 11963, 3599), and its purchase options run through 2027 (claims 11999, 11994, 3602). Bitfarms is the counterparty to a September 2024 settlement with board, voting and standstill terms (claims 5695, 5698, 5699). Coinbase acts as prime broker and custodian (claims 5226, 5227). The December 2025 sales agents are underwriters for an equity program (claim 3947). None of these is a customer. The record also contains no MOU, LOI or framework language. More unusually, it has no unnamed 'strategic partner' or 'anchor customer' references: every counterparty is identified.

Customer concentration has gone from none to total. Through 2025, Riot's disclosed agreements were supply and financing arrangements, and mining revenue came from the Bitcoin network rather than from contracted buyers. Since January 2026, all disclosed contracted third-party revenue has come from a single counterparty, AMD. Any diligence view of the data center strategy therefore depends on a single tenant.

The revenue arithmetic does not fully reconcile. The January and March 2026 disclosures describe the lease as initially covering 25 MW (claims 3902, 3608, 3615, 3621). The April 2026 item describes a 50 MW lease with $636 million of total contract revenue (claim 9626). The record has no amendment or expansion claim that bridges 25 MW to 50 MW. Because the quote is truncated, it is also unclear whether the $636 million assumes the full ten-year term, a phased ramp or renewal options. Read as 50 MW over ten years, the figure implies about $63.6 million a year, or roughly $1.27 million per MW-year. No recognized revenue figure appears to test that against.

On the supply side, the numbers are internally consistent. Four years at 66,560 options per year comes to approximately the 265,000 aggregate cited (claims 11994, 11947). The $779.5 million total for 49.2 EH/s is the same at September 30 and December 31, 2025 (claims 3945, 3600), which indicates no new purchase orders in the fourth quarter. Those amounts are capital commitments, not revenue.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-13

Riot's record contains far fewer customer agreements than its claim count implies. Most entries restate the same filings, and most counterparties are suppliers, service providers or governance adversaries rather than buyers of Riot's output. The MicroBT relationship accounts for the bulk of the record (claims 11963, 11990, 11981, 11971, 11953, 3944, 3599). It is a signed master purchase and sale agreement dated June 23, 2023, but Riot is the purchaser. It is a capital-expenditure commitment, not a revenue contract. Within it, the executed purchase orders are firm: an initial order, a December 2023 follow-on of 66,560 miners (claim 11954), and seven orders totalling roughly $779.5 million for 49.2 EH/s (claims 3945, 3600). The purchase options are not firm. Early filings quantified them at up to 66,560 miners per year, about 265,000 in aggregate through 2027 (claims 11994, 11955, 11947). Later filings drop the unit count and describe options 'on the same or more favorable terms' that 'may be further extended' (claims 3946, 3602). Those options should be treated as optionality, not backlog. The purchase-order totals are identical at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2025, which suggests no new orders were placed in the fourth quarter. The Bitfarms settlement (claims 5695, 5705, 5699, 5701) is a signed agreement but governs board seats and a standstill, with no commercial terms. The Coinbase prime broker and custody agreement (claims 5226, 5227) and the equity sales agency agreement (claim 3947) are also service and financing relationships. The only true revenue customer on record is Advanced Micro Devices. AMD signed a 10-year lease for 25 MW of critical IT load at Rockdale (claims 3902, 3598, 3615, 3621, 3608), and Riot says the first phase was producing revenue by January 2026 (claim 11721). The lease's expansion rights, up to an additional 75 MW plus a right of first refusal (claim 1863), are options rather than contracted capacity. The renewal terms in claim 1864 are three successive five-year periods; the quote is truncated beyond that point. Every counterparty is named, and nothing is described only as an unidentified 'anchor customer' or 'strategic partner'. Concentration has shifted from no contracted revenue counterparty at all, since mining revenue comes from the Bitcoin network, to a single named tenant that holds all disclosed data-center lease revenue. The revenue arithmetic cannot be reconciled from this record. No lease rate, total contract value or recognized AMD revenue is cited, so the 25 MW commitment cannot be tied to reported figures, and any valuation of the 75 MW expansion would be speculative.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-13

Riot's announced partnerships distinguish clearly executed agreements from preliminary arrangements, with all five named counterparties holding signed commitments. Bitfarms (claims 5695, 5704) represents a September 2024 settlement agreement granting board nomination rights through June 2026, structured as governance rather than customer revenue. Coinbase (claims 5226, 5227) operates as a custody provider under a signed Prime Broker Agreement executed December 2024, with no disclosed revenue terms. MicroBT (claims 3944, 3945) reflects Riot's primary supply relationship: a master purchase agreement dated June 23, 2023, with seven executed purchase orders totaling $779.5 million through September 2025 and annual options through December 2027 (claims 3602, 3946). AMD (claims 3902, 3615, 1861) involves a signed 10-year lease initially sized at 25 megawatts in January 2026, expanded to 50 megawatts in April 2026, with potential capacity reaching 200 megawatts through additional options (claims 1865, 9625). Anthropic emerged in August 2026 as Riot's largest disclosed customer, introduced initially as "a leading frontier AI lab" (claim 8748) but identified by name days later (claim 2922), holding a signed 20-year lease for 191 megawatts projected to generate $9.1 billion in total contract revenue (claims 8248, 8737).

Counterparty concentration has shifted decisively toward customer concentration. Early 2026 partnerships served governance, custody, supply, and infrastructure functions; Anthropic's August announcement fundamentally altered this mix. The AI customer now controls approximately 191 of 241 contracted Rockdale megawatts, representing roughly 79 percent of disclosed capacity. AMD retains 50 megawatts with expansion optionality, creating dual leverage dynamics.

Revenue metrics reveal material discrepancies. AMD's 50-megawatt lease generates stated total contract revenue of $636 million (claim 9626), implying approximately $12.7 million per megawatt. Anthropic's 191-megawatt, 20-year lease projects $9.1 billion, or roughly $47.6 million per megawatt across the full contract term. The per-megawatt differential approaches fourfold. Riot has not publicly explained this disparity—whether driven by differing lease escalation structures, customer creditworthiness, capacity utilization schedules, or incomplete revenue disclosure. The arithmetic gap warrants clarification before investors can assess revenue durability or normalize these arrangements for peer comparison.

2026-09-09

Riot's disclosed customer and partnership agreements reveal a strategic pivot from hardware procurement to data center capacity leasing, with material concentration risk emerging in H2 2026. The company has executed three categories of substantive agreements: signed customer contracts (MicroBT hardware master agreement, AMD and Anthropic leases), custodial/financial service agreements (Coinbase Prime Broker), and a governance settlement (Bitfarms, claim 5695). Of these, only MicroBT, AMD, and Anthropic represent customer revenue-generating agreements; Bitfarms is a standstill/voting agreement expiring June 1, 2026 (claim 5701), and Coinbase is a digital asset custody arrangement.

Counterparty naming reveals disclosure discipline inconsistency. Claims 8737–8748 dated August 9, 2026 refer to "a leading frontier AI lab" without identification for a 191 MW, 20-year lease generating $9.1 billion in initial contract revenue. The counterparty is subsequently named Anthropic only in August 10 filings (claims 1189, 507, 402). This one-day lag from unnamed to named on Riot's largest announced deal warrants scrutiny: either the name was withheld pending announcement coordination, or disclosure protocols shifted mid-announcement cycle.

Concentration has accelerated sharply. MicroBT represented the primary capital commitment through 2025 ($779.5 million in purchase orders for 49.2 EH/s as of December 31, 2025, claim 3600). AMD entered with a 10-year lease for 25 MW announced January 2026 (claim 3902), expanded to 50 MW in April 2026 with $636 million in total contract revenue (claim 9626). The Anthropic agreement, disclosed in August 2026, dwarfs both: 191 MW at $9.1 billion. Anthropic alone now represents approximately 90% of disclosed long-term lease contract value.

Revenue arithmetic reconciliation is limited by asset class. MicroBT's $779.5 million reflects capital expenditure on miners, not operating revenue. AMD's $636 million and Anthropic's $9.1 billion are stated as "total contract revenue" on 50 MW and 191 MW leases respectively, spanning 10 years and 20 years (claims 9626, 8748). Annualized, this implies AMD at ~$12.7 million per MW annually and Anthropic at ~$23.9 million per MW annually—a material price divergence unexplained in public filings. This gap and the absence of revenue-recognition guidance by customer make forward earnings forecasting contingent on lease profitability assumptions not yet disclosed.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-06

Riot's disclosed customer agreements differentiate sharply between equipment suppliers (MicroBT) and data center lessees (AMD, Anthropic). The Bitfarms settlement (claims 5695, 5704) is a corporate governance matter—board seat nomination and voting commitments—not a customer revenue agreement. Coinbase (claims 5226, 5227) is a custody service provider, also not a customer in the traditional sense.

The material customer relationships are facility leases at Rockdale. AMD was named consistently and contracted initially for 25 MW in January 2026 (claim 3902), then expanded to 50 MW in April 2026 (claim 1865). AMD lease pricing remains undisclosed. A second major lease was announced August 9, 2026, with a tenant identified only as a "leading frontier AI lab" (claims 8737, 8748)—191 MW, 20-year term, $9.1B total contract revenue. Anthropic was identified as the counterparty by third parties on August 10, 2026 (claims 2922, 7559, 420), yet Riot's same-day SEC filing (claim 8248) preserved anonymity, describing only "a leading frontier AI company." The Anthropic lease includes two optional 5-year renewals representing approximately $7B additional value, bringing potential total to $16.1B if both are exercised (claim 8738).

Counterparty concentration has shifted decisively. Through 2025, AMD at 25 MW represented Riot's largest disclosed customer commitment. The Anthropic agreement—191 MW—now dominates contracted capacity and revenue visibility. Combined, AMD (50 MW) and Anthropic (191 MW) total 241 MW of committed load, with Anthropic representing roughly $9.1B of disclosed base-term revenue. MicroBT claims (3600, 3945)—$779.5M through September 2025—reflect Riot's equipment capex, not customer revenue. The $9.1B Anthropic figure is labeled "initial contract revenue," likely denoting the base 20-year commitment excluding extension optionality; actual full-term economic value (if extensions exercise) could reach $16.1B.

The named-to-unnamed disclosure pattern is material. Anthropic was initially anonymous in Riot's official announcement and SEC filing, then identified publicly within one day. This lag distinguishes regulatory disclosure practice (anonymity maintained) from market reporting (name disclosed), creating a disclosure asymmetry that resolved quickly but illustrates Riot's initial discretion over counterparty identity.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-06

Riot Platforms has disclosed three material revenue-generating customer agreements and several governance-focused arrangements. The company's customer base shows extreme concentration risk alongside selective initial anonymity.

Named signed customer agreements include: Advanced Micro Devices for a 25-megawatt initial data center lease announced January 2026 (claim 3902), expanded to 50 megawatts in April 2026 through an amendment exercising AMD's expansion option (claim 1865); and Anthropic for a 191-megawatt, 20-year lease announced August 2026 (claim 420). Notably, Anthropic was initially disclosed only as "a leading frontier AI company" without counterparty identification in SEC filings (claim 8248) before the company was named in subsequent announcements (claim 7559). MicroBT Electronics represents a distinct supplier relationship—not a customer—with seven executed purchase orders totaling $779.5 million in equipment commitments through September 2025 (claim 3945).

The Bitfarms and Coinbase arrangements are governance and treasury infrastructure relationships rather than customer agreements. The Bitfarms settlement (claim 5695) establishes standstill provisions and board nomination rights through June 2026, while the Coinbase Prime Broker Agreement (claim 5226) provides digital asset custody services.

Revenue concentration is extraordinary. Riot has disclosed approximately $9.8 billion in contracted revenue from AMD and Anthropic combined, before extension options (claim 417). The Anthropic agreement alone carries initial contract value of approximately $9.1 billion over twenty years (claim 8250). Yet Q2 2026 quarterly results showed only $23.2 million from the Data Center segment (claim 419)—suggesting either minimal revenue recognition to date or that headline figures represent total contract values rather than near-term cash flow. This reconciliation gap warrants scrutiny: if $9.1 billion is recognized ratably over 20 years, annual revenue would average approximately $455 million, yet one quarter in 2026 contributed only $23.2 million.

Counterparty concentration has shifted materially. Through 2025, Riot's primary infrastructure partner was AMD. The August 2026 Anthropic announcement introduced a single customer representing potentially 90 percent of disclosed future contracted data center revenue, creating substantial execution and renewal risk. Neither customer represents a multi-year framework; both are fixed-term leases with defined capacity and duration. The evolution shows Riot pivoting from a distributed model toward dependency on two AI infrastructure customers.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-06

Riot's customer and partnership disclosures demonstrate a clear distinction between binding operational agreements and governance arrangements, though initial naming obscures true revenue concentration. MicroBT represents a signed, executed supply relationship: through December 31, 2025, Riot executed seven purchase orders under a June 2023 master agreement totaling $779.5 million for approximately 49.2 EH/s of mining capacity (claims 3945, 3600). AMD constitutes a binding lease agreement executed in January 2026 for 25 megawatts of critical IT capacity at Rockdale, subsequently expanded to 50 MW in April 2026 (claims 3902, 1865, 887). These are disclosed as complete, signed contracts with specific commercial terms. Anthropic, by contrast, entered Riot's disclosures via deliberate anonymity. The company initially disclosed a 20-year lease agreement with a leading frontier AI lab on August 10, 2026, worth approximately $9.1 billion in contract revenue (claims 8250, 402), only identifying the counterparty as Anthropic in parallel filings (claims 7559, 507, 2922). This pattern—signed, binding lease agreement but delayed counterparty identification—distinguishes material customer relationships from governance arrangements. The Bitfarms settlement agreement (claims 5695, 5699) represents voting rights and board nomination protections, not customer revenue; similarly, the Coinbase custody relationship (claim 5226) is a service provider arrangement, not operational revenue. Counterparty concentration has undergone dramatic compression since mid-2026. Prior to August, Riot's disclosed customer base centered on MicroBT and AMD. The August 2026 Anthropic announcement elevated a single customer to approximately $9.1 billion in nominal contract value, representing roughly 92 percent of disclosed AI customer revenue. Claim 417 suggests combined contracted revenue from the two AI companies totals $9.8 billion, implying AMD's lease generates approximately $700 million over its initial term. However, revenue arithmetic remains notional. Q2 2026 reported data center revenue of only $23.2 million (claim 419), indicating these leases generate forward-looking revenue recognition rather than immediate cash flow. The discrepancy between $9.8 billion in signed lease value and minimal near-term revenue reflects the temporal asymmetry between long-term contractual commitments and their economic realization.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-06

Riot's disclosed customer and partnership agreements present a clear distinction between signed, binding arrangements and framework discussions. The company names all material commercial counterparties: MicroBT Electronics Technology (mining equipment supplier), AMD (data center lessee), and Anthropic (AI computing capacity tenant). The Bitfarms settlement structure (claims 5695–5704, September 2024) and Coinbase prime-brokerage arrangement (claims 5226–5227, December 2024) are fully executed agreements governing control stakes and digital asset custody, not pilot or discussion stages. None of the disclosed customer relationships are characterized as MOUs, LOIs, or pilot frameworks.

The evolution of counterparty concentration reveals material consolidation in data center revenue. AMD progressed from a 25 MW initial lease (claims 3902, 3598, announced January 2026) to an amended 50 MW agreement (claim 1865, April 2026), demonstrating expansion of an existing relationship. MicroBT represents a supplier relationship: 49.2 EH/s of miners were acquired through seven executed purchase orders totaling $779.5 million as of September 2025 (claim 3945), with additional annual options through December 2027 (claim 3946). The Anthropic 20-year lease (claims 8250, 8248, announced August 2026) for 191 MW at $9.1 billion in initial contract revenue represents Riot's largest disclosed customer commitment.

The revenue arithmetic reveals substantial timing mismatch between announcement and cash recognition. Q2 2026 data center segment revenue totaled $23.2 million (claim 419), despite concurrent AMD deployment at 50 MW and the August 2026 Anthropic lease announcement citing approximately $9.8 billion in combined contracted revenue across AMD and Anthropic (claim 417). This gap reflects contract commencement timing: Anthropic's lease commenced in August 2026, late in the quarter, and AMD's initial deployment similarly trails announcement. The disclosed figures treat signed contracts as revenue contracts despite deferred billing cycles—standard infrastructure practice but material for distinguishing announced deal volume from near-term cash generation.

One disclosure distinction: Anthropic was initially described as "a leading frontier AI lab" in the August 10 SEC filing (claim 8248) before later identification, a confidentiality accommodation in regulatory disclosure.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-05

Riot has disclosed two material signed data center capacity agreements and one non-binding expansion framework. The anchor customer agreement, a 20-year lease with Anthropic for 191 megawatts announced August 10, 2026, carries approximately $9.1 billion in initial contracted revenue (claim 402, 420, 435). Riot initially withheld Anthropic's name in its SEC filing, identifying the counterparty only as "a leading frontier AI company" before public disclosure confirmed the identity (claim 8248, 7559). A secondary signed lease with Advanced Micro Devices, executed January 2026 for 25 megawatts and amended April 2026 to 50 megawatts, represents the only other named customer agreement of scale (claim 1861, 1865, 887). Management disclosed combined contracted revenue from the "two AI companies" at approximately $9.8 billion (claim 417), implying AMD's 10-year lease generates roughly $700 million. Riot also executed a "non-binding Letter of Intent" at Corsicana (claim 8529), a categorical distinction from signed agreements, though the tenant name remains undisclosed.

Counterparty concentration presents material risk. Anthropic and AMD collectively represent the company's entire disclosed customer base for revenue-generating capacity, with Anthropic alone representing 191 of 241 contracted megawatts. The company's non-binding Corsicana LOI for approximately 1 gigawatt suggests nascent pipeline diversification, but carries no contractual certainty.

Revenue arithmetic raises reconciliation questions. If Anthropic's $9.1 billion contract spans 20 years, implied annual revenue averages approximately $455 million. Yet Riot reported Q2 2026 data center segment revenue of only $23.2 million (claim 419), despite both the AMD and Anthropic contracts being operationalized by that period. This gap suggests either deferred contract ramp, backend-loaded revenue recognition tied to deployment milestones, or that Q2 2026 represented an early-stage inflection point. Management should clarify whether the $9.8 billion represents upfront cash recognition, annual recurring revenue guidance, or cash-basis accounting, and reconcile implied run-rate with near-term quarterly performance. The reliance on two undiversified customers for 100% of disclosed data center revenue creates outsized contract concentration risk while the Corsicana LOI remains too preliminary to offset exposure.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-05

Riot's disclosed partnership and customer base consists entirely of named, executed agreements with no material framework arrangements, MOUs, or pilot programs. The company's announced counterparties fall into two categories: revenue-generating data center customers (AMD, Anthropic, MicroBT) and service providers or governance-related arrangements (Coinbase custody, Bitfarms settlement). AMD and Anthropic represent the material capacity commitments. AMD's arrangement (claims 1861, 1865) expanded from an initial 25 MW lease signed in January 2026 to 50 MW of contracted critical IT load capacity following an April 2026 amendment. The lease carries a ten-year initial term with expansion options for up to 75 MW additional capacity and a right of first refusal on further commitments. Anthropic's 20-year lease (claims 402, 507, 8248) for 191 MW at Rockdale represents Riot's largest signed customer commitment, with approximately $9.1 billion in contracted initial-term revenue (claims 402, 412, 420). The $9.8 billion combined contracted revenue figure (claim 417) from both AI customers implies AMD's initial-term obligations at approximately $700–800 million over ten years, assuming near-parity with Anthropic's disclosed $2.38 million per megawatt per year. Q2 2026 data center segment revenue of $23.2 million (claim 419) reflects deployment in its infancy. MicroBT purchase orders ($779.5 million through September 2025; claims 3945, 3600) represent a supplier relationship rather than a revenue-producing customer. Counterparty concentration shifted dramatically in August 2026, when Anthropic became dominant with 191 MW of committed capacity. Prior announcements focused on MicroBT supplier commitments and AMD's initial 25 MW agreement. All material counterparties are specifically named; no unnamed 'strategic partners,' 'anchor customers,' or generic framework agreements appear in disclosed claims. Coinbase's December 2024 Prime Broker agreement (claims 5226, 5227) is a custodial service arrangement outside the capacity-lease model, while the September 2024 Bitfarms settlement (claim 5695) reflects corporate governance rather than revenue partnership. Riot's announced customer and partner disclosures contain no material undisclosed counterparties or preliminary arrangements.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-05

Riot's customer announcements reveal a sharp pivot from infrastructure partnerships to dominant concentration in a single customer. Of seven material counterparty relationships disclosed between September 2024 and August 2026, five are signed agreements: MicroBT (long-term master purchase agreement dated June 23, 2023, with seven executed purchase orders totaling $779.5 million through September 2025, per claims 3944, 3945); AMD (10-year lease agreement signed January 2026, expanded in April 2026 from 25 MW to 50 MW, per claims 3902, 1865); Anthropic (20-year lease agreement for 191 MW, per claim 8248); Coinbase (Prime Broker Agreement, December 2024, per claim 5226); and Bitfarms (settlement agreement, September 2024, per claim 5704, though this is governance-related rather than customer revenue). The Bitfarms agreement involves board nomination rights and voting commitments, not operating revenue. Coinbase appears to be a custody and credit provider, not a revenue customer. MicroBT and AMD represent supplier and infrastructure relationships, not customer concentration. The material shift arrives with Anthropic. Riot disclosed this 20-year agreement initially as a "leading frontier AI company" (claim 8248, August 10, 2026) without naming Anthropic, only later confirming the counterparty identity in subsequent filings (claims 7559, 507, August 10; claim 420, August 11). This phased disclosure—anonymous, then named—is atypical for material customer contracts and suggests either regulatory guidance or strategic timing around the announcement. Revenue reconciliation shows material concentration: claim 417 (August 12, 2026) cites "approximately $9.8 billion of contracted revenue" from "two AI companies," with Anthropic representing $9.1 billion over the lease term (claims 412, 434). This suggests a second AI customer contributes roughly $700 million, though no second customer is explicitly named. AMD, despite expanded capacity, carries no disclosed revenue figure, only megawatt commitments. Counterparty evolution tracks a fundamental business shift: early 2024 focused on supplier and governance risk management (MicroBT, Bitfarms, Coinbase); by mid-2026, Anthropic alone represents 93 percent of disclosed contracted revenue, creating severe customer concentration risk previously absent from Riot's customer base.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-05

Riot's disclosed customer partnerships divide into governance arrangements (2024) and contracted data center capacity (2025-2026), with all material counterparties explicitly named. No material MOU, LOI, or framework-stage language appears in the record; claims consistently reference executed agreements, amendments, or binding purchase orders.

In September 2024, Riot disclosed a settlement agreement with Bitfarms (claims 5695-5705) granting board nomination rights and voting commitments through June 2026—a governance arrangement, not customer revenue. December 2024 brought a named custody relationship with Coinbase (claims 5226-5227), similarly non-revenue-generating. The commercial profile shifts materially in 2025-2026. Riot's June 2023 master agreement with MicroBT Electronics (claim 3599) produced seven executed purchase orders totaling $779.5M through September 2025 (claim 3945), with additional annual options through December 2027—binding capex rather than customer contracts.

Data center capacity leases to named customers emerged as primary growth: AMD (25 MW initial lease announced January 2026, expanded to 50 MW under binding April amendment per claim 1865) and Anthropic (191 MW, 20-year lease, announced August 2026). All counterparties are explicitly identified by legal entity; no "strategic partner" or "anchor customer" language obscures identity.

Concentration evolved from fragmented governance/service relationships to two dominant customers. Anthropic alone commands $9.1 billion in initial-term contracted revenue (claims 402, 420), yet claim 417 references $9.8 billion of contracted revenue across unnamed "two AI companies"—indicating either a second undisclosed AI customer, Anthropic's contract exceeding disclosed figures, or revenue from extension options not separately broken out. This one-billion-dollar discrepancy lacks clear attribution.

Revenue arithmetic shows material opacity. Q2 2026 data center segment revenue was $23.2M (claim 419), pre-dating the August Anthropic announcement. Anthropic's $9.1B over 20 years projects roughly $455M annually, yet no deployment or revenue recognition impact appears in disclosed quarterly results through Q2. AMD's lease revenue remains entirely unquantified despite 50 MW contracted capacity. The gap between $9.1B announced backlog and minimal Q2 revenue suggests either revenue recognition lags contract execution, or deployment has not commenced. Without AMD's revenue attribution or the identity of the second AI company referenced in claim 417, total customer concentration and revenue trajectory remain incompletely disclosed.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-05

Riot Platforms has announced five counterparty relationships across customer, supplier, and governance categories, though only two constitute signed revenue-bearing customer agreements. The Anthropic lease (claim 435), signed in August 2026 for 191 megawatts of capacity over twenty years, is valued at $9.1 billion in contracted revenue and explicitly names Anthropic as the customer. The AMD data center lease (claim 3621), initially executed in January 2026 for 25 megawatts and amended in April 2026 to 50 megawatts (claim 1865), is similarly signed and named. Both agreements specify capacity, term length, and revenue with unambiguous language; neither uses pilot, framework, or MOU terminology.

The remaining three relationships are mischaracterized as customer partnerships. The Bitfarms settlement agreement (claim 5695), announced September 2024, grants Riot governance rights and board nomination privileges with explicit term expiration on June 1, 2026 (claim 5701)—a corporate positioning play, not a revenue partnership. The Coinbase arrangement (claim 5226) establishes custody and brokerage services for Riot's digital assets, positioning Riot as Coinbase's customer. The MicroBT master purchase agreement (claim 3599), dated June 23, 2023, obligated Riot to deploy $779.5 million in capital expenditure through December 2025 (claim 3945), making MicroBT Riot's supplier rather than customer.

Counterparty concentration has shifted sharply toward Anthropic. Through 2025, Riot's disclosed relationships centered on capital deployment (MicroBT) and corporate stakes (Bitfarms). AMD became the first infrastructure customer in January 2026 at modest scale. Anthropic's announcement in August 2026 at 191 megawatts immediately dominates the portfolio, accounting for approximately ninety-two percent of all disclosed infrastructure revenue—$9.1 billion of $9.8 billion announced total (claim 417). AMD's specific revenue contribution remains undisclosed.

Revenue arithmetic reveals phase lag between contract execution and realized earnings. Q2 2026 data center segment revenue totaled $23.2 million (claim 419), published before Anthropic's August agreement announcement. The $9.1 billion Anthropic contract implies annual revenue of approximately $455 million upon full deployment, substantially exceeding current quarterly rates. This gap indicates forward-committed agreements with phased deployment timelines rather than immediate monetization. Both AMD and Anthropic likely remain in early utilization phases, with substantial upside subject to execution risk.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-05

Riot's disclosed customer and partnership portfolio reflects binding commitments with named counterparties rather than speculative frameworks. The company has executed signed agreements with five material parties: Bitfarms (governance settlement, September 2024); Coinbase (custody services, December 2024); MicroBT (equipment supply, master agreement June 2023, seven purchase orders totaling $779.5 million through September 2025 per claims 3945, 3600); AMD (capacity lease, January 2026 announcement); and Anthropic (flagship customer, August 2026). None involve MOUs, pilots, or discussions—each represents binding contractual terms with named counterparties.

The strategic evolution reveals a striking shift from infrastructure enablement to customer concentration. Bitfarms (claims 5695, 5704) was purely governance-focused: board nomination rights, standstill provisions, voting commitments, zero revenue. Coinbase (claims 5226, 5227) provided asset custody—infrastructure, not customer acquisition. MicroBT constituted capital equipment procurement under a master agreement with additional options through December 2027 (claim 3602), a supply-side relationship that does not generate recurring lease revenue.

AMD marked the inflection point. Initial contracted capacity: 25 MW under a ten-year lease (claim 3902, January 2026). By April 2026, AMD exercised expansion options, bringing committed capacity to 50 MW (claims 1865, 887). AMD represents a genuine data center customer generating lease revenue, though specific contract terms remain undisclosed.

Anthropics's August 2026 agreement fundamentally altered counterparty concentration. The 20-year lease for 191 MW at Rockdale (claims 402, 1189, 435) carries $9.1 billion in disclosed initial-term contracted revenue (claims 412, 420). This single agreement dominates the disclosed customer base: Anthropic represents 191 MW of stated capacity versus AMD's 50 MW—approximately 79 percent of total committed capacity to named customers.

Revenue arithmetic reveals material concentration risk. Riot disclosed approximately $9.8 billion in total contracted data center revenue (claim 417), with Anthropic representing $9.1 billion. This implies AMD and undisclosed relationships generated only $700 million of stated revenue. The company has not named additional data center customers despite capacity references, suggesting either prolonged negotiation timelines, confidentiality restrictions, or supply constraints limiting additional customer acquisition beyond Anthropic.

All identified agreements are binding and signed. No MOUs, letters of intent, or pilots appear in the disclosed record. Counterparty concentration—both capacity allocation and revenue recognition—has compressed dramatically toward a single AI customer announced in late August 2026.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-05

Riot's customer and partnership disclosures present a clear distinction between executed agreements with named counterparties and exploratory governance arrangements. All material contracts cite specific, publicly traded or major institutional counterparties: MicroBT (hardware), Coinbase (custody), AMD (infrastructure), and Anthropic (compute). No claims employ placeholder language such as 'strategic partner' or 'anchor customer' without identification, which simplifies the analysis considerably.

The evolution from 2023 through 2026 reflects a strategic pivot from mining operations to infrastructure provisioning. Through September 2025, Riot executed seven purchase orders under its June 2023 Master Agreement with MicroBT (claims 3945, 3600) totaling approximately $779.5 million—a purchasing commitment, not revenue. Separately, Coinbase's December 2024 custody arrangement (claim 5226) secures digital assets but generates fee expense rather than customer revenue. The Bitfarms settlement (claim 5695, dated September 23, 2024) grants Riot governance rights but is a one-time governance event, not an operational partnership.

Starting in January 2026, Riot pivoted to data center leasing. The AMD Lease (claim 3598, January 2026 announcement) initially committed 25 megawatts, expanded to 50 megawatts by April 2026 (claim 1865). Revenue from the AMD arrangement is not quantified in the supplied claims, though Q2 2026 data center segment revenue reached $23.2 million (claim 419), predating the transformative Anthropic deal.

The August 2026 Anthropic lease (claims 402, 420, 435) represents a material concentration event. The 20-year, 191-megawatt agreement (claim 507) carries approximately $9.1 billion in initial contracted revenue (claims 412, 434, 435), implying roughly $455 million annualized revenue over the base term. Claim 417 adds context: AMD and Anthropic combined represent approximately $9.8 billion of contracted revenue before extension options. The Anthropic deal's magnitude overshadows all prior partnerships and suggests a single-customer concentration risk, though claim 397 notes two five-year extension options at Anthropic's discretion, extending potential upside beyond the initial 20-year horizon.

Arithmetically, the Q2 2026 data center segment revenue of $23.2 million (claim 419) suggests Anthropic's deployment was nascent or postdated that reporting period. The disclosed pipeline appears reconcilable: AMD's 50 megawatts and Anthropic's 191 megawatts represent 241 total committed capacity with stated revenue contracts, though granular pricing per megawatt is not disclosed. The Anthropic concentration—representing 92 percent of the $9.8 billion two-party total (claim 417)—signals both transformative scale and material customer risk.

SUPERSEDED

Customer disclosures, read

2026-09-05

Riot's announced partnerships consist entirely of signed, binding agreements with specifically named counterparties—no material MOU or framework arrangements appear in the record. The Bitfarms settlement (claim 5695) and Coinbase custody agreement (claims 5226–5227) are governance and custodial instruments, not customer contracts. The material revenue-generating agreements are three: MicroBT (signed June 23, 2023), AMD (signed January 2026, amended April 2026), and Anthropic (signed August 2026).

MicroBT represents a hardware procurement channel: seven purchase orders executed through September 30, 2025, totaling $779.5 million in acquisition cost (claim 3945), with additional annual purchase options through December 31, 2027 (claim 3946). This is capex, not revenue.

2026-10-16

The record supplied here ends partway through March 2020, so this read covers only the Oklahoma City phase. Rockdale, Corsicana and the Kentucky facility, the projects that matter today, have no capacity or timeline claims in view, and any judgment on them would be speculation. The earliest entries (21108 through 20979) belong to the company's prior life as a diagnostics and animal-health business. They say nothing about delivery capability.

At Oklahoma City the announced envelope was set in mid-2018 at 12 MW, 8,000 miners and 110 PH/s at full deployment (15507, 15506, 15508). The power and unit figures held: 8,000 installed miners were reported by August 2018 (15456) and repeated through January 2019 (15342, 15283). The hash-rate target did not. It shifted from 110 PH/s to a 95 PH/s 'maximum' (15343, 15306) without any stated reconciliation, a quiet revision rather than an acknowledged miss. The later jump to an estimated 248 PH/s (14966) came on a smaller fleet of 7,400 units (14974). That reflects an S17 Pro equipment refresh inside the same footprint, not added site capacity. The Bitmain deliveries behind it are among the few entries marked verified against their promised windows (15047, 15018).

The timeline story is mainly about tenure. The 107,000 sq ft lease (15504, 15454) was extended to August 2019 (15361, 15304) and then to May 2020 (15015). A string of short extensions on a leased site does not support a durable hosting commitment, and the project's current cancelled status fits that pattern. Across the visible record, no claim is backed by independent evidence such as permits, utility or interconnection filings, or local reporting. Everything outside the two delivery verifications rests on company statements.

For the next 90 days, the first priority is completing the record. The post-March-2020 claims for Rockdale, Corsicana and Kentucky need to be ingested before anyone can assess whether the Texas build-out repeats the Oklahoma pattern: fixed power envelopes, hash-rate targets revised in place, and fleet upgrades presented as capacity growth. Once those claims are loaded, the useful checks are energization milestones on the partially operational Texas sites against filed interconnection data, and whether the company reports hash-rate guidance changes explicitly or simply restates them.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-10-16

The record supplied here covers Riot's facility claims only through March 2020 and cuts off mid-entry, so this read can assess only the Oklahoma City buildout. The Rockdale, Corsicana and Kentucky sites, which now carry the company's real capacity story, cannot be judged from it, and the remaining claims should be loaded before this is published. The pre-2017 entries (21108, 20980 and related) belong to the company's earlier diagnostics incarnation and say nothing about mining delivery.

On Oklahoma City, the unit count was delivered roughly as promised. Riot reported 3,500 miners running as of March 2018 against an 8,000-unit, 12 MW full build (15505, 15506, 15507). By August 2018 it claimed all 8,000 installed (15456), and the 12 MW figure stayed fixed through 2020 (15305, 14948). Throughput is a different matter. The 110 PH/s expected hash rate (15508, 15539) quietly became a 95 PH/s maximum by December 2018 (15343, 15306, 15284). That is a roughly 14 percent reduction, and no claim on record acknowledges it as a revision.

The site's footing was also thinner than the capacity language suggests. A 107,000 square foot lease (15504) was extended only through August 2019 (15361, 15304) and later through May 2020 under the Kairos arrangement (15015). These were short-dated renewals, not a durable campus commitment. The project's current cancelled status is consistent with that.

The 2019-2020 S17 Pro refresh is the best-evidenced part of the record. Two delivery dates carry verified status (15047, 15018), followed by a reported 1,060-unit delivery (15000) and a claim of 4,000 units in production in Q1 2020 (14946). Elsewhere the record is internally inconsistent. The Kairos combination appears as both withdrawn (14949) and stated (14961) on the same date. The Antminer purchase is logged at 6.4 USD (14945) against 6.4 million elsewhere (14951), which is an extraction error that needs correcting. No permits, utility interconnection filings or on-the-ground reporting appear anywhere in this set, so the announced pace rests almost entirely on company statements.

For the next 90 days, the priority is completing the dataset. The questions to put to the Texas and Kentucky claims are whether stated energization phases match ERCOT interconnection and large-load filings, whether hash rate guidance is again being revised downward without disclosure, and whether partially operational sites are adding megawatts on the schedule last promised or are being re-baselined.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-10-15

The record supplied here is effectively a history of Oklahoma City, and it ends mid-claim in March 2020. It says nothing substantive about Rockdale, Corsicana or the Kentucky facility, which are the sites that now matter, so this read covers the closed chapter, not the current build-out. The pre-2018 entries (21108, 20980 and related) belong to the company's earlier diagnostics business and have no bearing on facility delivery.

On capacity, the Oklahoma City envelope never grew. It was framed at 12 MW and 8,000 miners from the outset (15507, 15506) and stayed there (15305, 15342). The hash-rate target moved. The original 110 PH/s (15508, 15539) became a 95 PH/s maximum by December 2018 (15343, 15306, 15284), and no filing explains the gap. The later jump to an estimated 248 PH/s (14966) came from swapping in S17 Pro machines (15047, 15018, 15000) within the same power footprint, while the operating fleet fell to 7,400 units (14974). That was efficiency within a fixed site, not expansion.

On timing, the installation pace held. Disclosures moved from 3,500 miners at March 2018 (15505) to 8,000 by August (15456), and both dated S17 deliveries are tagged verified against their promised windows (15047, 15018). The weaker signal is tenure. A 107,000 square foot lease (15504) was carried on short extensions, first through August 2019 (15361, 15304) and then through May 2020 (15015). The site ended as cancelled, with no claim in this set acknowledging the wind-down. Massena carries a cancelled status with no supporting claims at all.

Independent corroboration is thin. Apart from the two verified delivery records, the file contains no permits, utility agreements or interconnection-queue references, so the announced pace rests almost entirely on company statements.

Over the next 90 days, the first priority is the missing post-2020 history, because the current projects cannot be judged without it. With that in hand, the tests are whether Corsicana's energized capacity matches its stated phases in ERCOT large-load interconnection filings, whether Rockdale's reported hash rate tracks its power commitments or is again being lifted through fleet upgrades, and whether Kentucky's partially operational status is ever given a dated capacity figure.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-10-15

The record supplied here stops in March 2020, so this read covers Riot's Oklahoma City era only. Rockdale, Corsicana and the Kentucky facility, which carry the company's current capacity story, have no claims in this excerpt, and Massena is listed as cancelled with nothing attached. The pre-2018 entries (21108, 20980 and others) belong to the company's earlier diagnostics business and say nothing about mining delivery.

On capacity, Oklahoma City was framed from the start as a fixed 12 MW envelope (15526, 15538), and that figure never moved (15305). Inside that envelope, the miner count went from 3,500 installed against an 8,000 target (15505, 15506) to 8,000 reported as active by August 2018 (15456). The hashing target followed a less tidy path. The June 2018 aim of 110 PH/s (15508, 15539) was restated as a 95 PH/s maximum in December 2018 (15343, 15306), and none of the claims on record explain the cut. The S17 Pro refresh then lifted the stated maximum to 248 PH/s (14966), even as operating units fell to 7,400 (14974). That points to efficiency gains rather than physical expansion, which fits a site constrained by power.

On dates, the hardware promises held. The 3,000-unit delivery due by 11 December 2019 (15047) and the 1,000-unit delivery due by 31 January 2020 (15018) are the only claims marked verified, and the later 1,060-unit figure (15000) suggests a modest overage. Site tenure was weaker. The lease rolled forward in short increments, first through August 2019 (15361) and then through May 2020 (15015), and that pattern is consistent with the site's eventual cancelled status.

Independent corroboration in this record is thin. There are no permits, interconnection filings or third-party site reports. Apart from the two verified deliveries, every claim rests on company statements.

The priority for the next 90 days is the Texas and Kentucky record. Supplying the full claim history for Rockdale and Corsicana would make it possible to test whether the Oklahoma pattern repeats: hardware commitments met, headline targets restated quietly, and site-level capacity bounded by power. For Corsicana in particular, ERCOT interconnection milestones and Navarro County filings would be the first independent check on any energization dates the company has announced.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-10-15

The record for Riot effectively covers one facility story, Oklahoma City, and it ends in March 2020. That matters, because the projects now carrying weight, Rockdale, Corsicana and the Kentucky site, all marked partially operational, have no capacity or timeline claims attached here, and Massena is cancelled with no claims at all. Earlier entries (21108, 20980) belong to the company's pre-mining biotech identity and say nothing about delivery. Any read of the current Texas build-out therefore has to wait on fresh data.

Within Oklahoma City, the headline unit count held. Riot reported 3,500 miners running as of March 2018 (15505) against a full-deployment target of 8,000 miners on 12 MW (15506, 15507), and by August 2018 it reported 8,000 installed (15456). The hash-rate promise did not hold the same way. The 110 PH/s expectation (15508, 15539) became a 95 PH/s maximum by December 2018 (15343, 15306) with the same 12 MW and the same 8,000 units, and nothing in the record acknowledges the reset. The later climb to an estimated 248 PH/s (14966) came from swapping in S17 Pro machines (14946, 14964), not from added power. The 12 MW envelope never grew.

Tenure was the weaker signal. The 107,000 sq ft lease (15504, 15454) was extended only through August 2019 (15361, 15304) and then through May 2020 (15015). Short rolling extensions on the only operating site sat awkwardly beside the expansion language. The site's eventual cancelled status is consistent with that fragility.

Independent support is thin. The only verified entries are two equipment-delivery timelines, 3,000 S17 Pros by December 11, 2019 (15047) and 1,000 by January 31, 2020 (15018), with 1,060 later reported delivered (15000). There are no permits, utility agreements or interconnection-queue entries in the record. Every capacity figure is company-stated.

Over the next 90 days, the priority is closing the gap between 2020 and now. That means ingesting Rockdale and Corsicana capacity and energization claims, tying them to ERCOT interconnection and large-load records, and checking whether any stated megawatt figures have been quietly revised the way Oklahoma's hash rate was. It also means establishing what partially operational means at the Kentucky site in megawatts actually energized.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-10-15

The visible record ends at claim 14950 in March 2020. It therefore speaks almost entirely to the Oklahoma City chapter, while Rockdale, Corsicana and Kentucky appear only as project stubs with no capacity or timeline claims attached. Any judgment on Riot's current Texas build-out has to wait for those entries. The pre-2016 animal-health and diagnostics items (21108, 21094, 20980) predate the pivot to bitcoin mining and have no bearing on facility delivery.

On capacity, the Oklahoma City story is one of quiet re-pricing more than outright shrinkage. The 2018 framing set full deployment at 8,000 miners, 12 MW and 110 PH/s (15506, 15507, 15508). The miner count was reported as reached by August 2018 (15456, 15342), and the power figure held at 12 MW (15305). The hash-rate target, however, fell to a 95 PH/s maximum by December 2018 (15343, 15306, 15284), and the record shows no stated explanation for the 14 percent reduction. It then more than doubled to an estimated 248 PH/s in March 2020 (14966). That figure rested on a fleet refresh with S17 Pro units (14964, 14946) rather than on any physical expansion of the site.

On timing, the equipment milestones are the strongest part of the record. The 3,000-unit S17 delivery due by December 11, 2019 (15047) and the 1,000-unit tranche due by January 31, 2020 (15018) are the only two claims marked verified. The later 1,060-unit delivery figure (15000) roughly reconciles with the 1,000-unit order (15017). The facility side is weaker. A 107,000 sq ft lease (15504, 15454) was extended only to August 2019 (15361, 15304) and then, via Kairos, to May 2020 (15015). Rolling short extensions are not a durable footprint, and the project's eventual cancelled status is consistent with that reading. Massena is also marked cancelled, with no claims in view.

Independent corroboration is thin. No permits, utility interconnection filings or site reporting appear in this record, so the announced pace rests on company statements plus two delivery verifications.

Over the next 90 days, the most useful work is to load the Rockdale, Corsicana and Kentucky claim histories. Those should be tested against ERCOT interconnection-queue entries, demand-response and curtailment disclosures, and Navarro County records for Corsicana. The specific question is whether energized megawatts are keeping pace with the stated capacity targets, and whether any target has been revised without acknowledgement, as the 2018 hash-rate figure was.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-10-10

The record supplied here is cut off at March 2020, so this read covers only the Oklahoma City era. Rockdale, Corsicana and the Kentucky facility, the projects that define Riot today, have no claims in the excerpt and cannot be assessed from it. The earliest entries (21108, 21094, 20980) date from the company's prior life in animal health and diagnostics and say nothing about datacenter delivery.

At Oklahoma City, physical scale held while the headline metric shifted. The mid-2018 framing of 8,000 miners on roughly 12 MW (15506, 15507) was met: 3,500 units were running at the end of March 2018 (15505), and 8,000 were reported installed by August (15456). The hash-rate figure is a different story. It was stated at 110 PH/s (15508, 15539) and reappeared that December as a 95 PH/s maximum (15343, 15306) with no explanation in the record. The S17 Pro refresh then lifted the stated maximum to 248 PH/s (14966, 14947) on the same site footprint. That jump is a fleet-efficiency story, not new facility capacity.

On timing, the only claims carrying verification are equipment deliveries. The 3,000 S17 Pros due by December 11, 2019 (15047) and the 1,000 due by January 31, 2020 (15018) were both confirmed. The 1,060-unit delivery (15000) and the Q1 2020 production target (14946) are consistent with those, though they remain company-stated. The site itself never had durable footing. The 107,000 square foot lease (15504) ran on short extensions, first through August 2019 (15361, 15304) and then through May 2020 (15015). The project's current cancelled status fits that pattern of a tenancy rather than a build. Massena also appears as cancelled with no capacity claims attached, which leaves no trail of what was promised there. Several adjacent ventures from the same period also fell away, including the Synapse agreement (15138) and the exchange partnerships (15376, 15367).

2026-10-09

The claims on record describe one facility in detail, Oklahoma City, and they stop in March 2020. Rockdale, Corsicana, Kentucky and Massena appear only as project entries with no capacity, cost or timeline claims, so this read covers the Oklahoma City phase and cannot yet judge the Texas build-out. The pre-2017 acquisition and licensing claims (21108 through 20979) come from the company's earlier biotech incarnation and say nothing about mining delivery.

On capacity, Oklahoma City scaled up and was then quietly trimmed. The June 2018 filings set a full-deployment target of 8,000 miners, 12 MW and 110 PH/s (15506, 15507, 15508, 15526, 15539), against 3,500 miners running at the end of March (15505, 15520). The miner count was reached by August (15456) and repeated through January 2019 (15342, 15302, 15283). The hash-rate figure did not hold. From December 2018 the company described 95 PH/s as a maximum (15343, 15306, 15284) and never acknowledged the 110 PH/s target it replaced. The likely cause is fleet mix rather than a missed build, but the disclosure did not explain it.

On timing, the dated hardware promises largely held. The S17 Pro orders (15046, 15017) promised deliveries by December 2019 and January 2020 (15047, 15018). By February 1,060 units were reported delivered (15000), and by late March 4,000 were in service (14979). The aggregate spend of $6.4 million (14951) does not reconcile cleanly with the $4.85 million first tranche (15046) plus a 1,000-unit follow-on, and should be checked against the purchase agreements. The site itself was never on firm footing. The lease ran on short extensions, first to August 2019 (15361, 15344, 15304, 15285) and then to May 2020 (15015). That fits the project's eventual cancellation. There is also a small inconsistency between operations described as starting in June 2018 (15303) and 3,500 miners reported running in March (15505).

No permits, interconnection queue filings or site reporting appear in this record, so the Oklahoma City pace is supported only by the company's own filings. For the next 90 days, the priority is to load and assess the Rockdale, Corsicana and Kentucky capacity and timeline claims. That means checking announced energization dates against ERCOT interconnection queue status and county permits, watching whether stated megawatt and exahash targets change between quarterly filings, and noting any revision that, as with the 2018 hash-rate change, arrives without explanation.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-10-09

The record supplied covers a narrow slice of Riot's facility history. It ends in March 2020, cut off mid-entry. It has no claims at all for Rockdale, Corsicana, Kentucky or Massena, which are the projects that now define the company's footprint. The 2004-2016 entries (21108, 20980) come from the pre-mining Bioptix and Venaxis era and do not bear on delivery. What remains is the Oklahoma City episode, which makes a useful baseline for how Riot has historically framed capacity.

On scale, Oklahoma City was pitched at 12 MW and 8,000 miners at full deployment (15526, 15506), with 3,500 installed as of March 2018 (15505). The 8,000-unit figure was reported as installed by August 2018 (15456) and repeated through January 2019 (15302, 15283), so the unit count held. The hash-rate figure did not. The 110 PH/s expectation (15508, 15539) became a 95 PH/s maximum by December 2018 (15343, 15306) with no stated reconciliation. That is a 14 percent downward revision presented as a restatement rather than a correction. By March 2020 the operating fleet was given as 7,400 units (14974) with 4,000 S17 Pros in service (14979). This reads as a fleet swap inside a fixed power envelope, not growth.

On dates, the clearest signal is the lease. The site never rested on durable tenure. It moved through short extensions to August 2019 (15361, 15304) and then to May 2020 (15015), and the project now sits as cancelled. The S17 delivery targets of 11 December 2019 (15047) and 31 January 2020 (15018) appear roughly met, given the 1,060 units reported in February 2020 (15000). Neither target, however, is independently verified in this record.

The record contains no independent corroboration, such as permits, utility or ERCOT interconnection filings, or site reporting, for any project. Every capacity claim is self-reported. For Rockdale and Corsicana, both now marked partially operational, the gap is material. Any assessment of their pace has to come from ERCOT large-load queue entries, county permit filings and reported energization dates, not from company statements.

There are three things to watch over the next 90 days. First, whether the claims pipeline catches up and ingests post-2020 filings for the Texas and Kentucky sites. Second, whether Corsicana's energized megawatts in quarterly reporting track the phase schedule previously announced. Third, whether any capacity target is quietly restated the way the Oklahoma hash rate was, especially as Riot reframes Texas power toward AI and HPC tenancy.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-10-09

The record supplied here is almost entirely the 2018-2020 Oklahoma City era, and the list cuts off mid-claim in March 2020. That matters more than any single figure. Rockdale, Corsicana and the Kentucky facility are the sites that now define Riot as a power-and-compute business, and all three are marked partially operational, yet none carries a capacity or timeline claim in this excerpt. Any read of current delivery has to start by noting that the evidence for those sites is not in front of us.

Within what is on file, the Oklahoma City buildout delivered its headline unit count quickly. The June 2018 disclosures described 3,500 miners running against an 8,000-unit, 12 MW, 110 PH/s target (15505, 15506, 15507, 15508). By August the full 8,000 were described as active (15456). The hash-rate ceiling, however, was quietly reset to 95 PH/s in December 2018 (15343) and repeated without reconciliation (15306, 15284). The 110 PH/s figure was never acknowledged as revised. Later, the operating fleet is given as 7,400 ASICs (14974), below the 8,000 previously claimed, while a 4,000-unit S17 Pro refresh is described as in service (14979). That reads as fleet replacement rather than expansion, inside the same 12 MW envelope.

Timelines were held mainly through short rolling lease extensions rather than durable commitments. The extension to August 2019 appears across four filings (15361, 15344, 15304, 15285), followed by a further extension to May 2020 (15015). There is also an internal inconsistency: miners are described as operating by March 2018 (15543), but equipment is later dated as operational since June 2018 (15303). The Kairos business combination was withdrawn (14949), and the site ultimately ended as cancelled. S17 Pro delivery dates (15047, 15018) were partially corroborated by a later delivery report (15000), and the counts are close but not identical. Claim 14945 records a cost of 6.4 USD, which is almost certainly an extraction error and should be fixed before publication.

No independent evidence appears anywhere in this record. There are no permits, no utility or ERCOT queue entries, and no site reporting, so every figure is self-reported.

Over the next 90 days, the priority is to complete ingestion of the post-2020 claims and check Rockdale and Corsicana megawatt figures against ERCOT large-load and interconnection filings. Riot's monthly production updates should then be compared with the energized capacity those filings support. Kentucky also needs a stated capacity before its partially operational status can be assessed at all.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-10-09

The record supplied here cuts off mid-entry in March 2020 (claim 14979), so this read covers only the Oklahoma City era. Rockdale, Corsicana, Kentucky and Massena appear on the project list but have no capacity or timeline claims in the excerpt. That gap matters because Rockdale and Corsicana are the facilities that now define Riot, and nothing below should be read as a verdict on them. The earliest entries (21108, 21094, 20980) are biotech-era acquisitions from the predecessor company and say nothing about data-center delivery.

On capacity, Oklahoma City is a case of ambition trimmed rather than abandoned. The mid-2018 framing promised 8,000 miners, 12 MW and 110 PH/s at full deployment (15506, 15507, 15508). The miner count was reported as reached by August 2018 (15456) and repeated through January 2019 (15302, 15283). The hash-rate ceiling, however, quietly became 95 PH/s from December 2018 onward (15343, 15306, 15284). No filing in this record reconciles the 110 figure with the lower one, so the reduction looks unacknowledged rather than explained. The later S17 Pro purchases (15046, 15017, 14945) signal fleet renewal inside the same 12 MW envelope, not physical expansion.

On timing, the pattern is short-horizon renewal rather than outright slippage. The facility lease was extended to August 2019 (15361, 15344, 15285) and then to May 2020 (15015). That is consistent with a tenant that never committed long-term. Miner deliveries were promised in tranches by December 2019 and January 2020 (15047, 15018). A 1,060-unit delivery was then reported in February (15000), and 4,000 units were said to be deployed in Q1 2020 (14946). Those figures roughly line up, but the dated promises remain unverified in the ledger. The withdrawn Kairos combination figure (14949) and the project's eventual cancelled status suggest Oklahoma City was a staging site whose exit was never framed as a missed target.

The record contains no independent corroboration of any kind: no permits, no utility or interconnection filings, no site reporting. Every claim rests on company disclosure.

Over the next 90 days, the priority is to complete the ingest so that post-2020 Rockdale and Corsicana claims can be tested. After that, ERCOT interconnection and large-load filings for Corsicana's later phases should be checked against the company's stated energization schedule, along with any disclosure that clarifies what partially operational means for Kentucky.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-10-09

The record supplied here is incomplete. It ends mid-entry at claim 15047 in December 2019, and the four sites that define Riot's current footprint (Rockdale, Corsicana, Kentucky and Massena) carry no capacity, cost or timeline claims at all. Any judgment on the present build-out therefore has to wait for those claims to be ingested. What the record does support is a clear read of the Oklahoma City episode.

Capacity in Oklahoma City held steady on hardware and power but shrank on output. Through 2018 and early 2019 the company consistently described an 8,000-miner, 12 MW deployment (15506, 15507, 15342, 15302, 15305). The miner count also reconciles across sourcing disclosures, whether described as 1,200 plus 6,800 (15502, 15503) or as 1,200 plus 3,800 plus 3,000 (15450, 15451, 15452). The hash-rate target is where the story moved. It stood at 110 PH/s in mid-2018 (15508, 15539) and was quietly restated as a 95 PH/s maximum from December 2018 onward (15343, 15306, 15284). None of the visible claims acknowledge or explain the roughly 14 percent reduction.

Timelines were short-horizon rather than slipped. The company reported 3,500 miners running at March 31, 2018 (15505), with that milestone flagged as delayed (15543). By August it described all 8,000 as active (15456), and it later dated operations to June 2018 (15303). The more telling signal is tenure. The 107,000 sq ft lease (15504, 15519) was extended only through August 2019 (15361, 15344, 15304, 15285), with renewal options mentioned but never exercised in the visible record (15366, 15286). That reads as a temporary hosting arrangement, not a durable facility commitment. The December 2019 Antminer S17 Pro purchase (15046) points to a fleet refresh whose destination the truncated record does not show.

The record contains no independent evidence for any site. There are no permits, no utility or ERCOT interconnection filings and no on-the-ground reporting, so every figure above rests on company statements alone.

Over the next 90 days, the priority is to complete ingestion of the post-2019 claims so that Rockdale and Corsicana capacity trajectories can be assessed against their own earlier promises. For the Texas sites, the next things to check are ERCOT large-load interconnection queue entries and Navarro and Milam County permitting records, which would independently confirm energization dates. Watch also for any unacknowledged downward restatement of deliverable compute relative to power capacity. Oklahoma City established that pattern, and it is worth testing whether it recurs.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-10-08

The record supplied here ends mid-claim on 2019-12-03 (claim 15047). Nothing in it bears on Rockdale, Corsicana, Massena or the Kentucky site, all of which sit on the project list with no stated capacity, cost or dated milestone. Any read of Riot's current build-out is therefore provisional. What the data does show is the Oklahoma City phase, which is the template for how the company has framed delivery. The pre-2017 entries (21108, 20980) belong to the Bioptix-era diagnostics business and say nothing about mining infrastructure.

On capacity, the Oklahoma City story held its headline unit count but quietly lowered its performance target. The mid-2018 filings set a full-deployment goal of 8,000 miners, 12 MW and 110 PH/s (15506, 15507, 15508). By August 2018 the 8,000-miner figure was reported as installed (15456). By December the hash-rate figure had become a 95 PH/s maximum (15343, 15306, 15284), and none of those claims reconciles the roughly 14 percent reduction. The supply of miners was also re-described without changing the total. A Kairos tranche of 1,200 plus 6,800 additional units (15502, 15503) later appears as Prive's 3,800 plus Blockchain Mining Supply's 3,000 (15451, 15452). That is consistent arithmetic but a shifting narrative.

On timing, the 3,500 miners targeted for 31 March 2018 were flagged as delayed (15543), although full deployment followed within months. More telling is tenure. The 107,000 sq ft lease (15504) was extended only through August 2019 (15361, 15344, 15304, 15285), and the company leaned on renewal options (15366, 15286) instead of a committed term. That is a short horizon for a facility being re-equipped with 3,000 S17 Pro units due in December 2019 (15047).

The record contains no permits, utility interconnection filings or on-the-ground reporting, so the announced pace rests entirely on company statements.

For the next 90 days, the priority is closing the data gap. That means pulling Riot's Q3 2026 filing and its Corsicana and Rockdale capacity disclosures into the claim set, then checking them against ERCOT large-load interconnection records and Navarro and Milam County permitting. Watch in particular for the Oklahoma City pattern repeating: stable headline megawatt or unit counts paired with downward revisions in energized or hash-rate figures that go unremarked.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-10-08

The record supplied for Riot is truncated at claim 15047 (December 2019), so this read covers only the Oklahoma City phase. It also includes pre-2018 biotech-era entries (21108, 21094, 20980) that carry over from the company's earlier identity and say nothing about facility delivery. The four other sites on file, Rockdale, Corsicana, Kentucky and Massena, have no capacity or timeline claims in this excerpt. Any judgment about them would need the full claim history.

On capacity, Oklahoma City's power envelope held steady at 12 MW across every filing (15526, 15507, 15538, 15305). Claim 15305's "monthly" unit for that figure is presumably a transcription error rather than a disclosure change. The fleet target of 8,000 miners (15506, 15551) also held. The hash-rate figure did not. It was put at 110 PH/s in mid-2018 (15508, 15539) and fell to a 95 PH/s maximum by December 2018 (15343, 15306, 15284), with nothing in the record explaining the cut. That is a roughly 14 percent downward revision on the same machine count and power budget. It suggests the original figure assumed better per-unit efficiency than the acquired fleet actually delivered.

On timing, the deployment step itself looks credible. Riot reported 3,500 miners operating at March 31, 2018 (15505), described the equipment as operational since June 2018 (15303), and reported the full 8,000 installed by August (15456). That sequence is internally consistent. The tenure picture is weaker. A 107,000 square foot lease was announced as executed (15519, 15542), but by December 2018 it ran only through August 2019 (15361, 15344, 15304, 15285), and renewal was left as an option (15366, 15286). A full-deployment narrative resting on an eight-month lease runway is fragile. The record does not show the lease actually being renewed.

On independent evidence, the claim set contains no permits, utility interconnection filings or site reporting. Every capacity figure is company-stated. The 12 MW figure in particular should be checked against the host utility's service records before it is treated as verified.

Over the next 90 days, the first priority is completing the ingest so that the Rockdale and Corsicana claim histories can be assessed on their own terms. The scale of those sites makes ERCOT large-load interconnection records and Navarro and Milam County permitting the obvious independent cross-checks. For any site, watch for a hash-rate or energized-capacity figure revised downward without a stated reason, which is the pattern Oklahoma City established. Also watch whether the 2019 Bitmain purchase (15046) is tied to a named site and an energization date.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-10-07

The record as supplied reaches only into late 2019 and covers only one site, Oklahoma City. Rockdale, Corsicana, Massena and the Kentucky facility are listed as announced projects but carry no capacity or timeline claims here, so this read covers the Oklahoma City phase only. The pre-2017 entries (21108 through 20979) belong to the Bioptix and Venaxis predecessor business and say nothing about mining infrastructure.

At Oklahoma City, the hardware count held steady while the output figure quietly shrank. The 8,000-miner, 12 MW full-deployment target (15506, 15507, 15526) was consistent from the start. It reconciles cleanly to the Kairos fleet plus the February 2018 purchase (15531, 15541), later itemized as 3,000 and 3,800 units (15452, 15451). The hash-rate expectation is a different story. It was 110 PH/s in mid-2018 (15508, 15539) and became a 95 PH/s maximum by December (15343, 15306, 15284). That is a cut of roughly 14 percent, and nothing in the record acknowledges it as a revision.

Timelines were partly met but thinly anchored. Only 3,500 miners were running at the March 2018 checkpoint (15505), and 15543 is flagged delayed. Full installation appears by August 2018 (15456), with operations dated from June (15303). The more telling signal is tenure. The 107,000 square foot lease (15504, 15519) was extended only through August 2019 (15361, 15344, 15304, 15285), and those extensions are repeatedly flagged delayed. That is a short-horizon footprint, not a durable build-out. The Logical Brokerage closing also slipped (15544). The last visible item is a 3,000-unit S17 Pro delivery promised by mid-December 2019 (15047), and the record cuts off before any outcome.

The record contains no independent corroboration. There are no permits, no utility or interconnection filings, and no site reporting, so every figure above is self-reported. The Texas, New York and Kentucky projects cannot be assessed until claims and third-party evidence are attached, particularly ERCOT interconnection entries for Rockdale and Corsicana.

Three things matter over the next 90 days. First, whether the claim history for Rockdale and Corsicana is backfilled, since those are the projects that now define Riot's delivery record. Second, whether Riot's next quarterly filing restates energized megawatts and hash rate in terms that can be reconciled against earlier targets. Third, whether any Corsicana phase dates move without explanation, which would repeat the unacknowledged 110-to-95 PH/s revision seen at Oklahoma City.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-10-03

The record supplied here is truncated after claim 15047 (December 2019), so this read covers only Riot's early Oklahoma City phase. Rockdale, Corsicana, Massena and the Kentucky facility appear on the project list but have no capacity or timeline claims in the visible data, and every project still carries status=announced with blank capacity and cost fields. The pre-2017 claims (21108, 21094, 20980 and others) belong to the company's biotech and diagnostics predecessor and say nothing about datacenter delivery. The visible facility claims are also heavily duplicated. Roughly two dozen entries dated 2018-06-28 restate the same 8,000-miner, 12 MW, 107,000-square-foot figures (15506, 15507, 15537, 15504, 15533, 15542), which makes the record look denser than the underlying disclosures are.

On capacity, the Oklahoma City buildout reached its stated miner count. The 3,500 miners reported as of March 31, 2018 (15505), flagged as delayed in 15543, became the full 8,000-unit deployment by August 2018 (15456), and that count was then repeated unchanged through January 2019 (15342, 15302, 15283). Output quietly fell short of the plan, though. The expected hash rate of 110 PH/s (15508, 15539) was restated as a maximum of 95 PH/s from December 2018 onward (15343, 15306, 15284). None of the visible claims acknowledges or explains this roughly 14 percent reduction.

On timing, the site's tenure was short-dated from the start. The lease was extended only through August 2019 (15361, 15344, 15304, 15285), with renewal options mentioned but never quantified (15366, 15286). By late 2019 the company was pointing to a 3,000-unit Antminer S17 Pro delivery due by December 11, 2019 (15047), which suggests the site continued past the stated expiry without a disclosed new lease term. The equipment-operational date of June 2018 (15303) is broadly consistent with the March-to-August ramp.

The record contains no independent corroboration of any of this, whether permits, utility interconnection filings or on-the-ground reporting. All claims are company-stated, so the delivery pace rests entirely on self-disclosure.

Over the next 90 days, the priority is to backfill the truncated claims so the Texas, New York and Kentucky sites can be assessed at all. After that, watch whether Corsicana and Rockdale acquire stated capacity and dated milestones, and whether those can be matched against ERCOT interconnection queue entries and county permit records. The Oklahoma pattern of meeting unit counts while trimming output targets is the specific habit to test against newer megawatt claims.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-10-03

The record that reaches us is dominated by Oklahoma City, and the trajectory there is modest. The earliest entries (21108, 21094, 20980) describe the predecessor company's diagnostics and animal-health deals, not mining infrastructure. Treating them as part of a facility history would overstate how long this footprint has existed. The mining story begins in mid-2018 with a 107,000 square foot leased building (15504, 15519) and a stated full-deployment envelope of 8,000 miners, 12 MW and 110 PH/s (15506, 15507, 15508).

Capacity scaled up to the stated miner count but not to the stated performance. By August 2018 the company reported all 8,000 units installed (15456), and later filings repeat that figure (15302, 15283). The hash-rate ceiling, however, quietly moved from 110 PH/s (15539) to a 95 PH/s maximum (15343, 15306, 15284). None of the claims explain the gap. That is a downward revision of roughly 14 percent presented as a fresh baseline rather than a correction.

Timing held loosely at best. The 3,500-miner milestone for March 31, 2018 is tagged delayed (15543), although the same count is also reported as achieved by that date (15505, 15520), so the record is internally inconsistent. Equipment is described as operational from June 2018 (15303). The site's tenure was short-dated: the lease was extended only through August 2019 (15361, 15304, 15285), with renewal options mentioned but not exercised in the visible record (15366, 15286). The December 2019 delivery of 3,000 Antminer S17 Pro units (15047) is the last legible entry, and the record is truncated there.

2026-09-26

The supplied record stops mid-entry at claim 15000 in January 2020. It covers only the Oklahoma City phase, so this read cannot assess Rockdale, Corsicana, Massena or Kentucky. Those projects appear as announced, with no capacity, cost or dated claims attached.

Within Oklahoma City, headline capacity scaled quickly and then stalled. In mid-2018 Riot reported 3,500 miners installed as of March 31 (15505, 15543) against a full-deployment target of 8,000 miners, 12 MW and 110 PH/s (15506, 15507, 15508, 15539). By August the company said all 8,000 were active (15456), which is a credible fit with the stacked miner purchases from Kairos, Prive and Blockchain Mining Supply (15450, 15451, 15452). The hash-rate target, however, was restated as a 95 PH/s maximum from December 2018 onward (15343, 15306, 15284). That is a roughly 14 percent reduction, and the record shows no reconciliation to the earlier 110 PH/s figure. The miner count then held flat at 8,000 through 2019 (15302, 15283, 15269), so the fleet stopped growing even as the output figure quietly came down. Riot added capacity again only in late 2019, with Bitmain S17 Pro orders of 3,000 units due by December 11, 2019 (15046, 15047) and 1,000 more due by January 31, 2020 (15017, 15018). The follow-on deployment claim (15016) carries no quantity, so there is no way to confirm those units were energized.

2026-09-21

The Oklahoma City record is best read as a single fixed envelope restated many times rather than a capacity that grew. The 107,000 square feet, 8,000 miners and 12 MW recur nearly verbatim across June and August 2018 and again in January 2019 (15504, 15506, 15507, 15537, 15542, 15283, 15305), with more than thirty of those restatements carrying the same 2018-06-28 date. Repetition of an unchanged number across filings is not progress, and the one figure that did move, moved down: the hashing target of 110 PH/s (15508, 15539) became 95 PH/s by December 2018 and stayed there (15343, 15284, 15306). That is roughly a fourteen percent reduction introduced as a new baseline rather than as a revision. Note also how 8,000 migrates from a full-deployment aspiration in June (15506) to installed active miners in August (15456), six weeks after the 3,500-unit March 31 milestone was already flagged late (15543, 15505).

Dates have not held. The clearest signal is the lease itself, extended to August 2019 and then to May 2020 (15361, 15344, 15304, 15285, 15015), each extension short-tenor and each marked delayed. Equipment timing followed the same pattern: 3,000 S17 Pros due 2019-12-11 and 1,000 more due 2020-01-31 both slipped (15047, 15018). The Synapse arrangement promised for January 2019 slipped and then terminated outright (15376, 15138).

Independent corroboration is absent rather than contradictory. Nothing in this record is a permit, an interconnection queue entry, or third-party observation; it is entirely self-reported. A 12 MW leased colocation footprint sits below the thresholds that usually generate queue paperwork, so silence there is expected, but it leaves the announced pace unverifiable. The four other named sites, Kentucky, Massena, Rockdale and Corsicana, carry no capacity, cost, or dated milestone at all, so the project list runs well ahead of the substantiated record, which itself stops in early 2020.

Over the next ninety days, watch whether the May 2020 expiry converts to a multi-year commitment or another rolling extension, whether the late S17 orders surface as measured hash rate rather than purchase confirmations, whether 95 PH/s is ever reported as achieved, and whether any announced site acquires a date, a megawatt figure, or a permit.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-09-21

The usable record is narrower than its volume implies. Roughly forty of these entries share a single date, 2018-06-28, and restate the same handful of facts — the Kairos miners, the 6,800-unit purchase, the Logical Brokerage consideration, the Coinsquare and Tess stakes — under distinct ids (15502, 15531, 15540 are one event; 15509, 15521, 15534, 15544 another). Volume of claims should not be read as volume of activity. Strip the duplication and there is one facility of substance on record, Oklahoma City, and a short list of equipment orders.

On capacity, the physical envelope never moved: 107,000 square feet, 12 MW, 8,000 miners, restated identically from June 2018 through January 2019 (15504, 15507, 15537, 15305). What quietly shrank was the output figure. The original 110 PH/s target (15508, 15539) becomes 95 PH/s by December 2018 and stays there (15343, 15306, 15284), a roughly fourteen percent reduction presented as a fresh statement rather than a revision. No claim acknowledges the earlier number. The deployment ramp itself was slower than promised but did land: 3,500 of 8,000 installed at the March 2018 checkpoint (15543, flagged delayed), full 8,000 active by August (15456).

The timeline pattern worth noting is tenure, not construction. The lease is extended to August 2019 and re-announced four times (15361, 15344, 15304, 15285), then extended again only to May 2020 (15015). Serial short extensions describe a tenant hedging, not an operator scaling. The equipment claims show the same friction: the 3,000 S17 Pros due 2019-12-11 (15047) and the 1,000 due 2020-01-31 (15018) are both marked delayed. The adjacent exchange effort sets a useful base rate — Synapse was announced for a January 2019 launch (15376) and terminated by September (15138).

Independent corroboration is absent throughout. Nothing here cites a permit, an interconnection filing, or site reporting; a 12 MW leased shell would not generate much of either. That is tolerable for this era and untenable for the next, because Kentucky, Massena, Rockdale and Corsicana sit in the project list as announced with no capacity and no cost attached.

Over the next ninety days, watch whether those four acquire a megawatt figure and a counterparty, whether any hash-rate target is restated downward without reference to its predecessor, whether commitments shift from leased to owned, and whether a single ERCOT queue position or county permit ever appears to check a self-reported number.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-09-21

The striking feature of this record is that only one site ever carried numbers. Kentucky, Massena, Rockdale and Corsicana sit in the project list as announced with no capacity and no cost attached, while every quantified claim resolves to the leased Oklahoma City space. Read as a delivery trajectory, this is not a portfolio scaling up; it is one 107,000 square foot lease described repeatedly, with claims 15504, 15519, 15533, 15542 and 15454 restating the same executed lease across four filings. Anyone counting announcements rather than sites will badly overstate the build.

Capacity did not scale so much as quietly settle. The 2018 framing paired 8,000 miners and 12 MW with a 110 PH/s target (15539, 15508, 15506, 15538). By December 2018 the same 8,000 machines were described as producing a maximum 95 PH/s (15343), repeated in 15306 and 15284. The miner count and power draw held; the hash rate fell roughly fourteen percent with no stated reason. That is the clearest instance here of a number revised without acknowledgement, and it is the kind of revision worth trusting less than the machines it describes.

Dates behaved poorly in both directions. The 3,500 installed against an 8,000 target as of March 2018 (15543, 15505) shows the initial ramp arriving late; by August 2018 the full 8,000 were claimed active (15456). Hardware deliveries then slipped again, with the 3,000 unit S17 Pro delivery (15047) and the 1,000 unit follow-on (15018) both flagged past their dates. The lease itself is the more telling signal: successive short extensions through August 2019 (15361, 15344, 15304, 15285) and then May 2020 (15015) are not how an operator treats infrastructure it intends to keep. The exchange ambition decayed on the same schedule, from the Synapse agreement (15376) to its termination (15138).

Nothing in this record is corroborated by permits, interconnection queue positions or site reporting; for a leased hosting facility that absence is expected, but it means the four unquantified projects rest on announcement alone. Over the next ninety days, watch whether capacity figures ever attach to Rockdale or Corsicana, whether the Oklahoma lease is renewed or exited, and whether purchased machines are reported as installed hash rate rather than as orders. Note also that this dataset appears to end in early 2020, so the trajectory described here is the 2018 to 2020 arc only.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-09-20

The record here is narrower than the project list implies. Four of the five named sites — Kentucky, Massena, Rockdale, Corsicana — carry no capacity, cost, or timeline claim at all, so there is no delivery trajectory to grade for them; every dated assertion in this file attaches to the Oklahoma City site, and the file stops in early 2020. Any read is therefore a read of one 107,000 square foot leased facility (15504, 15519, 15533), not of the company's current buildout.

On that site, the headline envelope never grew. The 12 MW and 8,000-miner ceiling set on 2018-06-28 (15526, 15506, 15537) is the same ceiling restated in January 2019 (15305, 15302). What did move was the derived number: an expected 110 PH/s (15508, 15539) became a maximum 95 PH/s by December 2018 (15343) and stayed there (15284, 15306). That is a roughly fourteen percent reduction in the only figure that tracks actual production, executed against an unchanged miner count and with no accompanying acknowledgement in the claim trail. It is the single most informative item in the set.

Dates were mixed rather than uniformly bad. The 3,500-miner March 2018 milestone slipped (15543), but full deployment to 8,000 was reported by August 2018 (15456) — roughly on the original envelope. The 2019 Bitmain S17 tranches slipped again, both the 3,000-unit December delivery (15047) and the 1,000-unit January follow-on (15018). More telling than either is the lease cadence: an extension only through August 2019 (15361, 15344, 15285), then one only through May 2020 (15015). A shortening leasehold on a site described as fully deployed is not the posture of an operator expanding there.

No permits, interconnection queue entries, or third-party site reporting appear anywhere in this record; every claim is self-reported. At 12 MW the site would sit below the thresholds that generate visible large-load study activity, so that absence is uninformative rather than contradictory — but it also means nothing here has been independently corroborated.

For the next ninety days, the useful questions are whether the 110-to-95 revision was ever reconciled, whether the May 2020 lease was renewed or the site wound down, and whether the four unpopulated sites produce any dated capacity claim capable of being tested against ERCOT queue positions and county permitting.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-09-20

The Oklahoma City record is the only entry here with numbers attached, and it describes a footprint that stopped growing almost as soon as it was first described. The 8,000-miner, 12 MW envelope stated in June 2018 (15506, 15507) is the same envelope restated in December 2018 (15342), January 2019 (15302, 15305) and January 2020 (15016). Eighteen months of disclosure, no incremental capacity. What did move, quietly, is output: the 110 PH/s target carried through mid-2018 (15508, 15539) becomes 95 PH/s by that December (15343) and stays there (15306, 15284). That is roughly a fourteen percent haircut against an unchanged machine count and unchanged power draw, and no claim in the file acknowledges the revision or explains it. A reader tracking only the headline miner number would not notice.

Dates have slipped consistently rather than dramatically. The 3,500 machines due by March 2018 landed late (15543), the Logical Brokerage close slid past its March 2018 target (15544), the RiotX exchange promised for January 2019 (15376) was never delivered and the underlying Synapse agreement was terminated that September (15138), and both S17 Pro tranches missed their stated delivery windows (15047, 15018). Note also that the June 2018 cluster restates the same three acquisitions four times over; that is a filing artifact, but it gives the period an appearance of momentum the capacity figures do not support.

On corroboration, the file contains no permits, no interconnection queue entries and no independent site reporting. At 12 MW behind a landlord's meter in leased space, a queue entry would not be expected, so the absence is not itself damning, but it does mean every capacity assertion here rests on the company's own filings. The lease posture reinforces the point: the same 107,000 square feet restated repeatedly (15504, 15519, 15533, 15542, 15454), extended to August 2019 (15361, 15344, 15304, 15285), then only to May 2020 (15015). Short rolling extensions of third-party space are a tenancy, not a buildout.

For the next ninety days: whether the May 2020 lease renews or the site is vacated; whether installed converts to hashing; and whether Kentucky, Massena, Rockdale and Corsicana, all currently announced with no capacity or cost on record, produce hard megawatt figures and any utility-side confirmation.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-18

The supplied record breaks off at claim 15000, so this read covers only Riot's Oklahoma City phase from mid-2018 to early 2020. None of the claims shown attach to Rockdale, Corsicana, Massena or the Kentucky facility, and those sites, which likely make up most of Riot's current footprint, cannot be assessed from this excerpt. The Oklahoma City project itself is still listed as "announced" even though the record shows it operating, which looks like a status field that was never updated.

Within that window, capacity was flat, and the only revision ran downward. The 12 MW power envelope and 8,000-miner fleet stayed constant from the first filing (15507, 15506) through January 2019 (15305, 15302), and the 107,000-square-foot lease never changed (15533, 15454). The one quiet revision is hash rate. The 110 PH/s target (15508, 15539) became a 95 PH/s "maximum" by December 2018 (15343, 15306, 15284), with no reconciliation between the two figures. Deployment itself largely held. The count moved from 3,500 installed miners at the end of March 2018 (15505) to 8,000 active by August (15456), with operations dated from June 2018 (15303). The acquired units also reconcile: Prive's 3,800 and Blockchain Mining Supply's 3,000 (15451, 15452) sum to the "6,800 additional miners" cited earlier (15518).

Timing risk sat in tenure rather than build-out. The site ran on short lease extensions, first through August 2019 (15361, 15304) and then a Kairos lease through May 2020 (15015). That is a thin footing for the fleet refresh that followed: $4.85 million of S17 Pro machines (15046), with 3,000 units due by December 11, 2019 (15047) and another 1,000 by January 31, 2020 (15018). The record contains no permits, utility filings or on-site reporting, so none of this is independently corroborated. At 12 MW in a leased building, no interconnection queue entry would be expected in any case. Much of the claim volume is duplication, with a single June 2018 filing restating the same figures three or four times, so the raw claim count overstates how much was actually disclosed.

For the next 90 days, the priority is closing the gap in the record. The post-2020 claims for Rockdale and Corsicana should be pulled and checked for the same pattern seen here, where headline throughput figures are revised without acknowledgement. Corsicana's stated energization dates should be compared against ERCOT interconnection and large-load filings. Oklahoma City's status should be updated to reflect whether the lease lapsed after May 2020 or was renewed.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-09-15

The capacity record here is almost entirely about one leased site in Oklahoma City, and it has been steady rather than growing. The 2018 filings set full deployment at 8,000 miners drawing 12 MW (15506, 15507, 15537, 15526). By August 2018 Riot reported all 8,000 units installed (15456), up from 3,500 at the end of March (15505, 15543). The fleet count then stayed flat through early 2019 (15302, 15283, 15269). The one quiet revision is hash rate. The 110 PH/s target (15508, 15539) became a 95 PH/s maximum by December 2018 (15343, 15306, 15284), and the filings do not explain the drop. The composition of the fleet was also restated. The original 1,200 Kairos units plus 6,800 additional miners (15517, 15518) were later attributed to Prive and Blockchain Mining Supply purchases of 3,800 and 3,000 units (15451, 15452). The total still reconciles, but the sourcing story changed. The late-2019 Bitmain S17 Pro orders (15046, 15017) were a refresh of the fleet, not an expansion. Deliveries broadly held: 1,060 units were confirmed in February 2020 (15000) against a January 31 target (15018). The timeline weakness is tenure, not equipment. Each filing extended the Oklahoma City lease by only a few months, first through August 2019 (15361, 15304, 15285) and then through May 2020 (15015). A miner operator whose only site runs on short rolling extensions has fragile delivery risk, whatever the installed count. Meanwhile much of the partnership activity in this period went to exchange ventures rather than hosting capacity: Coinsquare (15424), RiotX, Shift Markets (15367), and the Synapse agreement, which was later terminated (15138). The record contains no independent corroboration of any kind, including permits, utility interconnection filings, or site reporting. Every figure is self-reported. The larger problem is that this ledger ends in March 2020, while the three projects on record, Rockdale, Corsicana, and Kentucky, have no capacity, cost, or timeline claims attached at all. So no trajectory can be assessed for the assets that now define Riot. Over the next 90 days, the priority is to backfill claims from 2021 onward for those three sites. That means the stated megawatt targets, energization dates, and any revisions to them. Each should be checked against ERCOT interconnection queue entries and Navarro and Milam county filings for Corsicana and Rockdale. Until that exists, any read of Riot's current build pace would be inference rather than evidence.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-09-14

The capacity record on file tells a story of a company growing through machines rather than megawatts, and it stops well short of the projects now listed against Riot. From December 2018 through March 2020 the Oklahoma City site is described at a fixed 12 MW (15305, 14972, 14948). Output there rose from a 95 PH/s ceiling on roughly 8,000 legacy units (15343, 15306) to 248 PH/s on 4,000 S17 Pros (14973, 14946). That tripling came from fleet turnover on constant power: older machines went offline with their future use described only as under evaluation (14929). The later S19 Pro commitments of 8,000 and then 5,100 units (14846, 14840) point to more of the same, and they coincided with a move to Coinmint's Massena site (14938, 14909), not with any Riot-controlled expansion. The 9,500 kWh figure in 14940 is probably a mis-extracted kW rating and should not be read as a capacity number.

On timing, equipment dates mostly held. The 1,000 S17 Pros due by January 31, 2020 (15018) were effectively matched by the 1,060 units reported delivered on February 13 (15000). The S19 Pros due by July 25 (14917) were received on July 20 (14903). The site itself was different. The Oklahoma lease was extended to August 2019 (15361), again to May 2020 (15015), and then to June 30, 2020 (14937), and the Coinmint term ran only to October 8, 2020 (14939). These were not slips, but the rolling short-term tenancy was never framed as a risk to the announced hash-rate path.

Every claim here is tagged stated. The record contains no permits, no utility or interconnection queue entries, and no site reporting to test the pace. The dollar figures in 14945 and 14926 (6.4 and 6.3 USD) are unit errors and need correcting before anyone cites them.

The largest gap is that Rockdale, Corsicana, and Kentucky appear as announced projects with no capacity, cost, or timeline claims in this record, which ends in October 2020 (14822). Any view of how those sites are being delivered is therefore not supported by this record. Over the next 90 days, watch for three things. First, whether new filings put megawatt figures and energization dates on the Texas sites. Second, whether those figures can be matched to ERCOT large-load interconnection records and Navarro County permitting for Corsicana. Third, whether Kentucky gets any dated milestone at all. Until then, the company's pattern of meeting machine delivery dates while its sites stayed temporary is the only baseline the record supports.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-09-14

2026-09-13

Riot's infrastructure roadmap shows material inconsistencies between announced capacity milestones and realized deployment. Corsicana, announced with land holdings in June 2024 (6013), was initially positioned for 600 MW remaining capacity by January 2025 (5161). Year-end projections cited 1000 MW total with first-phase 400 MW completion promised by December 31, 2024 (3935, 3936). As of April 2026, Riot reports 400 MW developed against a 1000 MW target (3604, 3605), meaning the primary phase completion slipped at minimum 16 months. Concurrent claims create further ambiguity: April filings reference both 756 MW campus capacity (9628) and 1000 MW power generation (9632) for the same facility, an unreconciled 244 MW spread that suggests either inflated nameplate figures or undefined phases.

Rockdale's trajectory compressed the timeline aggressively. A 125 MW acquisition announced April 2025 (5020) ballooned to 700 MW developed capacity within nine months (3934), accelerating dramatically after the Rhodium settlement (1859) and AMD lease commencement (3902, 11721). The AMD partnership introduced staged rollout commitments: 20 MW by May 2026 (9622, now missed as of September), Phase 3 at 10 MW by November 2026 (9623), and Phase 4 at 15 MW by May 2027 (9624). These smaller tranches, totaling 45 MW beyond the initial 25 MW lease (3902), suggest the full 700 MW capacity remains contingent infrastructure rather than deployed hardware.

Kentucky exhibits the most volatile projections. Block Mining acquisition targets shifted from 160 MW completion by end-2025 (3938, 3939, both delayed) to 137 MW developed by March 2026 (3594) to 232 MW expansion target by December 2026 (3620), then inexplicably to 300 MW by April 2026 (9631)—a 68 MW variance across three months. This pattern suggests either running updates to underlying deal structures or capacity forecasting that incorporates contingent expansion plans without flagging their probability.

Independent verification lags: permit records for Corsicana's core-and-shell build (commenced per claim 9627) and Rockdale's AMD buildout remain sparse in public records. The MicroBT miner delivery schedule of 49.2 EH/s (3622, promised June 30, 2026, marked delayed) is critical to validate; no deployment announcements have surfaced since April.

Monitor through December: Kentucky's 232 MW expansion completion claims, AMD Phase 3 delivery (November), actual Corsicana cabinet fills reported independently, and MicroBT shipment visibility. Lack of granular monthly capacity updates suggests material deployment challenges are being absorbed into broader facilities portfolio reporting rather than flagged transparently.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-09-13

Riot's announced capacity portfolio has expanded from undefined baseline to a stated 2.0 GW target across three facilities, though the delivery trajectory shows persistent slippage between promised and realized milestones. Corsicana exemplifies the gap. The company promised 400 MW of first-phase capacity by December 31, 2024, yet as of April 2026 remained at 400 MW developed with ongoing construction on 168 MW of core and shell space. The company did not publicly revise or acknowledge the miss on that original deadline. Later claims cite both 756 MW campus capacity and 1000 MW power generation for the same facility, signaling either scope redefinition or divergent capacity measures. Rockdale entered later but grew methodically from a 125 MW Rhodium asset purchase to 700 MW total claims, anchored by an AMD data center partnership that commenced operations with an initial 25 MW commitment and a 20 MW Phase 2 delivery promised by May 31, 2026—now marked delayed. Kentucky scaled from 137 MW to a 232 MW expansion target due December 31, 2026, contingent on Block Mining integration that itself missed a July 2024 acquisition deadline. Equipment sourcing has become the binding constraint. MicroBT purchase orders for 49.2 exahash per second of miners were promised for June 30, 2026 delivery; that milestone is now delayed. The underlying master supply agreement was originally promised for June 2023, indicating multi-year hardware pipeline friction. No public permits, interconnection queue positions, or on-the-ground construction reporting were cited to independently validate the development pace. The company's stated capacity targets have not formally shrunk, but deployed capacity lags stated timelines by 12 to 18 months across all three sites. Over the next 90 days, watch for AMD Phase 3 delivery against its November 30 target and Kentucky's progression toward the December 31 expansion deadline. Corsicana Phase II velocity will signal whether the facility can plausibly reach 600 to 1000 MW by 2027. Further delays without explicit timeline revision would indicate structural power or equipment sourcing constraints rather than execution timing alone.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-09-11

2026-09-06

Riot's capacity announcements have widened into a credibility gap between claimed development and deployed infrastructure. Corsicana exemplifies this pattern: the facility was positioned with 600 MW of remaining capacity for AI/HPC buildout (claim 5161, January 2025), yet by March 2026, only 400 MW had been developed (claim 3604), with total capacity still targeting 1000 MW (claims 3605, 3613). The Phase I completion at 400 MW, promised for end of 2024 (claim 3936), was not reported as delivered until March 2026—a nine-month silent slip with no revision announcement. Rockdale presents a similar discrepancy: claims from December 2025 and March 2026 stated 700 MW of developed capacity (claims 3934, 3603, 3591), but subsequent disclosures in August 2026 reveal only 241 MW contracted to specific tenants—191 MW to Anthropic and 50 MW to AMD (claims 507, 508). This suggests either that 459 MW of claimed capacity remains unallocated or that the "developed" figure conflates planned with operational. The Anthropic lease staggered deliveries span from end of 2027 through mid-2028 (claims 1190, 2923, 1191), pushing material growth beyond the immediate horizon. Kentucky remains the laggard: 137 MW currently deployed (claim 3594), with an expansion target of 232 MW by end of 2026 (claims 3607, 3614). Block Mining's promised 160 MW by end of 2025 (claims 3938, 3939) is already nine months overdue with no public revision. MicroBT miner deliveries, promised for June 2026 (claims 3601, 3622), have passed without status updates. The pattern suggests Riot has announced ambitious targets—particularly at Corsicana targeting 1000 MW and Rockdale at 700 MW—but actual buildout tracks significantly behind. Watch the next 90 days for any Kentucky expansion progress toward 232 MW, revised MicroBT delivery timelines, and clarification on how much of Rockdale's claimed 700 MW remains available after the large Anthropic and AMD allocations.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-05

Riot's datacenter trajectory reveals a company aggressively pursuing scale while struggling with execution discipline. Three facilities—Corsicana, Rockdale, and Kentucky—anchor its strategy, but announced capacity has consistently outpaced deployed reality.

Corsicana epitomizes the timing slippage. In December 2025, Riot promised 400 MW Phase I completion by end of 2024 (claim 3936), a deadline it missed by roughly fourteen months. As of March 2026, the facility showed 400 MW developed capacity (claims 3592, 3604, 3605), but remained silent on when the remaining 600 MW—promised for eventual 1.0 GW buildout (claim 3613)—will commence. The facility was first cited for land holdings in June 2024 (claim 6013), yet nearly two years later, no Phase II timeline existed in the public record.

Rockdale presents a subtler gap between marketed and actual capacity. Riot consistently claimed 700 MW developed capacity starting December 2025 (claim 3934). By August 2026, the true picture emerged: only 25 MW for AMD was operational, a second 25 MW AMD tranche was under construction (claims 405, 406), and 191 MW from Anthropic arrived in two tranches ending June 2028 (claims 1190, 1191, 507). Total contracted capacity was 241 MW (claim 508), leaving 459 MW unaccounted for. The 700 MW figure reflected available grid capacity, not deployed infrastructure.

Kentucky's acquisition timeline crumbled entirely. Block Mining acquisition, promised for July 2024 (claim 3941), went unannounced until December 2025 and remained incomplete. The facility's capacity target shifted from 160 MW by end of 2025 (claims 3938, 3939) to 232 MW by end of 2026 (claim 3620), suggesting post-acquisition scope creep and delayed integration.

MicroBT miner deliveries, foundational to capacity scaling, were promised by June 2026 (claim 3622), with no completion announcement by August 2026. The August 2026 Anthropic partnership (claim 507)—a 20-year, 191 MW lease—signals Riot's pivot toward long-term, anchor-tenant leasing rather than pure mining, validating Rockdale but offering no relief on Corsicana's stalled Phase II or Kentucky's delays. Watch for: Corsicana Phase II announcement, Kentucky capacity delivery proof by year-end, and actual MicroBT deployment metrics within 90 days.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-09-05

Riot's portfolio presents a widening gap between announced capacity and contracted revenue streams. The company claimed 700 MW developed capacity at Rockdale (claims 3934, 3612, 3603, 3591 from March 2026), yet only 240 MW is contractually committed as of August 2026—50 MW for AMD (claim 887) and 191 MW under a 20-year Anthropic lease (claim 507). The unaccounted 460 MW remains unexplained: either the announced figure was speculative, capacity is held dark, or buildout has stalled against power or permitting constraints. No independent interconnection queue or permitting documents have been cited to support the 700 MW claim.

Corsicana similarly shows revision without transparency. Riot promised 400 MW completion by year-end 2024 (claim 3936); this deadline passed unacknowledged. By March 2026, the company reported 400 MW operational (claims 3604, 3592) and a 1000 MW total target (claims 3619, 3605, 3613), implying 600 MW in future phases. No timeline has been disclosed for Phase II, creating ambiguity about whether the 1000 MW is achievable or aspirational.

Kentucky's Block Mining facility reveals the most worrying pattern. The acquisition itself missed its mid-2024 deadline (claim 3941). Riot then announced 160 MW of capacity targeted for end-2025 (claims 3938, 3939)—a deadline that has now passed. Rather than acknowledge the miss, the company elevated the target to 232 MW by December 2026 (claims 3595, 3607, 3614, 3620), a 45 percent expansion of an already-failed commitment. This cycle of escalation-then-revision erodes confidence in delivery discipline.

The August 2026 announcements of Anthropic and AMD expansion are meaningful for future revenue but occur against a backdrop of uncontracted capacity gaps. Anthropic delivery begins at 2027-12-31 (claims 1190, 2923); the company is marketing future buildout before demonstrating current utilization rates.

Over the next quarter, observe whether Kentucky hits its December 2026 deadline or revises again. Track whether Corsicana discloses a Phase II timeline or lets the 600 MW gap remain vague. Monitor AMD's second 25 MW expansion (claim 406) for completion signals. These three data points will indicate whether Riot has corrected its planning discipline or whether the pattern of announcement-without-delivery persists.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-09-05

Riot's multi-site buildout—Kentucky, Corsicana, and Rockdale—maintains headline capacity targets near 2 gigawatts but has experienced persistent timeline slippage. Corsicana's first 400-megawatt phase, promised by end-2024 (claim 3936), appears to have reached that milestone by early 2026, representing roughly eight months of delay, while Kentucky's 160-megawatt target for end-2024 (claim 3938) remains unmet as of September 2026 with no revised completion date disclosed. The Block Mining acquisition (claim 3941), originally due July 2024 and foundational to Kentucky expansion, has carried through contingent pricing phases into 2026 (claim 3942). Against this backdrop of delayed organic growth, Riot executed a strategic recalibration beginning mid-2026, pivoting from captive Bitcoin mining to AI datacenter services. The company landed a 191-megawatt, 20-year Anthropic lease (claim 507) and completed initial 25-megawatt AMD delivery at Rockdale (claim 405), with second-phase AMD capacity under construction (claim 406). This transition suggests Riot is repositioning as power-and-land provider rather than pursuing monolithic hashrate expansion.

The capacity picture has shifted but not shrunk. Announced totals remain stable (Corsicana 1000 MW, Rockdale 700 MW, Kentucky targeting 232 MW by end-2026), but the mix has changed: Anthropic now claims 96 megawatts first-phase by end-2027 (claim 1190) and 95 megawatts second-phase by mid-2028 (claim 1191), pushing significant delivery further into the future. MicroBT hardware deliveries, promised June 2026 (claim 3601), lack completion status as of August 2026 filings. The Bitfarms shareholding saga—which consumed six months from June through September 2024, culminating in a 20-percent stake (claim 5703) and settlement (claim 5704)—generated no capacity accretion or meaningful synergy disclosure.

Independent verification remains constrained. No permits, interconnection queue positions, or grid-connection timelines appear in the record. The term "developed capacity" is undefined across claims; actual revenue-ready power availability remains unclear.

Watch Kentucky's end-2026 232-megawatt target (claim 3620) and Block Mining closing milestones. Monitor Corsicana Phase 2 initiation. Most critically, track AMD second-phase (claim 8251) and Anthropic first-phase (claim 1190) actual construction pacing—these define whether Riot can meet committed customer deadlines and restore credibility after internal timeline misses.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-09-05

Riot has articulated an ambitious three-facility footprint—Corsicana targeting 1000 MW, Rockdale at 700 MW available capacity, and Kentucky expanding to 232 MW—but execution has proven uneven. Corsicana Phase I was promised at 400 MW by end-2024 (claims 3936, 3604) and marked delayed by December 2025, a substantial slip with no revised target date offered. The full 1000 MW capacity target (claims 3935, 3605, 3619) circulates without delivery commitments; Riot reaffirmed this ceiling repeatedly through March 2026 (claim 3593) but remains silent on phase-two timelines. Kentucky acquired Block Mining to reach 160 MW, but the acquisition itself was delayed past its July 2024 closure date (claim 3941). Current Kentucky capacity sits at 137 MW (claims 3594, 3606), with a 232 MW expansion promised by year-end 2026 (claims 3595, 3620)—this still requires 95 MW net growth in twelve months. Rockdale presents the clearest momentum. Riot claimed 700 MW available capacity by late 2025 (claim 3934), but independent customer deals anchor credibility: AMD's 50 MW contracted (claim 887) with 25 MW delivered (claim 405) and another 25 MW under construction (claim 406) as of August 2026, and Anthropic's 20-year 191 MW lease (claim 507) with staged deliveries through 2028 (claims 1190, 1191, 2923). Total contracted capacity now stands at 241 MW (claim 508). The pattern suggests Riot conflates available power capacity with operational hash-rate infrastructure; the gaps between announced ceiling and contracted commitments remain wide. Over the next 90 days, monitor Corsicana's movement toward Phase I completion and Kentucky's progress toward 232 MW by December. Watch whether Anthropic's first 96 MW delivery (promised 2027-12-31, claim 1190) begins construction and whether Riot acknowledges revised timelines for full facility buildout or clarifies the gap between available and deployed MW.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-05

Riot's announced capacity has grown substantially but remains concentrated in facilities at different stages of deployment. Kentucky stands at 137 MW developed capacity (claim 3594) with a 232 MW expansion target by year-end (claims 3595, 3620), while Corsicana has completed 400 MW of a 1000 MW total plan (claims 3604, 3605), and Rockdale reportedly has 700 MW available capacity (claim 3612). The company's timeline credibility has been tested repeatedly. The Block Mining acquisition, promised by July 2024 (claim 3941), was not completed until reported in December 2025. Corsicana's Phase I 400 MW was due by December 2024 (claim 3936) but remained under construction through 2026. Most significantly, MicroBT miner deliveries promised for June 2026 (claims 3601, 3622) are now marked delayed, despite $779.5 million in purchase orders (claim 3945) signed for substantial hashrate commitments (49.2 EH/s). The Kentucky 160 MW Block Mining capacity target was promised by December 2025 (claims 3938, 3939) and has slipped into 2026. Recent activity suggests some acceleration: AMD's initial 25 MW at Rockdale was delivered as of August 2026 (claim 405), with a second 25 MW tranche under construction (claim 406). The August 2026 Anthropic partnership—a 191 MW lease and $9 billion compute agreement (claims 507, 420)—represents the most concrete capacity commitment to date, with 96 MW promised by December 2027 (claim 1190). Watch for: MicroBT shipment materializations (three months overdue); Kentucky expansion progress toward the 232 MW target (four months remaining); Corsicana acceleration beyond Phase I (currently at 40% of 1000 MW plan); and Anthropic deployment pace at Rockdale (baseline for near-term utilization). The Anthropic timeline, while distant, offers a reality check on Riot's construction and integration capacity.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-09-05

Riot's facility portfolio exhibits growing separation between announced and operationalized capacity. Corsicana's first-phase 400-megawatt target, promised for December 2024 (claim 3936), arrived by spring 2026—a five-month slip. The facility reached that milestone intact (claim 3604, March 2026), yet Riot has not articulated a completion timeline for the remaining 600 megawatts of its stated 1000-megawatt target (claims 3935, 3605). No new capacity has been added in the nine months from December 2025 through today.

Rockdale displays the sharpest credibility erosion. March 2026 filings (claims 3603, 3612) declared 700 megawatts developed capacity. August 2026 updates (claims 405, 406) disclosed only 25 megawatts operational for AMD with 25 under construction. This reduction-to-one-seventh suggests the 700-megawatt figure represented permitted or contractually committed capacity, not actual buildout. Riot's August announcements introduced two customer anchors: a 50-megawatt AMD expansion (claim 887) and a 191-megawatt Anthropic 20-year lease (claim 507), totaling 241 megawatts under contract (claim 508). Anthropic's first tranche—96 megawatts—is promised for December 2027; the second 95-megawatt tranche targets June 2028 (claim 1191).

Kentucky's Block Mining facility originally targeted 160 megawatts by December 2025 (claim 3939). It reached 137 megawatts by March 2026 (claim 3606)—a 23-megawatt miss. Riot then reset to 232 megawatts by December 2026 (claim 3620), requiring 95 megawatts of new deployment in nine months.

MicroBT miner supply underpins all three sites. Delivery timelines promised for June 2026 (claims 3940, 3622) are now two months overdue. A master supply agreement originally dated June 2023 remained unfulfilled as of December 2025 (claim 3944).

Track MicroBT shipment receipts and deployment cadence over 90 days; Kentucky's monthly progress toward 232 megawatts; Corsicana's phase-two commitment; and actual megawatt increments at Rockdale from its current 25-megawatt operational base. Permit and interconnection queue visibility for Anthropic sites will calibrate execution risk.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

2026-09-05

Riot's announcement trajectory reveals persistent capacity scaling within three principal facilities, but delivery timelines have suffered systematic delay across mining hardware and power infrastructure. Corsicana has remained the centerpiece: the company announced 1 GW total capacity (claims 3935, 3605, 3613, 3619) while disclosing 600 MW remaining for data center development beyond the initial 400 MW phase (claims 3936, 5161). That first phase, promised by end-2024 (claim 3936), has now reached 400 MW as of March 2026—a full year slip—with no public timeline for remaining buildout (claims 3604, 3592). Rockdale's stated capacity climbed from 125 MW acquisition (claim 5020) to a claimed 700 MW by late 2025 (claims 3934, 3591, 3612, 3603). Actual contracted and deployed capacity, however, reveals a narrower footprint: 25 MW for AMD completed, 25 MW under construction, and 191 MW for Anthropic under a 20-year lease announced August 2026 (claims 405, 406, 507)—totaling 241 MW of visible obligation (claim 508). The 459 MW gap between claimed and contracted suggests speculative capacity. Kentucky Facility has tracked 137 MW developed with a 232 MW expansion target by end-2026 (claims 3594, 3595, 3620), contingent on Block Mining acquisition originally promised July 2024 (claim 3941)—now substantially overdue. The promised 160 MW Block Mining phase for end-2025 (claim 3939) has slipped without revision. MicroBT hardware deliveries, critical to hash rate, have slipped three months past June 2026 targets (claims 3940, 3601, 3622). Bitfarms investment stabilized at 19.9% ownership (claim 5801), with an associated partnership term originally set for June 2026 now delayed (claim 5701). The August 2026 Anthropic lease (20-year, $9B, 191 MW phased through 2028, claims 507, 420, 1190, 1191) represents Riot's first hyperscaler compute commitment but requires 96 MW delivery by December 2027—16 months away. Watch: (1) whether Anthropic's first tranche meets 2027-12-31, (2) Block Mining Kentucky materialization, and (3) Corsicana Phase II initiation.

SUPERSEDED

Delivery vs. promise

Q. What was actually delivered, and what was only announced?
A. The record shows announcements, not results. Every claim has status 'stated', meaning it was pulled from filings automatically and nobody has checked whether it happened. The company said SurBred 15 did not need FDA regulation (claim 21100) and signed the Merial distribution deal (claim 21094), but the record contains no sales figures. StayBred needed FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claim 21101), and no approval appears in the record. The company said it was pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore (claim 21050), and no clearance appears in the record either. Leadership changes and share-plan increases are documented, but no claim shows a product reaching commercial success.

Q. What do the share and governance actions suggest?
A. The company repeatedly increased its equity capacity: authorized common shares rose by 60,000,000 in 2005 and again in 2013 (claims 21089, 21040), and it added shares to its stock incentive plan many times: 3,500,000 (claim 21088), 1,500,000 (claim 20723), 700,000 (claims 20722, 20714, 20710), 425,000 (claim 21041) and 1,800,000 (claim 21011). In 2010 shareholders authorized a reverse split anywhere from 1-for-2 to 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011 (claims 20715, 20721). Leadership turned over frequently. Four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim 21051), and the CEO and chair roles changed hands in 2005 and 2010 (claims 21082, 20711, 20712). Taken together, this pattern often signals a cash-hungry, pre-revenue company.

Q. Where are the biggest open questions?
A. (1) Whether AppyScore ever won FDA clearance (claim 21050) and whether StayBred was ever approved (claim 21101). (2) How much revenue SurBred 15 and the Merial deal actually produced (claim 21094). (3) Whether the 2010 reverse split was carried out, and at what ratio (claims 20715, 20721 are marked not_yet_verifiable). (4) Who licensed the animal-health intellectual property (claim 21049). (5) Everything after 2016, which is missing from this record. That includes the Venaxis rename itself, which is implied by claim 20981 but has no claim of its own.

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. First, get filings from after 2016 into the dossier so it can describe the company as it exists today. Second, check the claims that have deadlines (the auditor engagements in claims 20713 and 21012, the reverse split in claim 20715, and the stock-plan term extension to July 8, 2021 in claim 20709) against actual outcomes. Third, look for any regulatory or revenue evidence for SurBred 15, StayBred or AppyScore that would turn announcements into confirmed deliveries.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-10-15

Q. What does this company do, according to this dossier?
A. The claims on record describe a small life-sciences company, not its current business. In 2004 it acquired an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics (claims 21108, 21081). It marketed more than 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (21102). It also developed bovine reproductive products: the SurBred 15 early pregnancy test (21096) and StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone (21097). By 2012 its focus had moved to human diagnostics, specifically AppyScore, a blood test for appendicitis (21047). The ticker RIOT is now associated with a bitcoin-mining business. That business is not covered by any claim shown here, so this dossier cannot be used to describe what the company does today.

Q. Why does the company have so many names?
A. The record shows repeated rebranding. It was renamed AspenBio Pharma, Inc. in 2005 (21090), with a holding-company restructuring at the same time (21091). In 2016 it changed its name from Venaxis to Bioptix (20981). The record we have stops there, partway through. Later name changes are not documented in these claims. Readers should not assume continuity of business or strategy across these names.

Q. What is the company's current disclosed strategy?
A. None can be determined from this record. The latest strategic claims are from 2012: pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore (21050) and exclusively licensing out the animal-health intellectual property (21049). Both are more than a decade old. Any current strategy would need claims filed after 2016, and none appear in this dossier.

Q. Who are the named customers?
A. No customers are named. The only named commercial counterparty is Merial, which held exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (21094). Merial was a distribution partner, not a disclosed end customer. The company also had license arrangements with three universities that are not named (21095). Its 30-plus product lines went to 'diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities' (21102), with no buyers identified and no revenue figures attached.

Q. What was actually delivered, and what was only announced?
A. Corporate actions are recorded as stated: the Vitro antigen acquisition, the name changes, and leadership changes. Leadership changes include Richard Donnelly as CEO in 2005 (21082) and Stephen Lundy as CEO in 2010 (20711). Product outcomes are not confirmed anywhere. StayBred required FDA approval or an ANDA filing (21101). AppyScore was only 'pursuing' FDA clearance (21050). No claim records approval, launch, or sales for either. Several forward-dated items remain not_yet_verifiable. These include the authorized reverse split at ratios from 1-for-2 to 1-for-6 by 2011-02-04 (20715, 20721) and the auditor engagements for 2011 and 2014 (20713, 20720, 21012).

Q. How much has the share base been expanded?
A. The record shows repeated expansions of equity. Authorized common shares were increased by 60,000,000 in 2005 (21089) and by another 60,000,000 in 2013 (21040). The stock incentive plan grew several times: 3,500,000 shares in 2005 (21088), 1,500,000 in 2009 (20723), 700,000 in each of 2010 and 2011 (20722/20714, 20710), 425,000 in 2013 (21041), and 1,800,000 in 2014 (21011). A common stock offering was also initiated in 2012 (21048). These figures point to ongoing dilution. They also mean that per-share comparisons across eras need care.

Q. Were there governance warning signs?
A. There were notable governance events. Four directors resigned on a single day, September 26, 2012 (21051). In 2010 the board was restructured: the Executive Chairman stepped down (20717), Gail Schoettler became non-executive Chair (20716), and the Vice Chairman and Lead Director roles were eliminated (20718, 20719). An exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst was announced in 2004 (21099), and his employment was terminated in 2005 (21087). None of these events is wrongdoing in itself, but each merits follow-up.

Q. What should readers watch for, and where are the biggest open questions?
A. The biggest gap is the period after 2016. This dossier does not document the transition to the current RIOT business, so the current strategy, customers, and operating metrics are all unknown here. Within the record, the open questions are these. Did AppyScore or StayBred ever obtain FDA clearance or generate revenue (21050, 21101)? Was the authorized reverse split ever carried out (20715)? What came of the Merial distribution deal (21094) and the animal-health license (21049)? The next priority should be adding filings from 2016 onward and resolving the not_yet_verifiable claims.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-10-15

Q. What does this company do, according to the record?
A. The disclosed record describes a small animal-health and diagnostics company, not the business most people now associate with the RIOT ticker. In 2004 it acquired an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics and sold more than 30 products to diagnostic test makers and research labs (claims 21108, 21102). It then developed cattle reproduction products: SurBred 15, an early bovine pregnancy blood test, and StayBred, a hormone to help maintain cattle pregnancies (claims 21096, 21097). By 2012 it had moved toward human diagnostics with AppyScore, a blood test for appendicitis (claim 21047).

Q. Why does the company have several different names?
A. The record shows a series of rebrandings. In 2005 the company adopted the name AspenBio Pharma, Inc. as part of a holding-company restructuring (claims 21090, 21091). It later operated as Venaxis, and in 2016 it changed its name from Venaxis to Bioptix (claim 20981). The record supplied here stops at that point. It does not document the later change to Riot or any move into bitcoin mining, which is the business commonly associated with the RIOT ticker today. Readers should not assume the current strategy from this dossier alone.

Q. What is the company's current strategy?
A. This record cannot answer that. The latest entry is the 2016 Venaxis-to-Bioptix name change (claim 20981), and the list appears to be cut off after it. The strategies it does document are historical. In the mid-2000s the focus was cattle reproduction products, with an exclusive license of the animal-health intellectual property in 2012 (claim 21049). From 2012 the focus was getting FDA clearance for AppyScore (claim 21050). Any claim about today's strategy needs filings dated after 2016.

Q. Who are its named customers and partners?
A. The record names no individual customers. The 2004 claim refers only to unnamed 'diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities' (claim 21102). The named counterparties are partners rather than customers. Merial held exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, and the company had license arrangements with three universities that the record does not name (claims 21094, 21095). The 2012 animal-health license is also recorded without naming the licensee (claim 21049).

Q. What was actually delivered, and what was only announced?
A. Verifiable delivery is thin. The 'stated' claims are mostly corporate events: board and executive appointments, auditor ratifications, name changes, and increases to the stock incentive plan. Examples are the 3,500,000-unit increase in 2005 (claim 21088), 1,500,000 shares in 2009 (claim 20723), and 1,800,000 shares in 2014 (claim 21011). The product items are announcements without recorded outcomes. StayBred needed FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claim 21101), and AppyScore was described as pursuing FDA clearance (claim 21050). Neither shows an approval or any sales figures. Several dated commitments are marked 'not yet verifiable'. These include the reverse stock split of up to 1-for-6 authorized before Feb 4, 2011 (claims 20715, 20721) and auditor engagements for 2011 and 2014 (claims 20713, 20720, 21012).

Q. How stable has the leadership been?
A. Leadership has changed often. The CFO appointment of Jeffrey McGonegal appears in both 2004 and 2005 filings (claims 21106, 21084). Richard Donnelly became CEO in 2005 (claim 21082), and Roger Hurst's employment ended that year (claim 21087). In 2010 Stephen Lundy became CEO, Daryl Faulkner stepped down as Executive Chairman, and Gail Schoettler became non-executive Chair (claims 20711, 20712). Four directors resigned together on Sept 26, 2012 (claim 21051).

Q. Where are the biggest open questions?
A. (1) Did StayBred or AppyScore ever get FDA approval or clearance and produce revenue? The record never says. (2) Was the authorized 2010 reverse split ever carried out, and at what ratio (claims 20715, 20721)? (3) What did the Merial and university relationships produce commercially? (4) Why did four directors resign at once in 2012 (claim 21051)? (5) What happened after the 2016 Bioptix rename? The record ends there, so the transition to the company now trading as RIOT is not documented in this dossier at all.

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. The first step is to fill the gap after 2016. That means filings covering the next name change, any new line of business, and current operating metrics, so that today's company can be judged on its own disclosures. Within the existing record, the items worth checking against SEC filings are: the not-yet-verifiable commitments (the reverse split and the 2011 and 2014 auditor engagements), any FDA decisions on AppyScore, and how far equity was diluted through repeated increases in authorized shares and incentive-plan shares. Two of those increases were 60,000,000 authorized shares, recorded in 2005 (claim 21089) and 2013 (claim 21040).

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-10-15

Q. What does this company do, according to the record?
A. The disclosed record describes an animal-health and human diagnostics biotech, not the company most readers know as RIOT today. In 2004 it acquired an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics (claims 21108, 21081). It said it sold over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim 21102) and was developing cattle reproduction products: the SurBred 15 early bovine pregnancy test (claim 21096) and StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone (claim 21097). By 2012 its focus had moved to AppyScore, a blood test for appendicitis (claim 21047). Animal-health IP was licensed out at around the same time (claim 21049).

Q. Why are there so many different company names?
A. The record shows a series of rebrands. The company became AspenBio Pharma in 2005 (claim 21090), with a holding-company restructuring (claim 21091), and changed its name from Venaxis to Bioptix in 2016 (claim 20981). The record provided ends there. It contains no claims about the later rename or about the business behind the current RIOT ticker. Readers should not take any of this history as describing what the company does today.

Q. What is the company's current disclosed strategy?
A. The record does not say. The latest claim available is the 2016 Venaxis-to-Bioptix name change (claim 20981), and the dossier excerpt is cut off at that point. Any statement about current strategy would come from outside this record and should be checked against recent filings.

Q. Who are its named customers?
A. No end customers are named. The one named commercial counterparty is Merial, which held exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim 21094). Merial was a distribution partner, not a disclosed buyer. The '30+ products' business refers only to unnamed 'diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities' (claim 21102). The company also disclosed licenses with three universities, which are not named in the record (claim 21095).

Q. What was actually delivered versus only announced?
A. Every claim in this record has status 'stated', 'not_yet_verifiable', or neither. None is marked as independently verified as delivered. Corporate actions such as appointments, name changes, and share-plan increases were reported as done. Product outcomes were not. StayBred needed FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claim 21101), and the company was 'pursuing' FDA clearance for AppyScore (claim 21050), but no approval or clearance is recorded for either. The reverse stock split, authorized at up to 1-for-6 by Feb 4, 2011 (claims 20715, 20721), is 'not_yet_verifiable'. So are the FY2011 and FY2014 auditor items (claims 20713, 20720, 21012).

Q. How much has the share count been expanded for insiders and financing?
A. The record shows repeated equity expansions. Stock-incentive-plan reserves went up by 3,500,000 (claim 21088), 1,500,000 (claim 20723), 700,000 (claims 20710, 20714, 20722, which may be the same increase reported more than once), 425,000 (claim 21041), and 1,800,000 (claim 21011). Authorized shares were raised by 60,000,000 in both 2005 (claim 21089) and 2013 (claim 21040). There was also a 2012 common stock offering (claim 21048). Dilution is a recurring pattern in this history.

Q. How stable has leadership been?
A. Not very. CEOs changed from Richard Donnelly (claim 21082) to Stephen Lundy (claim 20711). The 2010 board restructuring removed the Executive Chairman, Vice Chairman and Lead Director roles (claims 20712, 20717, 20718, 20719). Four directors resigned on the same day in September 2012 (claim 21051). Founder-era scientist Roger Hurst's employment ended in 2005 (claim 21087).

Q. What should a reader watch for, and where are the biggest open questions?
A. First, the record has a gap. Nothing after 2016 is captured, so the current business, customers and financials have to be sourced elsewhere. Second, none of the regulatory milestones (StayBred FDA approval, AppyScore clearance) have a recorded outcome. Third, several dated promises remain unconfirmed: the 2011 reverse split, the auditor appointments, and Stephen Williams's 2013 board seat (claim 21038). Finally, all claims came from automated extraction and have not been verified by people, so specific figures should be checked against the original filings.

SUPERSEDED

2026-10-09

Q. What does this company do, according to the record?
A. The record describes a veterinary and human diagnostics company, not the business most readers now associate with the RIOT ticker. In 2004 it said it marketed over 30 antigen and related products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim 21102). It also had cattle reproduction products: SurBred 15, an early bovine pregnancy blood test (claim 21096), and StayBred, a recombinant hormone for maintaining cattle pregnancy (claim 21097). It later renamed itself AspenBio Pharma, Inc. (claim 21090). By 2012 its lead product was AppyScore™, a blood test for appendicitis (claim 21047). The last entry, from October 2016, is the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics (claim 20980).

Q. Why doesn't this match what I know about Riot today?
A. The claims on record stop in October 2016 (claims 20980–20981). They contain nothing about the company's later strategy under the Riot name. Treat this dossier as the company's pre-2017 diagnostics history only. It does not describe current operations, and no current strategy can be read from it.

Q. Who are its named customers?
A. No end customers are named. The 2004 disclosure describes its buyers only generically, as 'diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities' (claim 21102). The only named commercial counterparty is Merial, which held exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim 21094). Merial was a distribution partner, not a disclosed customer. The record also mentions license arrangements with three universities, which are not named (claim 21095).

Q. What was actually delivered versus only announced?
A. No claim in the record has been verified as delivered. Every claim is either 'stated', meaning the company said it, or 'not_yet_verifiable'. The record mostly documents corporate housekeeping: board and officer changes, such as the CEO appointments in claims 21082 and 20711, and stock-plan share increases, such as 3,500,000 units in claim 21088 and 1,800,000 shares in claim 21011. Product milestones are only announced: - StayBred needed FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claim 21101). - AppyScore™ was described as 'pursuing FDA regulatory clearance' (claim 21050). Neither has a recorded outcome.

Q. Were there signs of financial or governance stress?
A. Yes, several. - The board authorized a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011 (claims 20715, 20721). Its execution is unverified. - Four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim 21051). - Authorized common shares were raised by 60,000,000 in both 2005 (claim 21089) and 2013 (claim 21040). - Equity incentive pools were expanded repeatedly. Together these point to ongoing dilution and board turnover. Reverse splits and repeated share increases are often associated with a low share price and dependence on equity financing.

Q. What should a reader watch for or check next?
A. First, get the post-2016 filings, because this record does not cover the company's transformation after the BiOptix deal (claim 20980). Within the existing record, there are four items to check: - Whether the 2011 reverse split actually happened (claims 20715, 20721). - Whether AppyScore™ ever received FDA clearance (claim 21050). - Whether StayBred obtained approval (claim 21101). - What became of the Merial distribution deal (claim 21094).

Q. What are the biggest open questions?
A. 1. Did any announced product generate meaningful revenue? The record has no revenue figures. 2. Why did four directors resign at once in 2012 (claim 21051)? 3. What did the BiOptix acquisition cost, and why was it made (claim 20980)? 4. How did a diagnostics company become the business now trading as RIOT? That transition is entirely outside this record. Several claims also carry questionable deadline dates. For example, claim 20711 lists a CEO appointment 'promised by' 2010-03-24, before the October 2010 filing that disclosed it. These dates come from automated extraction and should be checked against the source filings.

SUPERSEDED

2026-10-02

Q. What does this company do, according to the record?
A. The claims describe a small animal-health and human-diagnostics company, not a bitcoin miner. In 2004 it sold more than 30 antigen products to diagnostic test makers and research facilities (claim 21102). It was developing cattle reproduction products: SurBred 15, an early bovine pregnancy blood test (claim 21096), and StayBred, a recombinant hormone to help maintain cattle pregnancy (claim 21097). By 2012 its focus had moved to AppyScore, a blood test for appendicitis (claim 21047). The company changed its name several times: AspenBio Pharma in 2005 (claim 21090), then Venaxis, then Bioptix in 2016 (claim 20981).

Q. Why doesn't this match what people know as Riot today?
A. The dossier ends with a truncated 2017 financing entry (claim 20904). Nothing in the record covers the company's later shift to bitcoin mining under the Riot name. Readers should not use this dossier to judge the current business. That part of the history has not been extracted yet, so the current strategy, operations, and capacity claims are simply missing.

Q. Who are the named customers and partners?
A. The record names no paying customers. It refers to a broad, unnamed group of diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities (claim 21102). The one named commercial partner is Merial, which held exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim 21094). The record also mentions license deals with three universities, which are not named (claim 21095), and an exclusive license of animal-health intellectual property in 2012 (claim 21049). There are no revenue figures tied to any of these.

Q. What was actually delivered, and what was only announced?
A. Corporate actions in the record are documented as done. These include the antigen business acquisition from Vitro Diagnostics (claims 21108, 21081), the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition (claims 20980, 20979), name changes, share authorizations (for example, 60,000,000 authorized shares in claims 21089 and 21040), and stock-plan increases (for example, 1,800,000 shares in claim 21011). Product outcomes are not documented. SurBred 15 was said not to need FDA regulation (claim 21100). StayBred needed FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claim 21101). For AppyScore, FDA clearance was being pursued (claim 21050). The record contains no approval, launch, or sales figures for any of these products.

Q. What do the 'delayed' statuses mean?
A. Read them with caution. They come from an automated pass dated 2026-09-28. Many of them apply to routine items with past deadlines, such as auditor ratifications for fiscal 2011, 2014, and 2016 (claims 20720, 20713, 21012, 20982) and a reverse-split authorization due by 2011-02-04 (claims 20721, 20715). Some deadlines are impossible: claim 20711 gives a 'promised by' date of 2010-03-24 for a CEO appointment disclosed on 2010-10-21. These statuses most likely mean the outcome was never checked, not that the company missed a commitment.

Q. What does the leadership and governance history show?
A. Leadership turned over often. Richard G. Donnelly became CEO in 2005 (claim 21082). Stephen T. Lundy became CEO by 2010 (claim 20711). In 2010 the Executive Chairman stepped down, and Gail Schoettler became non-executive Chair (claims 20717, 20716). Four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim 21051). The board also authorized a reverse split of up to 1-for-6 (claim 20721). Repeated stock-plan expansions and share authorizations point to a company that funded itself mainly by issuing equity (claims 21048, 20723, 20722).

Q. What should a reader watch for next, and what are the biggest open questions?
A. First, the dossier needs claims from 2017 onward. That is when the company's identity changed, and none of it is captured here. Second, someone should check whether AppyScore ever received FDA clearance and whether SurBred 15 or StayBred ever produced revenue. Third, the 'delayed' items need to be resolved as either completed or never done. Fourth, the record should show what happened to the BiOptix acquisition after 2016. Until these gaps are filled, the record can explain the company's biotech history but not its current business.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-10-01

Q. What does this company do, according to the record shown here?
A. The claims in this dossier describe Riot's predecessor companies, not its present business. From 2004 the company was a small animal-health and diagnostics firm. It sold antigens, marketing over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim 21102). It also developed cattle-reproduction products: SurBred 15, a bovine pregnancy test (claim 21096), and StayBred, a hormone for maintaining cattle pregnancy (claim 21097). It later became AspenBio Pharma (claim 21090) and focused on AppyScore, a blood test for appendicitis (claim 21047). In 2016 it renamed itself from Venaxis to Bioptix (claim 20981). Riot's later shift to bitcoin mining is widely reported, but none of the claims supplied here cover it.

Q. What is the company's current disclosed strategy?
A. This dossier cannot tell you. The claims supplied end in 2017, and the last entry (claim 20905) is cut off. The most recent strategic moves on record are the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition and the name change to Bioptix in October 2016 (claims 20980, 20979, 20981). For the current strategy, read Riot's own filings from 2017 onward, which are not reflected here.

Q. Who are the named customers?
A. No end customers are named. The record describes buyers only in general terms: 'diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities' (claim 21102). The named counterparties are partners, not customers. Merial held exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim 21094). Vitro Diagnostics sold the company its antigen business (claims 21108, 21081). Three universities had license arrangements with the company but are not named (claim 21095).

Q. What was actually delivered, and what was only announced?
A. Delivered, in the sense of being recorded as done: the antigen business acquisition (claims 21108, 21081), the BiOptix acquisition (claims 20980, 20979), several name changes, a holding-company restructuring (claim 21091), and repeated expansions of the share count. Only announced, with no follow-through on record: StayBred needed FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claim 21101), and AppyScore was 'pursuing' FDA clearance (claim 21050). No claim here records either product winning approval or reaching commercial sales. A reverse split of up to 1-for-6, due by February 4, 2011, is marked delayed (claims 20721, 20715).

Q. How much has the share base been expanded?
A. Repeatedly. Authorized shares were increased to 60,000,000 in 2005 (claim 21089), and a 60,000,000-share increase was approved in 2013 (claim 21040). The stock incentive plan was enlarged several times: by 3,500,000 (claim 21088), 1,500,000 (claim 20723), 700,000 (claims 20722, 20714, 20710), 425,000 (claim 21041), and 1,800,000 shares (claim 21011). Some of the 700,000-share entries may describe the same amendment, recorded once in each filing.

Q. Should I read the 'delayed' statuses as broken promises?
A. Not without checking the source filings. Several 'delayed' tags look like artifacts of automated extraction. Claim 20711, for example, has a promised-by date of 2010-03-24, which is earlier than the filing it came from. Routine auditor ratifications are also marked delayed (claims 20720, 20713, 20982, 21012). The one delayed item that matters most is the reverse-split authorization (claims 20721, 20715), and even there the record does not show whether a split happened.

Q. How stable has the leadership been?
A. Not very. The CEO changed from Richard Donnelly (claim 21082) to Stephen Lundy (claim 20711). In 2010 the Executive Chairman stepped down and the board was restructured (claims 20717, 20712). Four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim 21051). Founder-era scientist Roger Hurst left in 2005 (claim 21087). Taken together with the name changes from AspenBio to Venaxis to Bioptix, the record shows a company that changed direction several times.

Q. What are the biggest open questions, and what should I watch next?
A. 1) The dossier says nothing about the pivot from diagnostics to Riot's present business. That gap is the main thing to fill. 2) What happened to AppyScore and StayBred? There is no record of FDA clearance or of the products being dropped. 3) Was the reverse split carried out? 4) What did the BiOptix acquisition become? 5) The final claim (20905, 2017) is truncated. Next, pull the 2017-and-later filings: the post-2016 renaming, financings, and any new customer or partner disclosures.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-10-01

Q. What does this company do, according to the record?
A. The claims on file describe a small animal-health and diagnostics company, not the business most people now associate with the RIOT ticker. In 2004 it sold antigens and bovine reproduction products: SurBred 15, an early pregnancy test for cattle (claim 21096), and StayBred, a hormone to help cattle maintain pregnancy (claim 21097). It said it marketed over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim 21102). By 2012 its focus had moved to AppyScore, a blood test for appendicitis in humans (claim 21047). In 2016 it acquired BiOptix Diagnostics (claims 20979, 20980). None of the claims on record describe a cryptocurrency or bitcoin-mining business.

Q. Why does the company have so many names?
A. The record shows repeated rebranding. In 2005 it restructured into a holding company and changed its name to AspenBio Pharma, Inc. (claims 21090, 21091). By 2016 it was called Venaxis, and it renamed itself Bioptix after the BiOptix acquisition (claim 20981). Each name change lines up with a shift in strategy. Readers should treat the name history as a signal of how often the company has repositioned itself.

Q. What is the company's current disclosed strategy?
A. The dossier cannot answer this. The claim list is cut off at a 2017-04-27 financing entry (claim 20905), and the latest strategic items it contains are the 2016 BiOptix acquisition and the rename to Bioptix (claims 20979–20981). Anything about the company's strategy after early 2017 is missing from this record and should be sourced separately before publication or diligence.

Q. Who are the company's named customers?
A. None are named. The only named commercial counterparty is Merial, which held exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim 21094). Merial is a distributor, not a disclosed end customer. Other relationships are described generically: 'diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities' (claim 21102), license arrangements with three unnamed universities (claim 21095), and an unnamed exclusive animal-health IP licensee in 2012 (claim 21049).

Q. What was actually delivered, as opposed to announced?
A. Most items on record are corporate actions that were stated rather than independently verified. These include board and officer appointments, stock-plan share increases (for example 1,800,000 shares in 2014, claim 21011), authorized-share increases (60,000,000, claims 21089 and 21040), and two acquisitions (claims 21108, 20979). On the product side, the record shows AppyScore was 'pursuing FDA regulatory clearance' (claim 21050), and StayBred required FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claim 21101). No claim on record confirms that either product received FDA clearance. A reverse split of up to 1-for-6 was authorized for completion by 2011-02-04 (claims 20715, 20721). The record does not confirm that it was carried out.

Q. Some claims are marked 'delayed'. Does that mean the company missed deadlines?
A. Not necessarily. Every 'delayed' status was assigned in a single automated pass on 2026-09-28, and several look like extraction artifacts. One example is a CEO appointment carrying a 'promised by' date of 2010-03-24 (claim 20711) that comes before the filing reporting it. Another is routine auditor ratifications flagged as delayed (claims 20713, 20720, 20982, 21012). These labels should be reviewed by hand before anyone cites them as missed commitments.

Q. What governance events stand out?
A. There was frequent leadership turnover. The company had CEOs in 2005 (Richard G. Donnelly, claim 21082) and 2010 (Stephen T. Lundy, claim 20711). It reorganized its board in 2010, eliminating the Executive Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Lead Director roles (claims 20712, 20717–20719). In 2012, four directors resigned on the same day, September 26 (claim 21051). The record does not explain why the directors resigned. That is worth investigating.

Q. What should a reader watch for next, and what are the biggest open questions?
A. 1. Fill the gap after April 2017. The record ends at claim 20905, so the company's present business, strategy, and customers are not documented here. 2. Find out whether AppyScore or StayBred ever obtained FDA clearance or approval (claims 21050, 21101). 3. Confirm whether the authorized 2010–2011 reverse split was executed (claims 20715, 20721). 4. Learn why four directors resigned at once in 2012 (claim 21051). 5. Check what came of the BiOptix acquisition (claim 20979). Until these are resolved, the dossier describes a historical diagnostics company, and it should not be read as a profile of the current one.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-30

Q. What does this company do, according to the record on file?
A. The dossier describes a small animal- and human-diagnostics company, not the business the RIOT ticker is associated with today. In 2004 it sold antigens and related products, marketing over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim 21102). It also developed cattle-reproduction products: SurBred 15, an early bovine pregnancy test (21096), and StayBred, a recombinant hormone for maintaining cattle pregnancy (21097). By 2012 its focus had shifted to AppyScore, a blood test for appendicitis in humans (21047). The claims on file end in April 2017, so later changes to the business are not documented here.

Q. Why does the company appear under several different names?
A. The record shows a series of rebrandings and restructurings. In 2005 a name change to AspenBio Pharma, Inc. (21090) came with a holding-company restructuring (21091). In 2016 the company changed its name from Venaxis to Bioptix (20981) when it acquired BiOptix Diagnostics (20980, 20979). The dossier does not document the later rename to Riot. Readers should expect filings for this entity to appear under multiple names.

Q. Who are its named customers?
A. The record names no end customers. The 2004 disclosure refers only generically to 'over 30 products' sold to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities (21102). The only named commercial counterparty is Merial, which received exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (21094). Merial is a distribution partner, not a disclosed buyer with disclosed volumes. The record also mentions license arrangements with three universities, which are not named (21095), and an exclusive license for animal-health intellectual property with an unnamed counterparty (21049).

Q. What was actually delivered versus only announced?
A. The completed items on file are corporate actions: the acquisition of Vitro Diagnostics' antigen business (21108, 21081), the BiOptix acquisition (20980), executive and board appointments, and repeated increases to the stock incentive plan. Examples of those increases are 3.5M units in 2005 (21088) and 1.8M shares in 2014 (21011). On the product side, the record shows intent but no outcomes. StayBred needed FDA approval or an ANDA filing (21101). AppyScore was described as 'pursuing' FDA clearance (21050). No claim on file records either approval. SurBred 15 was described as not subject to FDA regulation (21100), but no sales figures are disclosed for it.

Q. What happened with management and the board?
A. There was frequent turnover. Richard G. Donnelly was appointed President and CEO in 2005 (21082), and Stephen T. Lundy became CEO in 2010 (20711). In 2010 Executive Chairman Daryl Faulkner stepped down and Gail Schoettler became non-executive Chair (20716, 20717). The same year the Vice Chairman and Lead Director roles were eliminated (20718, 20719). In September 2012, four directors resigned (21051). Roger Hurst, whose employment agreement was disclosed in 2004 (21099), was terminated in 2005 (21087).

Q. Several items are marked 'delayed.' Does that mean the company missed commitments?
A. Not necessarily. These labels come from automated extraction on 2026-09-28 and should be checked against the underlying filings. Some look like artifacts rather than missed commitments. For example, Lundy's appointment is marked delayed against a deadline (2010-03-24) that is earlier than the filing that reported it (20711). Routine auditor ratifications are also marked delayed (20720, 20713, 20982). The one substantive open item is the board's authority to do a reverse stock split of up to 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011 (20721, 20715). Nothing on file confirms whether that split was carried out.

Q. Where are the biggest open questions?
A. (1) Whether AppyScore or StayBred ever received FDA clearance or approval; the record shows only that the company was pursuing them (21050, 21101). (2) What revenue, if any, came from the Merial/SurBred 15 arrangement (21094). (3) Whether the 2010 reverse-split authorization was used (20721). (4) What the BiOptix acquisition brought in, and why the company pivoted (20980). (5) Everything after April 2017: the dossier's claims stop there, so the company's current business and strategy are not covered by this record.

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. The top priority is filling the post-2017 gap in the record. Readers should look for filings that document the transition from Bioptix to Riot and any claims about the current business, its assets, and its counterparties. Within the existing record, useful checks are: SEC filings confirming or denying FDA outcomes for AppyScore, a record of the 2010–2011 reverse split, and manual review of the entries flagged 'delayed' to separate genuine slippage from extraction errors.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-27

Q. What does this company do, according to the record?
A. The record describes a small life-sciences company with several identities. In 2004 it sold antigens, over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim 21102), after acquiring an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics (claims 21108, 21081). It was also developing cattle reproduction products: SurBred 15, a bovine pregnancy blood test (21096), and StayBred, a hormone to help maintain cattle pregnancy (21097). By 2012 its main focus was AppyScore, a blood test for appendicitis in humans (21047). The company was renamed AspenBio Pharma in 2005 (21090), later operated as Venaxis, and became Bioptix in 2016 (20981). The ticker RIOT reflects a later identity that these claims do not document.

Q. What is the company's current strategy?
A. The record cannot answer this. The latest claims date from April 2017. They cover the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition (20980, 20979), a move of the company's legal home from Colorado to Nevada (20906), a new equity plan with 895,000 shares reserved (20909), and a March 2017 private placement of convertible notes, warrants and preferred stock (20904). Nothing on record describes the company's strategy after that point, so any current strategy has to come from sources outside this record.

Q. Who are the company's customers?
A. End customers are mostly unnamed. The 2004 disclosures refer generally to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (21102). The only named commercial counterparty is Merial, which held exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (21094). Merial was a distributor, not a disclosed buyer, and the record gives no sales figures or revenue for it. The record also mentions license arrangements with three universities (21095) and a 2012 exclusive license covering animal-health intellectual property (21049), but it does not name the other parties.

Q. What has actually been delivered, as opposed to announced?
A. Most of what the record confirms is corporate housekeeping. That includes board and executive appointments, the name changes, increases to authorized shares (60,000,000 in 21089 and again in 21040), repeated expansions of the stock incentive plan (for example 3,500,000 shares in 21088 and 1,800,000 in 21011), and auditor ratifications. On products, the record shows SurBred 15 being marketed through Merial (21094). It does not confirm that StayBred received FDA approval, which it needed (21101), or that AppyScore received FDA clearance, which the company was pursuing (21050). Every claim was produced by automated extraction and carries the status 'stated', meaning it reflects what the company disclosed, not what was independently verified.

Q. What were the notable governance and leadership events?
A. Leadership changed often. Richard Donnelly became CEO in 2005 (21082), and Stephen Lundy was named CEO and President by 2010 (20711). In October 2010 Gail Schoettler became non-executive Chair and Daryl Faulkner stepped down as Executive Chairman (20716, 20717). The Vice Chairman and Lead Director roles were eliminated at the same time (20718, 20719). Four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (21051). A co-founder-era employee, Roger Hurst, had an exclusive employment agreement in 2004 (21099), and his employment was terminated by 2005 (21087).

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. Start by filling the gap after 2017. The record stops before the company became the business now trading as RIOT. Next, check whether the reverse stock split authorized in 2010 (up to 1-for-6, by February 4, 2011; claims 20721, 20715) was ever carried out. Then look for outcomes of the FDA pathways for AppyScore (21050) and StayBred (21101). Finally, look up the terms and dilution effect of the March 2017 convertible financing (20904). This record captures that financing incompletely.

Q. What are the biggest open questions?
A. (1) How the company went from diagnostics to its current business. The record contains nothing after April 2017. (2) Whether any product produced meaningful revenue. The record includes no revenue or sales figures. (3) What happened to AppyScore, StayBred, and the BiOptix platform. (4) How much shareholders were diluted by repeated increases in authorized shares, incentive plan expansions, and convertible financings. (5) Who the counterparties were in the university and animal-health licenses (21095, 21049). None of the claims has been independently verified beyond automated extraction.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-27

Q. What does this company do?
A. Based on the disclosures on file, Riot's most recent described business (mid-2018) is cryptocurrency mining. It had leased a roughly 107,000 sq ft data center in Oklahoma City (claim 15504) and was installing mining machines there. It also held a set of crypto-adjacent stakes: a 12.9% interest in the Coinsquare exchange (claim 15512), 52% of blockchain firm Tess Inc. (claim 15547), a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claim 15513), and the $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp (claim 15509), a CFTC/NFA-registered broker with FinCEN and Florida licensing (claims 15510, 15511). Filings from 2009–2011 show only routine corporate governance items and do not describe the business operations at that time.

Q. What was the company's disclosed strategy as of its latest filings on record?
A. The strategy was to build out bitcoin-style mining capacity while also holding positions across crypto infrastructure: exchanges, brokerage and blockchain software. On mining, the company bought 6,800 additional miners in February 2018 (claim 15518) and acquired Kairos Global Technology, which brought 1,200 more (claim 15517). Its stated full-deployment target was 8,000 miners (claim 15506), drawing about 12 MW (claim 15507) and producing about 110 PH/s of hashing power (claim 15508). It also formed a subsidiary, Digital Green Energy Corp (claim 15515), but the disclosure does not explain its purpose.

Q. Who are the company's named customers?
A. None are named. The mining business sells computing work to the network rather than to identified customers. The brokerage and exchange activities under Logical Brokerage (claim 15516) are described only as product offerings, with no named clients, volumes or revenue. Coinsquare, Tess and Verady are investment holdings, not customers.

Q. What has actually been delivered versus only announced?
A. Delivered: as of March 31, 2018, about 3,500 miners were installed and running (claim 15505). The Oklahoma City lease was signed (claim 15519), the listed acquisitions and investments were reported as completed, and the company said it had regained compliance with Nasdaq's listing rules (claim 15553). Announced but not confirmed in the record: reaching the full 8,000 miners (claim 15506), 12 MW (claim 15507) and 110 PH/s (claim 15508). The 3,500 installed was under half of that target. The 110 PH/s figure roughly matches 8,000 machines at the stated 13.5 TH/s each (claim 15550), so it depends on completing the full build-out.

Q. Are any commitments flagged as late?
A. Three claims carry a 'delayed' flag alongside a 'stated' status: the miner deployment milestone (claim 15543), the Logical Brokerage acquisition timing (claim 15544) and the appointment of MNP LLP as auditor for 2018 (claim 15555). Each record shows both transitions coming from automated extraction on the same day. That makes the delay flags ambiguous, and they should be checked against the underlying filings before anyone relies on them.

Q. What happened in the company's earlier (2009–2011) history?
A. The early record covers governance and financing only. Stephen T. Lundy was appointed CEO and President (claim 20711). Gail Schoettler became non-executive Chair after Daryl Faulkner stepped down as Executive Chairman (claims 20716, 20717), and the Vice Chairman and Lead Director roles were eliminated (claims 20718, 20719). The board was authorized to carry out a reverse stock split of up to 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011 (claim 20721). The stock incentive plan grew by 1,500,000 shares in 2009 (claim 20723) and by 700,000 shares in each of 2010 and 2011 (claims 20722, 20710). The record does not show whether the reverse split actually took place.

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. First, whether the mining build-out reached the 8,000-miner, 12 MW and 110 PH/s targets (claims 15506–15508), and on what schedule. Second, whether the Logical Brokerage exchange offerings produced any revenue or named customers. Third, what became of the Coinsquare, Tess and Verady positions. Fourth, whether Nasdaq compliance held up after June 2018. Finally, who the CEO referenced on 2018-04-01 (claim 16647) is, because the record does not name them.

Q. Where are the biggest open questions?
A. 1) Coverage gap: the claims on file end in mid-2018, with nothing from 2012–2017 and nothing after 2018, so the company's current scale and strategy cannot be judged from this dossier alone. 2) Pivot: the record does not explain how or why the company shifted from its pre-2012 business into crypto. 3) Duplicates: many 2018 figures appear several times under different claim ids (for example 15504, 15519, 15533 and 15542 all refer to the same lease), so counts should not be added together. 4) Status reliability: the ambiguous 'delayed' flags described above need verification against the source filings.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-27

Q. What does Riot do, according to this dossier?
A. In the 2018 disclosures on record, Riot's core business is cryptocurrency mining from a leased 107,000 sq ft facility in Oklahoma City (claims 15533, 15504, 15469). Around that core it held a set of crypto-related stakes: 12.9% of the Canadian exchange Coinsquare (15545), 52% of blockchain-solutions firm Tess Inc. (15547), and a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (15546). It also agreed to buy Logical Brokerage Corp for $600,000 (15509) and formed a Digital Green Energy Corp subsidiary (15515). Note that every claim here dates from April to July 2018. Nothing in this record describes the company after that.

Q. What was the disclosed strategy at the time?
A. The plan was to scale Oklahoma City mining to full deployment: 8,000 miners (15506), about 12 MW of power (15507), and an expected 110 PH/s of hash rate (15508). The miners came from the Kairos Global Technology acquisition, which brought 1,200 units (15502), plus 6,800 more bought in February 2018 (15503). Riot also pursued a broader 'crypto platform' angle. It planned to use Logical Brokerage, which had CFTC/NFA registration and FinCEN/Florida money-transmitter licensing (15510, 15511), for exchange offerings (15516). It also floated mining operations in other locations, but without specifics (15474).

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. None are named. Bitcoin mining earns block rewards and fees from the network, not revenue from contracted customers, so there is no customer list to disclose. Coinsquare, Tess and Verady are investments, not customers. The planned Logical Brokerage exchange business would have served retail or institutional traders, but the record names no clients and gives no volumes for it.

Q. What was actually delivered versus only announced?
A. Delivered or completed per the filings: the Oklahoma City lease (15519), the Kairos and 6,800-miner purchases (15517, 15518), the Coinsquare and Tess stakes, the Verady note, the Tess acquisition (15472), and a return to Nasdaq listing compliance on 2018-06-20 (15553). Partially delivered: only 3,500 of the 8,000 miners were installed and running as of March 31, 2018 (15505, 15520). The 110 PH/s and 12 MW figures are targets, not achieved results (15508, 15526). The exchange business under Logical Brokerage was described but not shown to be operating.

Q. Which items are flagged as delayed, and how much weight should they carry?
A. Three claims are tagged 'delayed': miner deployment (3,500 units, 15543), the Logical Brokerage acquisition (15544, promised by 2018-03-27), and the MNP LLP auditor appointment for 2018 (15555). Each of these also carries a 'stated' transition from the same extraction pass on the same date. That means the delayed label comes from automated extraction and has not been confirmed by an editor. Treat them as leads to check against the source filings, not as settled findings.

Q. Are there inconsistencies in the record itself?
A. Yes. The dossier contains many near-duplicate claims: the Kairos, 6,800-miner, Coinsquare, Logical Brokerage and 110 PH/s items each appear three to five times. The per-miner performance spec is recorded as both 13.75 TH/s (15530) and 13.5 TH/s (15550), and one of those figures is wrong. The CEO entry (16647) records a personnel change with no name attached. These look like extraction artifacts, but a reader should not count repeated claims as independent confirmation.

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. First, whether the dossier is extended beyond July 2018. As provided, it says nothing about Riot's later scale, its facilities outside Oklahoma, or its current strategy. Within the 2018 window, check three things. Did deployment reach the 8,000-miner, 110 PH/s target (15506, 15508)? Did the Logical Brokerage exchange ever launch? What happened to the Coinsquare, Tess and Verady positions?

Q. Where are the biggest open questions?
A. (1) Coverage: the record stops in mid-2018, so any conclusion about Riot today would go beyond the evidence here. (2) Leadership: the CEO change (16647) is recorded without a name, so it is unclear who was accountable for these plans. (3) Strategic coherence: in a single quarter, a Nasdaq-listed company combined mining with a brokerage license, an exchange stake and a majority-owned blockchain startup. The record does not explain how these pieces fit together or how they were funded. (4) Auditor and compliance history: the auditor appointment is flagged as delayed (15555), and the company had to regain Nasdaq compliance (15553). Both merit a look at the underlying filings.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-27

Q. What does Riot do, according to this dossier?
A. The claims on record describe Riot as a cryptocurrency miner running mining machines at a leased facility in Oklahoma City (claims 15469, 15533). Around that core it held stakes in crypto businesses: 12.9% of the Coinsquare exchange (claim 15545), 52% of blockchain firm Tess Inc. (claim 15547), a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claim 15546), and Logical Brokerage Corp, acquired for $600,000 (claim 15509).

Q. How current is this picture of the company?
A. Not current. Every claim on record dates from April to July 2018, and the list provided was cut off partway through. The dossier therefore describes Riot's 2018 strategy, not its present one. Treat anything here as historical until later filings are added.

Q. What was the disclosed strategy at that time?
A. The main plan was to scale mining in Oklahoma City to 8,000 miners (claim 15506), drawing 12 MW of power (claim 15507), for an expected hash rate of about 110 PH/s (claim 15508). Riot also said it might set up mining in other locations (claim 15474). Alongside mining, it pursued exchange and brokerage ambitions through Coinsquare and Logical Brokerage, which held CFTC/NFA registration and FinCEN and Florida money-transmitter licensing (claims 15510, 15511).

Q. Who are Riot's named customers?
A. None are named. Bitcoin mining has no customers in the usual sense, since revenue comes from block rewards and fees. The only customer-facing business in the record is Logical Brokerage's exchange offerings (claim 15516), and no clients, volumes, or revenue figures are disclosed for it.

Q. What was actually delivered versus only announced?
A. Delivered: Riot acquired 1,200 miners with Kairos Global Technology (claim 15502) plus 6,800 more miners (claim 15503), signed a 107,000 sq ft lease (claim 15533), closed the Logical Brokerage deal (claim 15509), and regained Nasdaq listing compliance (claim 15553). Only partly delivered: as of March 31, 2018, just 3,500 of the planned 8,000 miners were installed and operating (claim 15505), and the tracker marks that deployment as delayed (claim 15543). The 110 PH/s hash rate was a target, not a measured result (claim 15508).

Q. Are there inconsistencies in the record a reader should know about?
A. Yes. Many 2018 claims repeat the same fact under different ids; for example, the $600,000 Logical Brokerage deal appears as claims 15509, 15521, 15534, and 15544. The per-miner performance spec also conflicts: 13.75 TH/s in claim 15530 versus 13.5 TH/s in claim 15550. The MNP LLP auditor appointment is flagged as delayed (claim 15555), and the Logical Brokerage acquisition carries a promise date earlier than its disclosure date (claim 15544).

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. First, filings after mid-2018 that show whether the 8,000-miner, 12 MW, 110 PH/s build-out was completed (claims 15506, 15507, 15508). Second, whether mining expanded beyond Oklahoma City (claim 15474). Third, what became of the Coinsquare, Tess, Verady, and Logical Brokerage positions.

Q. Where are the biggest open questions?
A. The biggest one is that the dossier stops in 2018 and is truncated, so Riot's current strategy, scale, and holdings are not documented here. Beyond that: whether the hash-rate target was ever reached, whether the side investments and brokerage produced value or were exited, why the auditor appointment was delayed (claim 15555), and which miner spec figure is correct.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-26

Q. What does Riot do, according to this dossier?
A. In the disclosures on record (April–July 2018), Riot runs a cryptocurrency mining operation at a leased facility in Oklahoma City (claim 15469). It also holds stakes in several crypto and blockchain businesses: 12.9% of the Canadian exchange Coinsquare (claim 15545), 52% of Tess Inc. (claim 15514), and a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claim 15513). It also acquired a small licensed brokerage, Logical Brokerage Corp, for $600,000 (claim 15521).

Q. What was the disclosed strategy at that point?
A. The strategy had two parts. The first was to scale up mining in Oklahoma City: a 107,000 sq ft lease (claim 15519) with a full-deployment target of 8,000 miners (claim 15506), 12 MW of power (claim 15507) and about 110 PH/s of hash rate (claim 15508). The second was to build a regulated crypto-exchange business. That rested on Logical Brokerage's CFTC/NFA registration (claim 15510), its FinCEN and Florida money-transmitter licensing (claim 15511), and an announced investigation into launching a US cryptocurrency exchange (claim 15470). The company also formed a subsidiary, Digital Green Energy Corp (claim 15525).

Q. Who are Riot's named customers?
A. None are named. Mining earns block rewards from the network rather than revenue from identifiable customers, so no customer disclosures should be expected for that side of the business. For the brokerage and exchange plans, the record describes Logical Brokerage's offerings (claim 15516) but does not name any clients. The named counterparties are investees and sellers, not customers: Coinsquare, Tess, Verady, Kairos Global Technology and Logical Brokerage.

Q. What was actually delivered, as opposed to announced?
A. Delivered or completed: the Oklahoma City lease was executed (claim 15519); 3,500 miners were installed and running as of March 31, 2018 (claim 15505); the Kairos acquisition, which brought 1,200 miners, closed (claims 15517, 15471); 6,800 more miners were bought in February 2018 (claim 15518); and Nasdaq listing compliance was regained (claim 15553). Announced but not shown as delivered: full deployment of 8,000 miners, 12 MW and about 110 PH/s (claims 15506, 15507, 15508), and any US exchange launch, which was still at the 'investigation' stage (claim 15470).

Q. Are any items flagged as delayed?
A. Three claims carry a 'delayed' status. They are the Logical Brokerage acquisition, measured against a 2018-03-27 date (claim 15544); the 3,500-miners-by-March-31 milestone (claim 15543); and MNP LLP's appointment as the 2018 auditor (claim 15555). Treat these flags with caution. Each claim also shows a 'stated' transition. In addition, claim 15505 reports the 3,500 miners as already operating on March 31, which suggests the delayed label on claim 15543 may be an extraction artifact rather than a real slip. These should be checked against the source filings.

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. Three things. First, whether the mining site actually reached 8,000 miners, 12 MW and about 110 PH/s (claims 15506, 15507, 15508). Second, whether the US exchange investigation (claim 15470) turned into a launch that made use of Logical Brokerage's licenses. Third, what happened to the minority stakes in Coinsquare, Tess and Verady. On governance, look for confirmation that MNP completed the 2018 audit (claim 15555).

Q. What are the biggest open questions in this dossier?
A. 1) Coverage ends in July 2018, so the record says nothing about what the company did after that. Any view of Riot today needs sources beyond this dossier. 2) The CEO claim (claim 16647) does not name the person. 3) The per-miner hardware spec is inconsistent: 13.75 TH/s in claim 15530 versus 13.5 TH/s in claim 15550. 4) Many claims are duplicates extracted from the same 2018-06-28 filing, so the number of distinct commitments is much smaller than the claim count suggests. 5) The record contains no revenue, cost, hash-rate delivery or exchange-launch results.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-26

Q. What does Riot do, according to this dossier?
A. The claims on record date only from April to July 2018. In that period Riot described itself mainly as a bitcoin miner. It ran cryptocurrency mining in a leased Oklahoma City facility of 107,000 square feet (claims 15519, 15542). Around that core it held a portfolio of crypto-related stakes and small businesses. The dossier does not cover the company's later history.

Q. What was the disclosed strategy in 2018?
A. The plan was to scale mining up to full deployment: 8,000 miners (claim 15506), about 12 MW of power (claim 15507), and an expected hash rate of 110 PH/s (claim 15508). The fleet was built through the Kairos Global Technology acquisition of 1,200 miners (claim 15502) plus 6,800 more miners bought in February 2018 (claim 15503). Riot also looked into launching a US crypto exchange (claim 15470). To support that, it agreed to buy Logical Brokerage Corp for $600,000 (claim 15509), a firm with CFTC/NFA, FinCEN and Florida money-transmitter registrations (claims 15510, 15511).

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. None are named. A bitcoin miner earns block rewards and fees from the network, not revenue from contracts with named clients, so there is no customer list. The disclosed counterparties are investees and acquisition targets: Coinsquare (12.9% stake, claim 15512), Tess Inc. (52%, claim 15514), Verady LLC ($200,000 convertible note, claim 15513), Kairos, and Logical Brokerage.

Q. What was actually delivered versus only announced?
A. Delivered: the Kairos acquisition was reported completed (claim 15471). About 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claim 15505). Riot also reported regaining Nasdaq listing compliance (claim 15553). Announced but not shown as achieved in this record: full deployment of 8,000 miners, 12 MW and 110 PH/s, and the US exchange, which was only 'under investigation.' The Logical Brokerage deal is flagged as delayed against a 2018-03-27 date (claim 15544).

Q. Which items are flagged as delayed?
A. Three claims carry a 'delayed' status. The Logical Brokerage acquisition slipped past 2018-03-27 (claim 15544). The 3,500-miner deployment is tied to 2018-03-31 (claim 15543). The appointment of MNP LLP as auditor for 2018 is also flagged (claim 15555). All three were set by automated extraction and also have a 'stated' transition, so the delay labels need human review before anyone relies on them.

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. First, whether later filings show the fleet reached 8,000 miners, 12 MW and 110 PH/s (claims 15506, 15507, 15508). Second, whether the Logical Brokerage deal closed and any US exchange launched. Third, what happened to the Coinsquare, Tess and Verady positions. Finally, the dossier needs claims after July 2018, because the company's current strategy cannot be judged from this record.

Q. Where are the biggest open questions?
A. 1. Coverage stops in mid-2018, so this record says nothing about Riot's present-day scale, strategy or finances. 2. Many claims are duplicates of one June 28, 2018 filing, and all were machine-extracted. 3. Some figures conflict: the per-miner hardware spec appears as both 13.75 TH/s (claim 15530) and 13.5 TH/s (claim 15550). 4. The statuses are inconsistent, since several claims were marked both 'delayed' and 'stated' on the same day.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-25

Q. What does Riot do, according to this dossier?
A. In the disclosures on record, which date from mid-2018, Riot is mainly a cryptocurrency miner. It leased a 107,000 sq ft data center in Oklahoma City (claim 15519) and was installing mining machines there. It also held a portfolio of crypto-adjacent stakes: a 12.9% interest in the Coinsquare exchange (claim 15545), 52% of blockchain-solutions firm Tess Inc. (claim 15547), a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claim 15523), and the brokerage Logical Brokerage Corp.

Q. What was the company's disclosed strategy?
A. The 2018 filings describe two tracks. The first was scaling self-mining to 8,000 miners (claim 15506) drawing 12 MW (claim 15507), with a targeted hash rate of 110 PH/s (claim 15508). The second was building a regulated exchange and brokerage business. Riot bought Logical Brokerage for $600,000 (claim 15521), which held CFTC/NFA registration (claim 15548) and FinCEN and Florida money-transmitter licensing (claim 15549). Riot said it was investigating a US crypto exchange launch (claim 15470). The record contains no later strategy statements, so this dossier does not show whether that strategy still holds.

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. No customers are named anywhere in the record. A self-mining operation earns cryptocurrency directly rather than selling to named clients. The planned exchange and brokerage business would have had customers, but none are disclosed. The named counterparties are acquisition and investment targets (Kairos Global Technology, Logical Brokerage, Coinsquare, Tess, Verady), not buyers.

Q. What has actually been delivered versus only announced?
A. Reported as done: 3,500 miners installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claim 15505); the Oklahoma City lease executed (claim 15519); the Kairos acquisition closed, bringing 1,200 miners (claims 15540, 15471); the Tess acquisition closed (claim 15472); a purchase of 6,800 additional miners in February 2018 (claim 15518); and Nasdaq listing compliance regained (claim 15553). Still targets at the time: full deployment of 8,000 miners, 12 MW, and 110 PH/s (claims 15506-15508). The US exchange was only under investigation (claim 15470). The dossier has no follow-up confirming that the full-deployment targets were reached.

Q. Why are some claims marked 'delayed'?
A. Three claims carry a 'delayed' status: the MNP LLP auditor appointment (claim 15555), the Logical Brokerage acquisition (claim 15544), and the 3,500-miner deployment (claim 15543). Each also shows a parallel transition to 'stated'. For 15544, the promised-by date (2018-03-27) is earlier than the disclosure date. For 15543, other claims report the same milestone as met (claim 15505). These labels look like extraction artifacts rather than evidence of real slippage, and they should be checked against the source filings before anyone relies on them.

Q. Are there inconsistencies in the numbers?
A. Yes, one small one. The per-machine hardware spec appears as both 13.75 TH/s (claim 15530) and 13.5 TH/s (claim 15550) in disclosures from the same date. Many other figures (the 110 PH/s target, 8,000 miners, $600,000 Logical price, 12.9% Coinsquare stake) are repeated across several duplicate claims and agree with each other.

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. First, whether Riot reached the 8,000-miner, 12 MW, 110 PH/s full-deployment targets (claims 15506-15508). Second, whether the US exchange ever launched (claim 15470). Third, what became of the Coinsquare, Tess, Verady, and Logical Brokerage positions. Fourth, the auditor situation (claim 15555). Leadership also matters: a CEO change is logged for April 2018 (claim 16647), but the entry does not name the person.

Q. What are the biggest open questions about this dossier itself?
A. Coverage is the main gap. Every claim shown dates from April-July 2018, and the list is cut off mid-record, so nothing here describes Riot's current operations, scale, or strategy. The record is also heavily duplicated: the same facts appear under several claim ids. Treat it as a snapshot of a 2018 pivot into crypto mining and brokerage, not a current profile. Later filings are needed to see what was actually completed.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-25

Q. What does Riot do, according to this dossier?
A. In the disclosures on record, which date from mid-2018, Riot is primarily a bitcoin mining company. It runs mining machines in a leased Oklahoma City data center of about 107,000 square feet (claim 15519). It also holds stakes in several crypto-related businesses: 12.9% of the Coinsquare exchange (claim 15512), 52% of Tess Inc., a blockchain solutions company (claim 15514), and a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claim 15513). It also formed a subsidiary called Digital Green Energy Corp (claim 15525).

Q. What was the company's disclosed strategy at the time?
A. The strategy was to scale up mining and branch into crypto financial services. On mining, the stated target at full deployment was 8,000 miners (claim 15506), drawing about 12 MW of power (claim 15507) and producing an expected hash rate of about 110 PH/s (claim 15508). Riot bought 1,200 miners through the Kairos Global Technology acquisition (claim 15517) and another 6,800 miners (claim 15518). On financial services, it agreed to buy Logical Brokerage Corp for $600,000 (claim 15521), a firm with CFTC/NFA, FinCEN and Florida money-transmitter registrations. It also said it was investigating a US cryptocurrency exchange launch (claim 15470) and possible mining sites in other locations (claim 15474).

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. No customers are named anywhere in the record. That is expected for a bitcoin miner: its revenue comes from block rewards and fees earned on the bitcoin network, not from contracts with named buyers. Revenue from the planned brokerage or exchange business would have had customers, but no customers or volumes for those operations appear in the claims.

Q. What was actually delivered, as opposed to announced?
A. Delivered or completed: the Kairos acquisition (claim 15471), the Tess acquisition (claim 15472), the Oklahoma City lease (claim 15519), and a return to Nasdaq listing compliance (claim 15553). Mining was only partly built out. About 3,500 miners were installed and running as of March 31, 2018 (claim 15505), against the 8,000-miner target (claim 15506). The 110 PH/s hash rate (claim 15508) was guidance, not an achieved figure. The US exchange launch was only under investigation (claim 15470).

Q. Are there inconsistencies or slippage in the record?
A. Yes, several. The Logical Brokerage acquisition is marked 'delayed' in one record, with a promised-by date of 2018-03-27 (claim 15544). Other records simply list it as stated (claim 15521). The MNP LLP auditor appointment for 2018 is also flagged 'delayed' (claim 15555). The per-machine performance spec is inconsistent: 13.5 TH/s in one record (claim 15550) and 13.75 TH/s in another (claim 15530). Many claims are duplicates of the same 2018 filing because they came from automated extraction, so the count of claims overstates how many distinct events there were.

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. First, whether the 8,000-miner, 12 MW, 110 PH/s build-out was ever completed (claims 15506, 15507, 15508). Second, whether the Logical Brokerage deal closed and led to an operating brokerage or exchange (claims 15521, 15470). Third, whether mining expanded beyond Oklahoma City (claim 15474). Fourth, what happened to the Coinsquare, Tess and Verady holdings (claims 15512, 15514, 15513).

Q. What are the biggest open questions about this dossier?
A. The main gap is coverage. The claims shown stop in mid-2018, so this record says nothing about how the company developed after that. A reader should not treat these 2018 targets as describing the current business. Within 2018, there are three open questions: whether the full deployment was delivered, whether the side ventures into brokerage, exchange and blockchain services produced anything, and why the brokerage acquisition and auditor appointment were flagged as delayed.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-24

Q. What does Riot do?
A. In the disclosures on record, which run from April to July 2018, Riot is mainly a cryptocurrency miner. It leased a 107,000 sq ft data center in Oklahoma City (claim 15504) and filled it with mining machines, largely acquired rather than built. The Kairos Global Technology acquisition brought 1,200 miners (claim 15502), and a further purchase added 6,800 (claim 15503). Alongside mining, it held a collection of stakes in other crypto businesses.

Q. What was the company's disclosed strategy at the time?
A. There were two tracks. The first was to scale mining in Oklahoma City to a full deployment of 8,000 miners (claim 15506), drawing about 12 MW of power (claim 15507) and producing an expected 110 PH/s of hashing power (claim 15508). The company also said it might set up mining in other locations (claim 15474). The second was to build a wider crypto-finance portfolio. That included 12.9% of the Coinsquare exchange (claim 15512), 52% of blockchain developer Tess Inc. (claim 15514), a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claim 15513), and the $600,000 purchase of Logical Brokerage Corp (claim 15509). Riot said it was looking into launching a US crypto exchange (claim 15470), and it formed a subsidiary called Digital Green Energy Corp (claim 15515).

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. None are named, and a self-mining business may not have customers in the usual sense. Riot earns coins by validating transactions on the blockchain network, not by selling to named buyers. Logical Brokerage was described as a registered broker with CFTC/NFA registration (claim 15510) and FinCEN/Florida money-transmitter licensing (claim 15511), but the record names none of its clients. The company also discloses no revenue split by customer.

Q. What has actually been delivered, as opposed to announced?
A. The company reports these as done: the Kairos and Tess acquisitions (claims 15471, 15472), the Oklahoma City lease (claim 15504), regaining Nasdaq listing compliance (claim 15553), and the Logical Brokerage purchase (claim 15509). On mining, only 3,500 miners were installed and running as of March 31, 2018 (claim 15505), against the 8,000-unit full-deployment target (claim 15506). The 110 PH/s figure is guidance, not a measured result (claim 15552). The US exchange was only being 'investigated' (claim 15470).

Q. Is anything flagged as delayed?
A. Three items are marked 'delayed': the auditor appointment (claim 15555), the miner deployment count (claim 15543), and the Logical Brokerage acquisition (claim 15544). Readers should be cautious with these flags. Each item also has a 'stated' transition logged the same day. Claim 15544's promised-by date (2018-03-27) is earlier than the filing that reported it. Claim 15543 treats a status snapshot ('3,500 operating as of March 31') as if it were a deadline. These look like artifacts of automated extraction, not confirmed slippage, and should be checked against the source filings.

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. There are four main things to watch. First, whether Riot actually reached 8,000 miners and roughly 110 PH/s in Oklahoma (claims 15506, 15508). Second, whether the US exchange moved beyond investigation (claim 15470). Third, whether mining expanded to other sites (claim 15474). Fourth, what happened to the minority and majority stakes: Coinsquare, Tess, Verady, and Logical Brokerage. Later filings would show whether these became operating businesses or were written down or sold.

Q. Where are the biggest open questions?
A. 1) Coverage: the record supplied here ends in July 2018, so it says nothing about the company's later direction. 2) Duplication: most claims are repeated extractions from a single 2018-06-28 filing, so the number of claims overstates how many separate commitments there were. 3) Inconsistency: the stated miner performance differs between 13.5 TH/s (claim 15550) and 13.75 TH/s (claim 15530). 4) Leadership: the record logs a CEO-related personnel event (claim 16647) but does not say who or what changed. 5) Focus: it is unclear how a mining company intended to run and fund a broker, an exchange, and several venture stakes at once.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-24

Q. What does Riot do, based on this record?
A. In the disclosures on file (mid-2018), Riot is mainly a bitcoin mining company. It buys specialized mining computers and runs them in a leased data center in Oklahoma City of about 107,000 square feet (claim 15519). It also held stakes in several crypto-related businesses: 12.9% of the Canadian exchange Coinsquare (claim 15512), 52% of blockchain firm Tess Inc. (claim 15514), a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claim 15513), and the broker Logical Brokerage Corp, bought for $600,000 (claim 15509).

Q. What was the company's disclosed strategy?
A. The plan on record had two parts. The first was to scale mining in Oklahoma City to about 8,000 machines (claim 15506), drawing about 12 MW of power (claim 15507) and producing an expected hash rate of about 110 PH/s (claim 15508). The second was to branch out through crypto investments and by looking into launching a U.S. cryptocurrency exchange, using Logical Brokerage's regulatory registrations (claim 15470). The company also said it might set up mining operations in other locations (claim 15474).

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. No customers are named anywhere in this record. Revenue from bitcoin mining comes from network block rewards and transaction fees, not from contracted customers. The planned exchange and brokerage businesses would have had customers, but none are disclosed here.

Q. What has actually been delivered versus only announced?
A. Delivered: About 3,500 miners were installed and running as of March 31, 2018 (claim 15505). The Kairos Global Technology acquisition closed, adding about 1,200 miners (claims 15517, 15471). The Tess Inc. acquisition closed (claim 15472). The Oklahoma City lease was signed (claim 15519). The company regained Nasdaq listing compliance (claim 15553). Announced but not shown as achieved: full deployment of 8,000 miners, 12 MW, and 110 PH/s (claims 15506–15508). The U.S. exchange was only under investigation (claim 15470).

Q. Are there any flagged delays?
A. Yes. The record marks three claims as delayed: the miner deployment milestone tied to March 31, 2018 (claim 15543), the Logical Brokerage acquisition against an earlier target date (claim 15544), and the appointment of MNP LLP as 2018 auditor (claim 15555). Each of these delayed claims also shows a 'stated' status in its transition history, so treat the classification as preliminary until someone checks it against the source filings.

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. First, whether mining reached the 8,000-miner / 110 PH/s target (claims 15506, 15508) and when. Second, whether the U.S. exchange plan (claim 15470) turned into a launched product or was dropped. Third, what happened to the Coinsquare, Tess, and Verady stakes (claims 15512–15514). Fourth, whether mining expanded beyond Oklahoma City (claim 15474).

Q. What are the biggest open questions or caveats about this dossier?
A. The record on file covers only about April–July 2018. The list appears to be cut off after claim 15474, so it says nothing about later strategy, facilities, or results, and 2018 plans should not be read as the company's current position. Many claims are duplicate extractions of the same fact. For example, the 110 PH/s target appears as claims 15508, 15527, 15539, and 15552. Counting claims will therefore overstate how much was actually disclosed. All statuses come from automated extraction and have only been lightly reviewed.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-19

Q. What does Riot do, according to this dossier?
A. In the disclosed record, which runs only from June to July 2018, Riot is mainly a cryptocurrency miner. It runs mining machines at a leased facility of about 107,000 sq ft in Oklahoma City (claims 15504, 15519). It also holds several crypto-related side investments: 52% of Tess Inc., a blockchain-solutions company (15547); 12.9% of the Coinsquare exchange (15545); a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (15546); and Logical Brokerage Corp, bought for $600,000 (15509). It also formed a wholly owned subsidiary called Digital Green Energy Corp (15525).

Q. What was the company's disclosed strategy?
A. The main plan was to build out the Oklahoma City mine to 8,000 miners (15506), drawing about 12 MW of power (15507), with an expected hash rate of 110 PH/s (15508). The fleet came from buying Kairos Global Technology, which brought 1,200 miners (15502), plus 6,800 more miners bought separately (15503). The per-machine spec is about 13.75 TH/s (15530), and 8,000 × 13.75 TH/s ≈ 110 PH/s, so the target figures agree with each other. Alongside mining, Riot bought Logical Brokerage to get a regulated trading platform. Logical Brokerage holds CFTC/NFA registrations (15510) and FinCEN and Florida money-transmitter licensing (15511). The company also said it might set up mining in other locations (15474).

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. None are named. A mining operation has no customers in the usual sense: it earns newly issued cryptocurrency and transaction fees from the network. For Logical Brokerage, the record mentions 'exchange offerings' (15516) but names no clients, trading volumes or revenue. The record also gives no revenue or mining-output figures at all.

Q. What has actually been delivered, and what is still only announced?
A. Delivered or completed: the Oklahoma City lease was signed (15519), and 3,500 miners were installed and running as of March 31, 2018 (15505). The Kairos and Tess acquisitions closed (15471, 15472), and the company regained Nasdaq listing compliance (15553). Still targets: the full 8,000 miners (15506), 12 MW (15507) and 110 PH/s (15508). At the last disclosed date, about 44% of the planned fleet (3,500 of 8,000) was running. Three items carry a 'delayed' status: the miner deployment tied to March 31, 2018 (15543), the Logical Brokerage purchase tied to March 27, 2018 (15544), and the appointment of MNP LLP as 2018 auditor (15555). Each of these also shows a 'stated' transition on the same date, so whether they were really delayed is unclear.

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. First, whether the fleet grew from 3,500 to 8,000 miners (15505, 15506) and whether it reached 110 PH/s at 12 MW (15508, 15507). Second, whether the 'other locations' mentioned as a possibility (15474) ever became real sites. Third, whether MNP LLP finished the 2018 audit (15555). Fourth, what became of the side stakes: Tess (15547), Coinsquare (15545), Verady (15546) and Logical Brokerage (15509), including whether any of them produced revenue or were written down or sold.

Q. Why does this dossier show so many near-identical claims?
A. The claims were pulled from filings automatically, so one fact often appears several times. For example, the 107,000 sq ft lease appears in 15504, 15519, 15533 and 15542, and the Logical Brokerage price appears in 15509, 15521, 15534 and 15544. Readers should count each underlying fact once. There are also small inconsistencies, such as the per-miner spec given as 13.75 TH/s (15530) in one claim and 13.5 TH/s (15550) in another, so check the source filings before relying on exact figures.

Q. What are the biggest open questions?
A. 1) Coverage: the record ends in July 2018 and the claim list supplied here is cut off, so it says nothing about Riot's later scale, strategy or results. 2) Economics: there are no figures for revenue, mining output, power cost or cash position. 3) Status conflicts: the 'delayed' items (15543, 15544, 15555) also show 'stated' transitions. 4) Coherence: the record does not explain how a miner fits together with a brokerage, an exchange stake, a majority-owned blockchain startup and a new energy subsidiary. 5) Listing history: the record notes that Nasdaq compliance was regained (15553) but not what caused the lapse.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-19

Q. What does Riot do, according to this dossier?
A. The records here run only from June to July 2018. In that period Riot described itself mainly as a cryptocurrency miner. It ran a mining operation in Oklahoma City (claim 15469) in a leased facility of about 107,000 square feet (claims 15519, 15504). Around that core it held a mix of crypto-related stakes and subsidiaries: a brokerage (Logical Brokerage), a minority stake in a Canadian crypto exchange (Coinsquare), a majority stake in a blockchain company (Tess Inc), a convertible note in Verady LLC, and a newly formed subsidiary called Digital Green Energy Corp (claim 15525).

Q. What was the disclosed strategy at the time?
A. The plan was to scale mining in Oklahoma City to 8,000 miners (claims 15506, 15537), drawing about 12 MW of power (claims 15507, 15538) and producing an expected hash rate of about 110 PH/s (claims 15508, 15527, 15552). Hash rate is the total computing power pointed at the blockchain, which roughly sets a miner's share of rewards. Riot also said it was investigating a US cryptocurrency exchange (claim 15470) and might set up mining in other locations (claim 15474). The exchange idea appears to build on Logical Brokerage's CFTC/NFA registrations (claims 15510, 15548) and its FinCEN and Florida money-transmitter licensing (claims 15528, 15529).

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. The dossier names none, and for this business that is expected. A miner has no customers in the usual sense. It earns newly issued coins and transaction fees from the blockchain network itself. The brokerage and exchange side could in principle have customers, but no clients, counterparties, or trading volumes are disclosed. A reader cannot tell from this record how much revenue, if any, came from outside mining.

Q. What was actually delivered, as opposed to announced?
A. Delivered or completed on the record: 3,500 miners installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims 15505, 15520), the completed Kairos Global Technology acquisition (claim 15471), the purchase of 1,200 miners through Kairos (claims 15502, 15517), the purchase of 6,800 more miners (claims 15503, 15518), the Logical Brokerage acquisition for $600,000 (claims 15509, 15521), the 12.9% Coinsquare stake (claims 15512, 15522), the 52% Tess stake (claims 15514, 15524), the $200,000 Verady note (claims 15513, 15523), and regained Nasdaq listing compliance (claim 15553). Announced but not confirmed as reached: full deployment of 8,000 miners, 12 MW and 110 PH/s. As of the last data point, fewer than half of the target miners (3,500 of 8,000) were reported running.

Q. Why are some claims marked 'delayed'?
A. Three claims carry a 'delayed' status: the Logical Brokerage acquisition target date (claim 15544), the 3,500-miner deployment dated to March 31, 2018 (claim 15543), and MNP LLP's appointment as the 2018 auditor (claim 15555). Treat these labels with caution. Each comes from automated extraction and shows two conflicting transitions ('delayed' and 'stated') on the same date. Other claims in the record describe the brokerage deal and the 3,500 miners as done. These flags have not been human-verified and should not be read as confirmed slippage.

Q. Are there inconsistencies in the disclosed numbers?
A. There are small ones. The per-machine hash rate appears as both 13.5 TH/s (claim 15550) and 13.75 TH/s (claim 15530). The 110 PH/s target matches roughly 8,000 machines at the higher figure. The 8,000 target is also the sum of the 1,200 Kairos miners and the 6,800 additional miners. That suggests full deployment required no further hardware purchases, only installation and power. Many claims in this record are duplicates of the same disclosure extracted several times.

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. Four things. First, whether Riot reported reaching the full 8,000 miners, 12 MW and 110 PH/s at Oklahoma City. Second, whether the US exchange it was investigating ever launched, and whether Logical Brokerage's licenses were put to use. Third, what happened to the Coinsquare, Tess and Verady holdings, including any sales, write-downs or conversions. Fourth, whether mining expanded to other sites, as floated in claim 15474, and whether the 2018 audit with MNP LLP (claim 15555) was completed cleanly.

Q. What are the biggest open questions?
A. The largest gap is coverage: this dossier stops in July 2018 and says nothing about the company's later path. Within the period, there are no disclosed revenue, cost, or mining-output figures, so the economics of the mining operation cannot be judged. It is also unclear why a mining company held a brokerage, an exchange stake and a blockchain-software majority stake, and how much of its capital and attention these took. Several status flags have not been verified. Readers should also note that the need to regain Nasdaq compliance (claim 15553) means the company had fallen out of compliance at some earlier point. The record does not say why.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-14

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Based on the disclosures on record, Riot mines Bitcoin at industrial scale. Its main asset is the Whinstone facility in Rockdale, Texas, which it bought in 2021 for $80 million in cash (claim 14605) plus 11.8 million shares (claim 14606). Later that year it also bought ESS Metron, an electrical equipment and engineering business, for $25 million in cash (claim 14351) plus 645,248 shares (claim 14352).

Q. What is Riot's disclosed strategy?
A. The strategy is to grow owned mining capacity at Whinstone. Riot disclosed plans for 200 MW of air-cooled capacity (claim 14424) and 200 MW of immersion-cooled capacity (claim 14423), which would take the site to 700 MW in total (claim 14270). It also set a longer-range goal of 1,500 MW of infrastructure by the end of 2023 (claim 14495). That goal is tied to performance stock grants for executives, including 525,000 units each for Benjamin Yi and Jason Les (claims 14496, 14497). Buying ESS Metron points to owning more of the electrical supply chain itself.

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. None are named in the record. The main counterparty that is named is Bitmain, which is a supplier, not a customer. Riot disclosed a roughly $480 million order for Bitmain ASIC miners, with deliveries through December 2022 (claims 14258, 14271). Whinstone's hosting clients, if it has any, are not identified in these claims.

Q. What has actually been delivered versus only announced?
A. Every claim on record is still 'stated,' meaning the company said it and nobody has independently confirmed it. The completed Whinstone and ESS Metron acquisitions (claims 14260, 14261) are the closest thing to delivered facts, but even those rest on Riot's own 10-K. The operating targets have no recorded outcome yet: 120,150 miners running by end of 2022 (claims 14264, 14268), 370 MW of capacity by end of 2022 (claims 14257, 14269), and the 700 MW and 1,500 MW buildouts.

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. Watch whether year-end 2022 filings confirm the 120,150 miners and 370 MW that were guided. Also watch whether Bitmain delivered the full ~$480 million order on schedule, how far the 200 MW immersion-cooled buildout has gone (claim 14262), and whether the 1,500 MW target for 2023 was met. That last target decides whether the executive performance RSUs vest (claims 14496-14499).

Q. Are there regulatory or governance issues on record?
A. Riot disclosed a congressional inquiry into how much energy cryptocurrency mining uses (claim 14263). No outcome is recorded. On governance, the board grew to five members in 2021 (claim 14615), and shareholders were asked to add 4.4 million shares to the equity plan (claims 14422, 14455).

Q. Where are the biggest open questions?
A. 1. The record stops in early 2022, so it does not show whether any 2022 or 2023 capacity or miner targets were hit. 2. Some figures appear to be in thousands, not units, and should be checked against source filings before anyone quotes them. Examples are the $267,409 Whinstone value (claim 14476), the $83,138 power-credit contingent consideration (claim 14478), and the $56.25 Bitmain purchase figure (claim 14403). 3. The dossier includes no hosting-customer names and no revenue mix.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-14

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Based on the disclosures on record, Riot (RIOT) is a Bitcoin mining company. It runs large-scale mining facilities in Texas, and its disclosures focus on power capacity measured in megawatts, fleets of mining machines, and growth in hash rate, which is its computing output. The main sites are the Rockdale Facility and the Corsicana (Navarro) Facility. Nothing in this dossier describes a business line other than Bitcoin mining.

Q. What is Riot's disclosed strategy?
A. The strategy on record is to grow mining capacity by building out large Texas power sites. Riot described Rockdale as having 700 MW of developed capacity (claims 13279, 13242). It also described a planned Corsicana facility of about 1 GW (claims 13278, 13529, 13269), including 400 MW of immersion-cooled mining, a method of cooling machines in liquid (claims 13246, 13250). Riot guided to 111,216 miners in operation by the end of 2023 (claims 13244, 13249). It also placed a purchase order for ASIC miners, which are specialized mining machines, from Bitmain (claim 13261).

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. The record names no customers. That fits the business model: a Bitcoin miner is paid in Bitcoin by the network, not by contracted clients. The only named counterparty is Bitmain, which is a supplier of mining machines (claim 13261), not a customer.

Q. What has actually been delivered versus only announced?
A. No claim on record has been confirmed as delivered. Almost everything is at 'stated' status, meaning announced but not independently verified. Several dated promises are now marked 'delayed': - The 400 MW Rockdale expansion and its fourth building, promised by 2023-03-31 (claims 13268, 13260, 13266, 13275, 13277). - The 111,216-miner target for end of 2023 (claims 13244, 13249). The 'delayed' labels come from automated extraction applied on 2026-09-14. They show that the deadline passed without a completion disclosure in this dossier, not that a failure was confirmed.

Q. Who runs the company?
A. According to October 2022 disclosures, Jason Les is CEO (claim 13584) and Benjamin Yi is Executive Chairman (claim 13583). Colin M. Yee was appointed CFO (claim 13587) with a $350,000 base salary (claim 13588), replacing McGonegal, who retired (claim 13585) and stayed on as a senior advisor (claim 13586). Ryan D. Werner was appointed Chief Accounting Officer (claim 13593) at $275,000 base pay (claim 13594). Both executives received RSU, RSA, and PSU equity awards, some tied to performance (for example, claims 13590 and 13595).

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. Watch for: - Confirmation that the delayed Rockdale 400 MW expansion was finished, and when (claim 13268). - The actual end-of-2023 miner count compared with the 111,216 target (claim 13244). - Progress at Corsicana toward 1 GW and the 400 MW immersion-cooled phase (claims 13278, 13246). - Whether shareholders approved the proposed increase to 340 million authorized shares (claim 13582), which would allow more share issuance and dilution.

Q. What are the biggest open questions?
A. 1. Execution. The two most concrete dated commitments, the Rockdale expansion and the miner-count target, are both flagged as delayed, and the dossier has no completion evidence. 2. The record is thin and stale. Claims run only from October 2022 to March 2023, so later progress is not captured here. 3. Many capacity claims are repeated from the same March 2023 filing, such as the 1 GW Corsicana figure in claims 13243, 13248, and 13253. They should not be read as separate confirmations. 4. Funding and dilution. The authorized-share proposal (claim 13582) raises the question of how the build-out is being financed.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-13

Q. What does Riot actually do?
A. On this record, Riot is a large-scale Bitcoin miner. It runs its own mining machines in Texas data centers and earns Bitcoin, rather than selling a product or service to outside clients. It operates a Rockdale facility it described as having 700 MW of power capacity (claim 12277) and is building a second site outside Corsicana, planned at 1 GW (claims 12278, 12648, 12003). Its filings also describe immersion-cooled mining hardware (claims 12647, 12282) and an acquisition of ESS Metron, LLC (claims 12564, 12498), paid partly in stock (70,165 shares, claim 12499).

Q. What is the company's disclosed strategy?
A. Grow 'self-mining' hash rate, meaning the computing power pointed at Bitcoin. It plans to do this by buying machines in bulk and building out power capacity. The main parts are: (1) a long-term supply agreement with MicroBT (claim 12380), with an initial order of 33,280 miners for $162.9M (claims 12381, 12382), an option on up to 66,560 more (claim 12384), and later references to annual purchase options of 265,000 units (claim 11999); (2) the 1 GW Corsicana build, starting with 400 MW of immersion-cooled mining (claims 12675, 12680); and (3) funding growth through share sales, including a $750M at-the-market stock program (claims 12275, 12283, 12273).

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. None are named on this record, and that is expected for this business model. Riot mines Bitcoin for its own account, so its revenue comes from the Bitcoin network rather than from contracted customers. The named counterparties are suppliers and deal partners, not buyers: MicroBT supplies the mining hardware (claim 12380), Riot bought ESS Metron (claim 12564), and Cantor-style sales agents run the stock offering at a 3% commission (claims 12276, 12284). Readers should not look for customer concentration risk here. The relevant exposures are the Bitcoin price, network difficulty, and power costs.

Q. What has actually been delivered, versus only announced?
A. Nothing on this record has been independently confirmed. Every claim sits at status 'stated', meaning the company said it, and none has moved to verified, delivered, or missed. The closest thing to a reported result is the company's own August 2023 statement that it was operating at 10.7 EH/s (claim 12279). The Corsicana capacity, the MicroBT deliveries, and the hash rate targets are all still announcements as far as this dossier shows.

Q. Which deadlines have already passed without a recorded outcome?
A. Several. Riot guided to 12.5 EH/s by 2023-12-31, and that target appears in more than one filing (claims 12677, 12681, 12280). It also guided to deploying 111,216 miners by the same date (claim 12676). It expected the initial 33,280-miner order to add 7.6 EH/s by 2024-04-15 (claims 12381, 12383), and guided to 20.1 EH/s after deliveries by 2024-06-30 (claim 12281). The full purchase option was tied to 15.3 EH/s by 2024-12-31 (claim 12385). All of these dates are now in the past, but the record holds no follow-up showing whether they were met. This is the single biggest gap to close.

Q. What should I watch for next?
A. First, look for filings that confirm or contradict the 2023–2024 hash rate and deployment targets above. Second, look for the actual energized capacity at Corsicana against the 400 MW first phase and the 1 GW total. Third, check how much of the 13M-share increase to the equity incentive plan (claims 12134, 12135, 12004) and of the $750M stock program has been used, since both dilute existing shareholders. Fourth, watch the executive long-term incentive awards. Their service tranches vest 2026-07-01 and their performance tranches are due 2026-07-31 (for example, the CEO's 184,820 + 184,820 shares, claims 12355 and 12356). Those dates have just passed, so vesting disclosures should be arriving now.

Q. Where are the biggest open questions?
A. (1) Did the hash rate and deployment guidance get delivered on time? The record has no outcomes. (2) How much of the MicroBT option and the 265,000-unit annual options (claim 11999) became firm purchases, and at what cost? (3) How far along is Corsicana, which is described repeatedly (claims 12001, 12206, 12286) but has no completion date anywhere on the record? (4) How much dilution came from the stock program and the expanded incentive plans (4M shares in claims 12497 and 12543, then 13M in claim 12134)? (5) Were the executive performance awards earned, and against what metrics?

Q. Are there any caveats about this dossier itself?
A. Yes. First, the claims were produced by automated extraction, and several are duplicates of the same statement from different filings. For example, claims 12674 and 12679 both give the 1,000 MW Corsicana total, and claims 12677 and 12681 both give the 12.5 EH/s target. Counting them separately overstates the number of commitments. Second, there is a likely extraction or typo inconsistency: the CFO and General Counsel service awards read 123,231 shares, while their performance awards read 123,321 (claims 12357, 12358, 12361, 12362). Check these against the source filing. Third, the Rockdale capacity claim with no number (claim 12678) is incomplete. Finally, the record supplied here cuts off partway through December 2023 filings, so later disclosures may exist but were not reviewed.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-13

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Based on this record, Riot is a Bitcoin miner. It runs its own mining machines in large Texas data centers and earns Bitcoin from that computing work, which the industry calls 'self-mining.' The disclosures describe a Rockdale facility with 700 MW of power capacity (claim 12277) and a planned 1 GW site outside Corsicana, Texas (claims 12648, 12278, 12003). Riot also acquired ESS Metron, LLC (claims 12564, 12498), paying partly in stock (70,165 shares, claim 12499). The claims describe ESS Metron only by name and don't say what it does, though Riot also talks about 'industrial scale immersion-cooled' mining hardware (claims 12647, 12282).

Q. What is the company's disclosed strategy?
A. The strategy is to grow mining capacity quickly by buying hardware in bulk and building a second very large site. Riot signed a long-term supply agreement with MicroBT (claim 12380). The first order was 33,280 machines for $162.9M (claims 12381, 12382), expected to add 7.6 EH/s of hash rate (claim 12383). Riot also took an option on 66,560 more machines, representing 15.3 EH/s (claims 12384, 12385). By February 2024 the plan covered 99,840 units deployed by mid-2025 (claim 11992), with options on up to 265,000 more MicroBT miners through 2027 (claims 11994, 11999). The stated goal was 38.0 EH/s of self-mining capacity (claims 11993, 11998). Riot planned to fund growth partly by selling new stock through a $750M at-the-market program (claims 12275, 12283) that pays the sales agent a 3% commission (claim 12276).

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. No customers are named anywhere in this record. As a self-miner, Riot's revenue comes from Bitcoin earned by its own machines, not from contracts with named clients. The only named commercial counterparty is its hardware supplier, MicroBT (claims 12380, 11994). Nothing here identifies any hosting, power-sale, or data-center customers.

Q. What has actually been delivered, versus only announced?
A. Nothing in this record has been independently verified as delivered. Every claim has status 'stated,' meaning the company said it, not that anyone confirmed it happened. The closest things to current-state facts are the company's own statements of 10.7 EH/s operating hash rate as of August 2023 (claim 12279) and Rockdale's 700 MW capacity (claim 12277). Everything else is a forward commitment. That includes 12.5 EH/s by end of 2023 (claim 12280), 20.1 EH/s by mid-2024 (claim 12281), Corsicana Phase 1 (400 MW) operating by end of Q1 2024 (claims 11995, 11987), and 38.0 EH/s by mid-2025 (claim 11993). All of those deadlines have now passed, but the record doesn't show whether they were met.

Q. How much dilution should a reader be aware of?
A. Several disclosures would increase the share count. The $750M at-the-market equity program (claims 12275, 12273) lets Riot sell new stock over time. The equity incentive plan was expanded by 4,000,000 shares (claims 12543, 12497) and then by 13,000,000 shares (claims 12134, 12004, 11996). Executives also received long-term incentive awards. For example, the CEO and Executive Chairman each got 184,820-share service awards and 184,820-share performance awards (claims 12355, 12356, 12359, 12360). This record doesn't show how much of the ATM program was actually used.

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. 1. Whether Riot actually reached the hash rate targets it gave: 12.5 EH/s (claim 12280), 20.1 EH/s (claim 12281) and 38.0 EH/s (claim 11993). 2. Whether Corsicana Phase 1 started operating on schedule (claim 11995), and how far the site has progressed toward its full 1 GW (claim 12278). 3. Whether all 99,840 MicroBT units were delivered and deployed (claim 11992), and whether Riot exercised any of the options through 2027 (claim 11994). 4. Whether the executive awards vested. Their deadlines were July 2026 (claims 12355–12364), so the outcomes should be disclosed soon or may already be public.

Q. Where are the biggest open questions?
A. 1. Verification: every claim is company-stated. Every dated promise in the record is now past due, and none has been confirmed as delivered or missed. 2. Coverage gap: this dossier ends in February 2024, and the list appears cut off. More than two years of disclosures may be missing, so conclusions about current operations should wait until the record is complete. 3. Data quality: claim 11997 lists a MicroBT purchase order of '290.5 USD,' which is almost certainly an extraction error (likely $290.5M) and should be checked against the source filing. 4. Duplicates: several claims restate the same event from different filings (e.g., claims 12564/12498 and 12275/12283/12273), so counts of 'promises' overstate how many distinct commitments exist.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-13

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Riot mines Bitcoin at industrial scale in Texas, using its own data centers and its own mining hardware ("self-mining"). Its filings describe immersion-cooled mining hardware (claims 12282, 12285) and two main sites: the Rockdale Facility, at 700 MW of power capacity (claim 12277), and a planned 1 GW facility near Corsicana (claims 12003, 11959).

Q. What is the company's disclosed strategy?
A. The strategy is to grow hash rate (the computing power used to mine Bitcoin) quickly by buying hardware in bulk and building a second large site. Riot signed a long-term supply agreement with MicroBT (claims 12380, 11971). The first order was 33,280 miners for $162.9M (claims 12381, 12382), with an option for 66,560 more (claim 12384). A later filing cites 99,840 ordered units (claim 11972) and options on up to 265,000 more through 2027 (claim 11967). Hash rate guidance rose step by step: 12.5 EH/s by end-2023 (claim 12280), 20.1 EH/s by mid-2024 (claim 12281), 28 EH/s by end-2024 (claims 11961, 11969), and 38 EH/s by mid-2025 (claim 11962). Growth is funded partly by a $750M at-the-market stock program (claims 12275, 12283).

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. None are named, and that is expected. As a self-miner, Riot's revenue comes from Bitcoin block rewards and fees, not from contracted customers. The only named counterparty on record is its supplier, MicroBT. Nothing in the record describes hosting or data-center services for third parties.

Q. What has actually been delivered versus announced?
A. Very little is confirmed. The one operating figure on record is 10.7 EH/s of hash rate as of August 2023 (claim 12279). Every other capacity, deployment, and timeline claim is still marked 'stated', meaning it was extracted from filings but not verified as completed. That includes the 12.5, 20.1, 28 and 38 EH/s targets, the Corsicana start of operations by Q1 2024 (claim 11965), and its 400 MW first phase (claim 11966). All of these deadlines have now passed, and the record shows no confirmation for any of them.

Q. Is there anything unusual about the numbers on record?
A. Yes, some dollar figures look like unit errors from automated extraction. One MicroBT purchase order appears as $290.5 (claim 11997) and MicroBT orders as $453,400 (claim 11964). These were most likely $290.5M and $453.4M in the filings. Read them as unverified until checked against the source documents. The executive award figures are also slightly inconsistent: service awards of 123,231 shares against performance awards of 123,321 shares for the CFO and General Counsel (claims 12357, 12358, 12361, 12362).

Q. How are executives paid, and how much could existing shareholders be diluted?
A. Executives received long-term incentive awards that vest in mid-2026, split into service awards (July 1, 2026) and performance awards (July 31, 2026). The CEO and Executive Chairman each received 184,820 shares per tranche (claims 12355, 12356, 12359, 12360). Shareholders approved adding 13M shares to the equity plan (claims 12135, 12004, 11996), on top of an earlier 4M-share reserve (claim 12386). Dilution can also come from the $750M stock program (claim 12275).

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. First, any filing that confirms or misses the passed hash rate targets: 28 EH/s by end-2024 (claim 11969) and 38 EH/s by mid-2025 (claim 11962). Second, confirmation that Corsicana is running and at what power level versus its 1 GW plan (claim 12003). Third, whether the 99,840-unit MicroBT deployment was completed by June 2025 (claim 11968) and whether Riot uses any of its further purchase options (claim 11967). Fourth, how the July 2026 executive awards actually vested (claims 12356, 12358).

Q. What are the biggest open questions?
A. 1) Did any of the guided capacity actually get built? Nothing past 10.7 EH/s is verified (claim 12279). 2) How much of the $750M stock program was used, and how much dilution did it cause (claim 12275)? 3) What were the true dollar values of the MicroBT orders, given the extraction errors (claims 11964, 11997)? 4) What happened after early 2024? This record is truncated there, so later strategy shifts, results, or revised guidance are not captured.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-13

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Based on the claims on record, Riot mines Bitcoin at industrial scale using its own hardware in its own Texas data centers. It operates the Rockdale Facility, described at 700 MW of power capacity (claim 12277), and is building a second site near Corsicana, Texas, planned at 1 GW (claims 12278, 12003, 11978). It has also repeatedly described developing immersion-cooled mining hardware (claims 12282, 12205, 12000).

Q. What is its disclosed strategy?
A. The strategy is to grow self-mining hash rate by buying miners in bulk and building out power capacity. In August 2023 Riot reported 10.7 EH/s of operational capacity (claim 12279). It guided to 12.5 EH/s by end of 2023 (claim 12280) and 20.1 EH/s by mid-2024 (claim 12281). In February 2024 it raised guidance to 28 EH/s by end of 2024 (claims 11988, 11969) and 38 EH/s once MicroBT deliveries finish, targeted for mid-2025 (claims 11993, 11970). Growth is funded partly through a $750M at-the-market stock offering at a 3% sales commission (claims 12275, 12273, 12284) and a 13 million share increase in the equity incentive plan (claims 12134, 12004), both of which dilute existing shareholders.

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. None are named in the record. Riot's disclosed model is self-mining, so its revenue comes from Bitcoin it earns rather than from contracted customers. The main named counterparty is MicroBT, which is a supplier, not a customer. Riot has a long-term master purchase agreement with MicroBT (claims 11990, 11971), an order for 99,840 miners for $453.4M (claims 11991, 11982), and options on up to 265,000 more units through 2027 (claims 11994, 11967).

Q. What has actually been delivered versus announced?
A. Nothing in this record has been independently confirmed as delivered. Every claim has the status 'stated', meaning it is a company assertion taken from filings and not checked against later results. The only figure presented as current rather than forward-looking is the 10.7 EH/s operational capacity as of August 2023 (claim 12279). The hash rate targets, the Corsicana Phase 1 start date, and the miner deployments are all still unverified promises in this dossier.

Q. Which deadlines have already passed and should be checked?
A. Several promised dates are now in the past and have no recorded outcome. They are: 12.5 EH/s by 2023-12-31 (claim 12280); Corsicana Phase 1 (400 MW) operations by 2024-03-31 (claims 11995, 11987); 20.1 EH/s by 2024-06-30 (claim 12281); 28 EH/s by 2024-12-31 (claim 11988); MicroBT purchase-order delivery by 2025-04-30 (claim 11997); and deployment of all 99,840 miners for 38 EH/s by 2025-06-30 (claims 11992, 11993). Checking these against later filings is the top priority.

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. Watch for five things. First, later 10-Q and 10-K filings or production reports that confirm or miss the hash rate targets. Second, whether Corsicana goes beyond Phase 1 toward its full 1 GW (claim 11989). Third, whether Riot uses its MicroBT options, which run through 2027-12-31 (claim 11994). Fourth, how much of the $750M ATM has been sold (claim 12275). Fifth, how the regulatory dispute over an emergency cryptocurrency mining survey turns out; plaintiffs allege the survey violated statutory requirements (claim 6235).

Q. Where are the biggest open questions in this dossier?
A. There are four. (1) Verification: no claim has moved past 'stated', so this dossier cannot tell you whether any target was met. (2) Data quality: several figures look like extraction errors. The MicroBT order appears as both 453.4 and 453,400 'USD' (claims 11991, 11964), where $453.4 million is the likely meaning, and the purchase order in claim 11997 is recorded as '290.5 USD', which is probably $290.5M. Many claims are also duplicates. (3) Coverage: the record shown ends in February 2024, so over two years of later disclosures may be missing or cut off. (4) Scope: the regulatory claim (claim 6235) does not say which agency is involved or what it means for Riot.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-13

Q. What does Riot do?
A. According to its disclosures, Riot (RIOT) mines Bitcoin at large data centers in Texas. Its flagship site is the Rockdale Facility, described as having 700 MW of developed capacity (claim 11949). It is building a second site near Corsicana, planned at 1 GW (claims 11989, 12003). It also deploys immersion-cooled mining hardware (claims 12000, 12002).

Q. What is its disclosed strategy?
A. The strategy is to grow hash rate, meaning mining computing power, by adding sites and buying machines in bulk. Riot reported 12.4 EH/s of operational hash rate as of December 31, 2023 (claim 11951). It guided to 28 EH/s by the end of 2024 (claim 11961) and about 38 EH/s, or 38.3 EH/s in one filing, once its MicroBT miners were deployed (claims 11993, 11956). Funding sources on record include a $750M at-the-market stock offering (claim 11948) and a 13 million share increase to its equity incentive plan (claim 12004).

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. None are named. Riot mines Bitcoin for itself, so it earns block rewards rather than serving named clients. The main named counterparty is a supplier, MicroBT. Riot ordered 99,840 miners for $453.4M (claim 11991), placed a follow-on order for 66,560 units (claim 11954), and holds options to buy up to 265,000 more miners through 2027 (claim 11994).

Q. What has actually been delivered versus only announced?
A. The record does not show much delivered. Almost every claim has status 'stated', meaning it was pulled from a filing but not checked against later results. The only verified item is a February 2024 court order temporarily blocking an emergency federal survey of crypto miners (claim 6236). Several deadlines have passed with no recorded outcome: Corsicana Phase 1 at 400 MW by Q1 2024 (claim 11995), 28 EH/s by end of 2024 (claim 11961), and full MicroBT deployment by mid-2025 (claim 11992). Treat these as promises, not accomplishments, until they are verified.

Q. What regulatory issues are on record?
A. Plaintiffs challenged a federal emergency cryptocurrency-mining energy survey, arguing it broke statutory requirements (claim 6235). A court granted a temporary restraining order against enforcing the survey (claim 6236, verified). The record does not show how the case was finally resolved.

Q. What should a reader watch for next?
A. First, whether later filings confirm that Corsicana Phase 1 (400 MW) is running and the site is progressing toward 1 GW (claims 11995, 11989). Second, whether reported hash rate reached the 28 EH/s and roughly 38 EH/s targets (claims 11961, 11993). Third, how many of the 265,000 MicroBT options are exercised before the end of 2027 (claim 11994). Fourth, how much of the $750M offering was drawn (claim 11948), and how much shareholders were diluted as a result.

Q. What are the biggest open questions about this dossier?
A. First, verification: the Q1 2024, end-2024 and mid-2025 deadlines have all passed, but no outcome is recorded for any of them. Second, data quality: many claims are duplicates from the same filing, and some dollar amounts appear to have lost their 'millions' scale. For example, claim 11964 shows 453,400 USD and claim 11997 shows 290.5 USD. Third, coverage: the list we reviewed was cut off, so later filings may exist that update or contradict these early-2024 promises.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-13

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Riot is a cryptocurrency mining company that operates Bitcoin mining facilities and makes strategic investments in other mining operations.

Q. Who are the current executives?
A. Jason Les is CEO (claim 5366), Benjamin Yi is Executive Chairman (claim 5367), William Jackman is EVP General Counsel (claim 5368), and Colin Yee is CFO (claim 6054).

Q. What is Riot's major strategic investment outside core mining?
A. Riot invested $202.18 million to acquire a 19.9% stake in Bitfarms Ltd., a Canadian mining company (claim 5802). In September 2024, the companies reached a settlement agreement granting Riot board nomination rights (claim 5695), with the agreement set to expire June 1, 2026 (claim 5701).

Q. How is Riot financing growth?
A. In December 2024, Riot raised $525 million through convertible senior notes due January 15, 2030 (claim 5251), designated for Bitcoin acquisition (claim 5252).

Q. Does Riot disclose its customers?
A. No. Riot does not publicly identify specific customers for its mining operations in available disclosures.

Q. What regulatory challenges has Riot faced?
A. Riot was involved in litigation over the Energy Information Administration's emergency cryptocurrency mining survey. A court granted a temporary restraining order preventing enforcement (claim 6236), the emergency authorization was discontinued (claim 6237), and the EIA agreed to destroy collected data (claim 6347).

Q. What is the gap between Riot's announced plans and actual results?
A. Riot initially proposed acquiring all of Bitfarms but withdrew that proposal (claim 5926), instead building a minority stake. Its settlement agreement with Bitfarms has reached or passed its June 2026 expiration. The company announced Bitcoin acquisition as the use of convertible notes proceeds but has not disclosed how much Bitcoin was actually acquired.

Q. What are the key open questions about Riot?
A. Will Riot renegotiate or wind down its Bitfarms relationship post-June 2026? How much Bitcoin has it actually acquired with the convertible notes proceeds? What are its mining capacity, hash rate, and operating costs—none of which Riot publicly discloses?

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-07

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Riot is a cryptocurrency mining company. The company's primary recent activity is acquiring Bitfarms Ltd., another mining operation, rather than operating mines directly.

Q. What is Riot's disclosed strategy?
A. Riot's strategy centers on acquiring Bitfarms Ltd. The company increased its stake from 11.3% in June 2024 (claim 6053) to 19.9% by September 2024 (claim 5801). A settlement agreement reached in September 2024 (claim 5695) grants Riot director nomination rights (claim 5705), board voting commitments (claim 5698), and conditional purchase rights if ownership exceeds 15% (claim 5702). In December 2024, Riot raised $525 million in convertible senior notes (claim 5251), stating proceeds would fund Bitcoin acquisition (claim 5252).

Q. Who are Riot's named customers?
A. No customers are named in any disclosed claims. This is a significant gap for understanding Riot's revenue model and business dependencies.

Q. What regulatory trouble has Riot faced?
A. In February 2024, Riot was subject to an emergency cryptocurrency mining survey by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (claim 6235). Plaintiffs alleged it violated statutory requirements (claim 6235). A court issued a temporary restraining order (claim 6236), and the survey was discontinued (claim 6237). The EIA destroyed the collected data (claim 6347) and committed to standard procedures for future surveys (claim 6346). All regulatory outcomes were verified by March 2024.

Q. What has Riot actually announced versus delivered on the Bitfarms deal?
A. Riot announced an acquisition proposal for Bitfarms in mid-2024, then withdrew it (claim 5926). Instead, it gradually built a 19.9% stake, investing $202 million from working capital (claim 5802). A settlement agreement was finalized September 22, 2024 (claim 5695), replacing the earlier hostile approach. The commitment expires June 1, 2026 (claim 5701), marking a key deadline to watch.

Q. What major questions remain about Riot's business?
A. The biggest gaps are: Does Riot operate any mines itself, or only acquire stakes in other operators? What will it actually do with the $525 million raised in convertible notes? Why did the 2024 emergency mining survey get shut down, and what did it show? Will Riot complete acquisition of Bitfarms or remain a minority shareholder? The settlement agreement expires June 1, 2026—what happens then?

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-06

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Riot is a cryptocurrency mining company focused on Bitcoin. Rather than selling mined Bitcoin to customers, Riot retains it as a business asset. In 2024, they also began directly acquiring Bitcoin using debt financing proceeds (claim 5252).

Q. What is Riot's current strategy?
A. Riot is pursuing a dual strategy: acquiring Bitcoin directly and investing in mining operations. The largest disclosed initiative is a stake acquisition in Bitfarms Ltd, reaching 19.9% ownership (claim 5801) for approximately $202 million (claim 5802), completed in 2024.

Q. Does Riot have named customers for its mining services?
A. No. Disclosed filings do not name any external customers. Riot mines Bitcoin for itself and holds the output rather than providing mining as a service.

Q. What has Riot actually delivered versus announced?
A. Delivered: Riot completed the Bitfarms investment (claim 5802) and settled disputes with Bitfarms, securing director nomination rights (claim 5705). Delayed: The $525 million convertible notes offering (claim 5251) was promised to close by December 11, 2024 (claim 5259) but is marked delayed.

Q. What regulatory headwinds has Riot faced?
A. In early 2024, Riot was sued over an emergency Form EIA-862 cryptocurrency mining survey. A temporary restraining order halted it (claim 6236), the emergency authorization was discontinued (claim 6237), and future surveys must use standard notice-and-comment procedures (claim 6233).

Q. What is the status of the Bitfarms partnership?
A. Riot holds 19.9% of Bitfarms (claim 5801) under a September 2024 settlement agreement (claim 5695) with director nomination rights (claim 5705) and conditional share purchase rights at the 15% threshold (claim 5702). The agreement's initial term was set to expire June 1, 2026 (claim 5701), but that deadline is now marked delayed, indicating ongoing negotiations.

Q. What should investors watch for?
A. The renegotiation or renewal of the Bitfarms agreement (past the June 1, 2026 expiration, now delayed per claim 5701). Completion of the $525 million convertible notes offering (claim 5251) currently delayed from December 2024. Disclosure of Riot's actual mining operations, capacity, and profitability.

Q. What are the biggest open questions?
A. Why an emergency mining survey was required and whether regulatory risks persist. Whether Riot's Bitcoin acquisition strategy requires additional financing. The outcome of the Bitfarms partnership renegotiation and whether Riot will increase its stake beyond 19.9% (claim 5801). Riot's mining operations, costs, and competitive position relative to Bitfarms.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-06

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Riot is a cryptocurrency mining company with operations including the Corsicana Facility. The company mines Bitcoin and related cryptocurrencies using electrical power and specialized computing equipment.

Q. What is Riot's disclosed strategy?
A. Riot has pursued a strategy of acquiring stakes in other cryptocurrency mining companies. Most significantly, Riot acquired a 19.9% stake in Bitfarms Ltd., financing this acquisition with approximately $202 million from working capital (claim 5802). The company also negotiated settlement agreements granting Riot board nomination rights (claim 5705) and conditional share purchase rights if Bitfarms' ownership falls below 15% (claim 5706).

Q. Does Riot have named customers?
A. No customers are named in Riot's disclosed materials. Riot's business model is based on mining cryptocurrency directly for its own account, not providing mining services to external customers.

Q. How has Riot financed its growth?
A. Riot financed the Bitfarms acquisition through working capital (claim 5802). Additionally, Riot raised $525 million through convertible senior notes at 0.75% interest, due January 15, 2030 (claim 5251), and expanded authorized common stock from 340 million to 680 million shares to enable future equity issuance (claim 5964).

Q. What regulatory challenges has Riot faced?
A. Riot was subject to an emergency cryptocurrency mining survey (Form EIA-862) in 2024. A court granted a temporary restraining order preventing the survey's enforcement (claim 6236), and the emergency collection was subsequently discontinued (claim 6231). Future cryptocurrency mining surveys were mandated to follow standard notice-and-comment procedures rather than emergency authority (claim 6234).

Q. What is the current status of Riot's Bitfarms relationship?
A. Riot and Bitfarms entered a settlement agreement in September 2024 (claim 5695) establishing Riot's 19.9% ownership stake, board nomination rights, and conditional purchase rights (claims 5705, 5706). The agreement was set to expire June 1, 2026 (claim 5701), marked as "delayed." A related settlement claim (claim 5704) was marked as "withdrawn" on September 4, 2026, leaving the current status of this arrangement unclear.

Q. What key operational information is not disclosed?
A. The disclosed materials do not include Bitcoin mining output, hash rate, profitability, or detailed operational metrics from Riot's facilities. Additionally, the current status of the Bitfarms settlement and the reasons for Riot's earlier withdrawal of a full acquisition proposal remain unexplained in the record.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-06

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Riot is a cryptocurrency mining company that acquires and manages stakes in mining infrastructure. Its disclosed strategy centers on acquiring significant equity positions in other mining operators rather than primarily operating its own facilities.

Q. What is Riot's disclosed strategic focus?
A. Riot's primary disclosed initiative is consolidating cryptocurrency mining assets through equity acquisitions. By September 2024, Riot had acquired a 19.9% stake in Bitfarms Ltd. for approximately $202 million (claims 5801-5802), including director nomination rights and conditional purchase options.

Q. Who are Riot's named customers or business partners?
A. Bitfarms Ltd. is Riot's only named business partner, in which Riot holds a 19.9% ownership stake (claim 5703). No end customers for mining operations are disclosed in available documents.

Q. What has Riot actually raised in capital?
A. Riot completed a $525 million convertible notes offering in December 2024 maturing January 2030 at 0.75% coupon (claim 5251), and increased authorized common stock from 340 million to 680 million shares to support capital activities (claim 5964).

Q. What regulatory issues did Riot face?
A. In early 2024, an emergency cryptocurrency mining survey triggered legal challenges. A temporary restraining order was granted (claim 6236), the emergency authorization was discontinued (claim 6237), and the government destroyed emergency survey data and agreed to use standard notice-and-comment procedures for future mining data collection (claims 6231-6233, 6347).

Q. What is the Bitfarms relationship and when does it expire?
A. Riot and Bitfarms entered a settlement agreement in September 2024 (claim 5695) granting Riot director nomination rights (claim 5705) and conditional purchase options at 15% ownership (claim 5702). This agreement expires June 1, 2026 (claim 5701)—a critical date for determining whether Riot escalates its stake or exits.

Q. What are the biggest open questions?
A. Will Riot attempt full acquisition of Bitfarms after June 2026? What is Riot's own mining capacity and profitability? How will cryptocurrency mining regulation evolve post-2024? What triggered the shift from operating its own mines to acquiring minority stakes in other operators?

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-06

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Riot Platforms is a cryptocurrency mining company that operates mining facilities and has invested heavily in Bitfarms Ltd, acquiring a 19.9% stake (claim 5703) through approximately $202 million in capital (claim 5802).

Q. What is Riot's current strategy?
A. Riot focuses on two pillars: (1) its Bitfarms investment with director nomination rights (claim 5705) and conditional share purchase options (claim 5702), and (2) capital deployment—it raised $525 million through convertible notes (claim 5251) to acquire Bitcoin (claim 5252).

Q. Does Riot have named customers?
A. Cryptocurrency mining companies do not operate on a traditional customer revenue model. Riot generates revenue by validating blockchain transactions. Its only significant named business relationship in disclosed documents is its equity stake in Bitfarms Ltd (claim 5703).

Q. What regulatory risks has Riot faced?
A. In early 2024, an emergency government survey of cryptocurrency mining (Form EIA-862) was initiated. Riot opposed it; a court blocked enforcement (claim 6236), the government discontinued the survey (claim 6237), and future surveys must follow standard notice-and-comment procedures (claim 6233).

Q. What has Riot completed versus promised?
A. Riot completed its phased Bitfarms acquisition: initial $90 million investment (claim 6052) growing to 19.9% ownership (claim 5703), financed from working capital (claim 5802), with a settlement agreement and director nomination rights (claims 5695, 5705). Its $525 million convertible notes were priced as promised (claim 5259), though Bitcoin acquisition execution details remain incomplete.

Q. What should investors watch for next?
A. Execution of Bitcoin acquisition using convertible notes (claim 5252); stability of the Bitfarms partnership expiring June 2026 (claim 5701); and whether Riot exercises conditional share purchase rights if Bitfarms stock hits certain price thresholds (claim 5702).

Q. What are the biggest open questions?
A. How stable is the Bitfarms relationship after Riot previously requisitioned a special shareholder meeting challenging the board (claim 5928) before settling (claim 5695)? At what price and pace will Riot deploy capital into Bitcoin (claim 5252)? Will regulatory scrutiny of crypto mining increase despite resolving the 2024 emergency survey?

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-05

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Riot is a cryptocurrency mining company focused on Bitcoin mining operations. Regulatory filings reference cryptocurrency mining surveys [claims 6235-6237], and recent announcements indicate Bitcoin acquisition plans using proceeds from convertible notes [claim 5252].

Q. What is Riot's current strategic focus?
A. Since June 2024, Riot has aggressively acquired shares in Bitfarms Ltd., a fellow mining operator. By September 2024, Riot held a 19.9% stake valued at approximately $202 million [claims 5801, 5802] with board nomination and conditional purchase rights [claims 5705, 5706].

Q. Does Riot publicly name its customers?
A. No. The disclosed claims do not identify any customers. Cryptocurrency mining companies typically sell hashrate to institutional buyers through direct contracts rather than naming clients publicly.

Q. What regulatory issues has Riot faced?
A. In early 2024, Riot challenged an emergency government cryptocurrency mining survey (Form EIA-862). A court granted a temporary restraining order [claim 6236] and the emergency authorization was discontinued [claim 6237]. Future surveys will use standard notice-and-comment procedures [claims 6233, 6346].

Q. What capital has Riot raised recently?
A. In December 2024, Riot raised $525 million in 0.75% convertible senior notes due January 2030 [claim 5251] with a $75 million overallotment option [claim 5260]. Proceeds are designated for Bitcoin acquisition [claim 5252].

Q. What constraints govern Riot's Bitfarms stake?
A. The September 2024 settlement agreement includes: 7.5% beneficial ownership threshold [claim 5700], conditional purchase rights if ownership exceeds 15% [claim 5702], board nomination rights [claim 5705], and voting commitments expiring June 2026 [claim 5701].

Q. What key milestones should investors monitor?
A. Watch for: (1) whether Riot exercises conditional purchase rights if Bitfarms exceeds 15% ownership, (2) the June 2026 expiration of voting commitments [claim 5701], which may trigger governance changes, and (3) how Riot deploys its $525 million in capital.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-05

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Riot's disclosed filings do not explicitly detail its primary business operations. The company owns a facility in Corsicana (claim 6013) and acquired a 19.9% stake in Bitfarms Ltd. (claim 5703), a publicly traded company. Specific revenue sources, operational metrics, or mining capacity are not provided in these claims.

Q. What is Riot's disclosed strategy?
A. In 2024-2025, Riot pursued two major initiatives: (1) A significant Bitfarms investment, acquiring approximately $202 million in shares to reach 19.9% ownership (claim 5801), culminating in a September 2024 settlement granting board voting rights and director nomination rights (claims 5704, 5705). (2) Raising $525 million through convertible senior notes issued in December 2024 (claim 5251), designated for bitcoin acquisition (claim 5252).

Q. Are there named customers in Riot's disclosed filings?
A. No. Riot's documents do not identify any named commercial customers, suggesting it operates as a producer or investor rather than a service provider with client relationships.

Q. What are the key terms of Riot's Bitfarms partnership?
A. Riot holds 19.9% of Bitfarms acquired for approximately $202 million (claims 5801, 5802). The September 2024 settlement agreement (claim 5704) grants Riot board voting rights, director nomination rights (claim 5705), and standstill provisions restricting Riot's further actions until June 1, 2026 (claim 5701). Riot also has conditional share purchase rights if its stake falls below 15% (claim 5706).

Q. What regulatory development affected mining companies in early 2024?
A. An emergency cryptocurrency mining survey (Form EIA-862) was attempted in February-March 2024. Following legal challenge, the emergency collection was discontinued (claims 6231, 6237), the mandatory response obligation was eliminated (claim 6232), emergency data was ordered destroyed (claim 6347), and future mining surveys must use standard notice-and-comment procedures (claim 6233).

Q. What are the key dates to watch?
A. June 1, 2026: The Bitfarms standstill agreement expires (claim 5701), removing restrictions on Riot's future actions regarding Bitfarms. January 15, 2030: The $525 million convertible notes mature (claim 5251). These dates represent potential decision points for Riot's consolidation strategy.

Q. What are the biggest open questions about Riot?
A. What are Riot's actual mining capacity, production rates, and unit economics? Will Riot attempt to consolidate or take control of Bitfarms after June 2026? How profitable is mining given energy costs and ongoing regulatory scrutiny? What is Riot's strategy for bitcoin holdings acquired with the convertible proceeds? How will Riot service $525 million in debt maturing in 2030?

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-05

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Riot is a cryptocurrency mining company that mines Bitcoin and invests in other mining operations. The company acquired a 19.9% stake in Bitfarms Ltd., a major mining operator (claim 5801), financed with $202 million (claim 5802).

Q. What is Riot's stated strategy?
A. Riot operates its own mining facilities, including the Corsicana property (claim 6013), while building a minority stake in Bitfarms Ltd. through a settlement agreement giving Riot director nomination rights and conditional options to purchase additional shares (claims 5695, 5705, 5706). The company raised $525 million in convertible notes (claim 5251) to fund growth and Bitcoin acquisition (claim 5252).

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. No customers are disclosed. Like most cryptocurrency mining companies, Riot monetizes by selling Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies produced by its own mining operations and its investments in other miners.

Q. What has Riot actually accomplished versus announced?
A. Riot successfully acquired its 19.9% Bitfarms stake after an initially hostile approach (claim 5926) that transitioned to a settlement agreement (claim 5695). The company completed its $525 million convertible notes offering (claim 5251) and financed Bitfarms with $202 million in working capital (claim 5802).

Q. What should I watch for?
A. Monitor the status of Riot's Bitfarms settlement agreement—it was promised to expire in June 2026 (claim 5701) but remains delayed as of September 2026. Also track performance of the company's mining operations as capital from the new $525M convertible offering (claim 5251) is deployed and the notes mature in January 2030 (claim 5251).

Q. What are the biggest unknowns?
A. Why is the Bitfarms settlement agreement in delayed status? Will Riot pursue operational control of Bitfarms beyond its current 19.9% stake? What are the actual mining outputs and profitability metrics from Riot's operations and Bitfarms investment? Revenue details and production capacity aren't disclosed in available company records.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-05

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Riot is a cryptocurrency mining company that generates revenue by mining digital assets.

Q. What is Riot's current disclosed strategy?
A. Riot is pursuing consolidation of the cryptocurrency mining industry through acquisitions. The primary focus is Bitfarms Ltd.: Riot owns 19.9% of Bitfarms (claim 5801) after investing approximately $202 million from working capital (claim 5802). Riot also holds conditional rights to acquire additional Bitfarms shares if ownership falls below 15% (claim 5702, 5706).

Q. Does Riot have named customers?
A. No. Riot is a mining operator, not a service provider. It generates revenue by operating cryptocurrency mining infrastructure, not by serving end customers.

Q. What has Riot actually delivered on the Bitfarms acquisition?
A. Riot successfully built its Bitfarms stake from 11.3% in June 2024 (claim 6052-6053) to 19.9% by September 2024 (claim 5801), investing over $200 million. The attempted takeover proved contentious. In September 2024, Riot and Bitfarms settled (claim 5695), with Riot gaining a director nomination right (claim 5705) but accepting standstill provisions preventing further acquisitions (claim 5699). The settlement expires June 1, 2026 (claim 5701).

Q. How has Riot financed its growth?
A. Bitfarms purchases were financed from working capital (claim 5802). In December 2024, Riot raised capital through convertible senior notes: $525 million at 0.75% interest (claim 5251) with an additional $75 million overallotment option (claim 5260). Riot stated proceeds will be used for bitcoin acquisition (claim 5252).

Q. What regulatory issues has Riot faced?
A. In early 2024, an emergency EIA cryptocurrency mining survey prompted legal challenges over statutory compliance (claim 6235). The court granted a restraining order (claim 6236), and the emergency authorization was discontinued (claim 6237). By March 2024, this was fully resolved and future data collection will follow standard procedures (claim 6233, 6346).

Q. What are the biggest open questions?
A. The Bitfarms settlement expires June 1, 2026 (claim 5701)—what happens after is uncertain. Key risks include: whether Riot can profitably deploy capital amid bitcoin price volatility; whether the company can service $525 million+ in convertible debt; whether the consolidation strategy will face antitrust scrutiny; and whether Riot's conditional share purchase rights will be triggered.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-05

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Riot is a Bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining company. It operates mining facilities including the Corsicana Facility (claim 6013) and generates revenue through Bitcoin mining and holdings.

Q. What is Riot's current disclosed strategy?
A. Riot's primary strategy is building a strategic stake in Bitfarms Ltd, another major mining operation. By September 2024, Riot owned 19.9% of Bitfarms (claim 5801) acquired for approximately $202.2 million (claim 5802). In September 2024, Riot settled with Bitfarms (claim 5695), securing voting rights (claim 5696), director nomination rights (claim 5705), and conditional rights to acquire additional shares if Bitfarms' stock falls below 15% (claims 5702, 5706). The company also raised $525 million in convertible senior notes in December 2024 (claim 5259) specifically for Bitcoin acquisition (claim 5252).

Q. Who are Riot's named customers or clients?
A. No named customers are disclosed. Riot operates as a Bitcoin mining business rather than a traditional service provider; it generates revenue by mining and holding Bitcoin, not through customer contracts.

Q. What progress has Riot made on its stated plans?
A. Riot has successfully executed its Bitfarms acquisition strategy, progressively building its stake from 11.3% in June 2024 (claim 6053) to 19.9% by September 2024 (claim 5801). It completed the December 2024 convertible notes offering as announced (claim 5259).

Q. Who leads Riot?
A. The executive team includes Jason Les (CEO, claim 5366), Benjamin Yi (Executive Chairman, claim 5367), Colin Yee (CFO, claim 6054), William Jackman (EVP General Counsel, claim 6055), and Jason Chung (EVP Corporate Development & Strategy, claim 5369).

Q. What are the biggest open questions about Riot?
A. The disclosed claims do not reveal Riot's current Bitcoin holdings, mining output, or profitability metrics. It is unclear how much of the $525 million in convertible proceeds has been deployed into Bitcoin, whether Riot plans to fully consolidate Bitfarms, or what happens after the Bitfarms settlement agreement expires on June 1, 2026 (claim 5701).

Q. What regulatory issues affect Riot's sector?
A. From February-March 2024, the federal government halted emergency cryptocurrency mining data collection (Form EIA-862) following a court restraining order (claims 6236, 6237). The authorization was discontinued (claim 6237) and collected data will be destroyed (claim 6347). Future mining surveys will follow standard notice-and-comment procedures (claims 6233, 6234). These appear to be industry-level regulatory developments rather than enforcement actions against Riot specifically.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-05

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Riot is a cryptocurrency mining company that operates mining facilities to earn cryptocurrency rewards and makes strategic investments in other miners. The company is pursuing consolidation of the crypto mining industry.

Q. What is Riot's current strategy?
A. Riot is building mining capacity at facilities like Corsicana (claim 6013), acquiring stakes in competitors (e.g., 19.9% of Bitfarms - claim 5801), and raising capital through convertible debt ($525M offering - claim 5251) to fund Bitcoin acquisitions and growth.

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. Riot doesn't have named customers in the traditional sense—it generates revenue by mining cryptocurrency directly, similar to how gold miners earn by extracting gold rather than selling to named buyers.

Q. What is the status of Riot's Bitfarms investment?
A. Riot owns 19.9% of Bitfarms Ltd (claim 5801), invested $202.18M (claim 5802), has conditional share purchase rights (claim 5706), a director nomination right (claim 5705), and voting commitments (claim 5696) under a September 2024 settlement agreement (claim 5695).

Q. What regulatory issues has Riot faced?
A. Riot faced regulatory scrutiny over an emergency cryptocurrency mining survey (Form EIA-862) in early 2024. After legal challenges and a court-ordered temporary restraining order (claim 6236), the emergency survey was discontinued (claim 6237) and the obligation to respond was eliminated (claim 6232).

Q. How much capital has Riot raised and for what purpose?
A. Riot raised $525M through convertible senior notes with a 0.75% coupon due January 2030 (claim 5251), explicitly intended for Bitcoin acquisition (claim 5252).

Q. What are the key open questions about Riot?
A. Key unknowns include: the specifics and profitability of Riot's mining operations; whether Riot will exercise its conditional purchase rights at Bitfarms (claim 5702 mentions a 15% threshold condition); and how the Bitfarms settlement agreement terms will evolve, given the expiration date was pushed to June 2026 (claim 5701).

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-05

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Riot is a cryptocurrency mining company that operates mining facilities, including the Corsicana Facility (claim 6013), and holds stakes in other mining companies.

Q. What is Riot's disclosed strategy?
A. Riot's strategy centers on gaining control of Bitfarms Ltd, a Canadian mining company. The company owns 19.9% of Bitfarms (claim 5801), negotiated for board nomination rights (claim 5705), and raised $525 million in convertible senior notes (claim 5251) designated for Bitcoin acquisition (claim 5252).

Q. What customers does Riot serve?
A. Riot does not serve named customers. It is a mining operator that generates revenue from mining operations and investments in other mining companies, not from providing services to clients.

Q. What has Riot delivered on its Bitfarms acquisition strategy?
A. Riot completed multiple purchases in Bitfarms, building its stake from 11.3% (claim 6053) to 19.9% (claim 5801) with over $200 million invested (claim 5802). However, a September 2024 settlement agreement granting board representation and voting rights (claims 5695-5705) was withdrawn the same day (claim 5704), leaving the current status of the relationship unclear.

Q. How is Riot financing its growth?
A. Riot financed Bitfarms acquisitions through working capital (claim 5802) and raised $525 million in convertible senior notes at 0.75% interest due January 2030 (claim 5251), designated for Bitcoin acquisition (claim 5252).

Q. Why did Riot withdraw its Bitfarms settlement agreement?
A. In September 2024, Riot and Bitfarms entered a settlement agreement including director nomination rights and conditional purchase options for an additional 5.5% stake (claims 5695-5706). The agreement was withdrawn that same day (claim 5704) with no public explanation of the reason.

Q. What regulatory issues affect crypto mining?
A. In early 2024, the U.S. Energy Information Administration conducted an emergency survey of cryptocurrency miners. Plaintiffs challenged it as violating statutory requirements (claim 6235), and a court granted a temporary restraining order (claim 6236). The emergency collection was discontinued (claim 6231), and all future crypto mining surveys must follow standard notice-and-comment procedures (claims 6233, 6346).

Q. What are the biggest open questions about Riot?
A. Key unknowns include: Will Riot acquire control of Bitfarms despite withdrawing its settlement? How will the $525 million in convertible debt be deployed amid Bitcoin price volatility? Will regulatory scrutiny of crypto mining increase? What are Riot's actual mining operations, capacity, and profitability relative to its acquisition strategy? Disclosed documents provide minimal detail on operational metrics.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-05

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Riot is a Bitcoin mining company. It operates cryptocurrency mining facilities and acquires strategic stakes in other mining operations, positioning itself as both a direct producer and investor in the mining sector.

Q. What is Riot's current disclosed strategy?
A. Riot's strategy combines mining operations with investment in other miners and Bitcoin accumulation. The company acquired a 19.9% stake in Bitfarms Ltd (claim 5703), secured director nomination rights (claim 5705), and has conditional share purchase rights if Bitfarms ownership falls below 15% (claim 5702). In December 2024, Riot raised $525M in convertible senior notes (claim 5251) and deployed proceeds to acquire Bitcoin (claim 5252).

Q. Does Riot have named customers?
A. Not in the traditional sense. Riot is a Bitcoin producer and treasury holder, not a service provider. Its stakeholders are shareholders and note holders. No end-customer or client relationships are disclosed.

Q. What has Riot actually delivered versus announced?
A. Riot completed its 19.9% Bitfarms acquisition for approximately $202M in working capital (claim 5802) and entered a settlement agreement with Bitfarms (claim 5695). The company successfully closed a $525M convertible notes offering (claim 5251) and acquired Bitcoin with the proceeds (claim 5252). Specific Bitcoin holdings and mining production numbers remain undisclosed.

Q. What regulatory issues has Riot faced?
A. Riot faced scrutiny over an emergency EIA Form EIA-862 cryptocurrency mining survey. A temporary restraining order was granted (claim 6236), the emergency survey was discontinued (claim 6237), and obligations to respond were eliminated (claim 6232). Future mining data collection was directed to follow standard notice-and-comment procedures (claim 6234). All matters were resolved by March 2024.

Q. What are the biggest open questions?
A. Will Riot's Bitfarms governance involvement yield favorable board outcomes? Will Bitfarms's ownership fall below 15%, triggering Riot's conditional purchase rights (claim 5702)? What are Riot's total Bitcoin holdings and operational mining capacity? How will the settlement agreement term expiration (delayed past June 2026, claim 5701) affect the partnership? What is Riot's long-term capital allocation strategy?

Q. What should investors watch for?
A. Monitor Bitfarms board composition changes and governance developments resulting from Riot's director nomination right. Track whether Bitfarms ownership approaches the 15% threshold. Watch Bitcoin price movements affecting Riot's treasury value. Monitor mining output and operating margin disclosures. Note that convertible notes mature January 2030 (claim 5251).

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-09-05

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Riot is a Bitcoin mining company. It owns and operates mining facilities and has acquired a 19.9% stake in Bitfarms Ltd., another major mining operation (claim 5801).

Q. What is Riot's disclosed strategy?
A. Riot is acquiring Bitcoin directly with capital from convertible debt offerings (claim 5251), expanding mining capacity, and acquiring stakes in other mining companies like Bitfarms to grow its operational presence.

Q. Who are Riot's customers?
A. Riot is a mining operator, not a service provider—it has no traditional customers. It generates revenue by mining Bitcoin and selling it on the open market.

Q. What major acquisitions and financing has Riot disclosed?
A. Riot invested roughly $202 million acquiring a 19.9% stake in Bitfarms (claims 5801–5802) and raised $525 million in convertible notes (claim 5251) to fund operations and Bitcoin purchases (claim 5252).

Q. What regulatory issues has Riot faced?
A. In early 2024, the U.S. government attempted emergency data collection on crypto mining via Form EIA-862. Riot and others challenged it; courts granted a temporary restraining order (claim 6236) and the collection was discontinued (claim 6231), with future surveys to follow standard procedures (claim 6233).

Q. What has Riot actually delivered versus promised?
A. Most claims are recent (2024) with limited delivery history. Notably, Riot's settlement agreement with Bitfarms was withdrawn as of September 2026 (claim 5704), and the convertible notes offering pricing was delayed (claim 5259).

Q. What are the biggest open questions about Riot?
A. What operational control does Riot's 19.9% stake in Bitfarms provide? What is Riot's actual Bitcoin production capacity? How profitable are mining operations given electricity costs? When will the $525 million in capital be fully deployed?

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-05

Q. What does Riot do?
A. Riot is a cryptocurrency mining company. It mines Bitcoin and operates mining facilities. Most recently, it has become a significant investor in Bitfarms Ltd., acquiring a 19.9% stake (claim 5801).

Q. What is Riot's current stated strategy?
A. Riot is expanding through direct Bitcoin acquisition using proceeds from convertible debt (claim 5252) and through acquiring and influencing mining operations, particularly Bitfarms. It negotiated settlement terms with Bitfarms including director nomination rights (claim 5705) and conditional share purchase rights (claim 5706).

Q. Who are Riot's named customers or major business partners?
A. Riot does not appear to have named end customers in disclosed filings. Its primary disclosed relationship is with Bitfarms Ltd., in which it holds a 19.9% stake as of September 2024 (claim 5801). The nature of this relationship shifted from acquisition attempt to strategic partnership under a settlement agreement (claim 5695).

Q. What has Riot actually delivered versus announced?
A. Verified regulatory actions: the EIA emergency mining survey (Form EIA-862) was discontinued and data destroyed, following legal challenge (claims 6231, 6232, 6237, 6347). Stated acquisitions: Riot increased its Bitfarms stake in stages from 11.3% (June 2024) to 19.9% (September 2024), investing approximately $202 million total (claims 6052, 5801, 5802). Pending: a $525 million convertible notes offering (claim 5251) for Bitcoin acquisition (claim 5252) with maturity in 2030.

Q. What regulatory issues has Riot faced?
A. Riot faced a legal challenge to an emergency Energy Information Administration (EIA) survey requesting data on cryptocurrency mining operations. Plaintiffs alleged statutory violations (claim 6235). A temporary restraining order was granted (claim 6236), the survey was discontinued (claim 6237), and collected data was destroyed (claim 6347). Future mining surveys will follow standard notice-and-comment procedures (claim 6346).

Q. What major announcement appears to be delayed or at risk?
A. A settlement agreement with Bitfarms was promised by June 1, 2026 (claim 5701) but is now marked delayed as of September 2026. The agreement includes Riot's board nomination and voting rights (claims 5705, 5698). Additionally, a convertible notes offering priced at $525 was promised by December 11, 2024 (claim 5259) and marked delayed.

Q. What are the biggest open questions about Riot?
A. Whether the Bitcoin acquisition using convertible note proceeds has actually occurred; the current status of Riot's relationship with Bitfarms post-settlement and whether conditional purchase rights have been exercised; why the Bitfarms settlement agreement, promised to expire in June 2026, is now marked delayed; and whether Riot can successfully execute on its mining expansion strategy amid regulatory scrutiny.

SUPERSEDED

Frequently asked

2026-08-30

2026-10-16

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), alongside license arrangements with three universities (claim #21095). What has not been said is what the economics are: the term, territory, minimum purchase or milestone obligations, and royalty rates are absent, and the three universities are never named. Without these, a reader cannot tell whether the Merial deal could ever produce material revenue, or what the company owes its upstream licensors.

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25 (claims #21108 and #21081). It also disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13 (claim #21099) and his termination on 2005-09-25 (claim #21087). What has not been said is the purchase price and how it was paid, whether any insider was on the seller side, and why Hurst left roughly a year into an exclusive agreement. Any severance, non-compete or option acceleration from that termination is also undisclosed.

The company disclosed that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051), in the same filing that referenced a common stock offering initiated in 2012 (claim #21048). What has not been said is who the four directors were, whether any resignation letter cited a disagreement with management, and whether the exits were linked to the offering. The offering's size, price and use of proceeds are also missing, which leaves a near-collapse of the board with no stated cause.

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be done before February 4, 2011 (claims #20721 and #20715). What has not been said is whether the split was ever carried out, and at what ratio. Both claims remain not_yet_verifiable on the record, and every later share count, including the 60,000,000 authorized-share increase in claim #21040, cannot be read properly without that answer.

The company disclosed repeated expansions of its stock incentive plan: - 3,500,000 units in 2005 (claim #21088) - 1,500,000 shares in 2009 (claim #20723) - 700,000 shares in 2010 (claims #20722 and #20714, which may be the same increase recorded twice) - 700,000 shares in 2011 (claim #20710) - 425,000 shares in 2013 (claim #21041) - 1,800,000 shares in 2014 (claim #21011)

It also disclosed a 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas Hepler (claim #21107). What has not been said is the strike price and vesting schedule of the Hepler grant, how much of each new reserve went to named executives such as CEOs Richard Donnelly (claim #21082) and Stephen Lundy (claim #20711), and how much cumulative dilution these increases caused.

The company disclosed an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property on 2012-10-14 (claim #21049), and in the same filing said it was pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore (claim #21050). What has not been said is who the licensee is and what the upfront, milestone and royalty terms are. For AppyScore, the regulatory pathway, the submission date and the timeline the company expects are also missing. Note that the claim listing provided is cut off after claim #20981 (the 2016 renaming from Venaxis to Bioptix), so later disclosures were not assessed.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-15

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), and that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102). What has not been said is the economics of the Merial arrangement, such as term, minimum purchase commitments, milestone or royalty structure, and termination rights. Nor has it named any of the diagnostic-manufacturer customers or said what share of revenue the largest of them represents.

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25 (claims #21108, #21081), alongside an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim #21099) that ended within roughly a year (claim #21087). What has not been said is the purchase consideration, whether any officer, director or the departing employee had a prior interest in Vitro Diagnostics, and what severance or post-termination obligations accompanied the Hurst exit.

The company disclosed board authorization on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 for a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected by February 4, 2011 (claims #20721, #20715). Both claims remain not_yet_verifiable. What has not been said is whether the split was actually effected before the deadline, at what ratio, and how the outstanding option and incentive-plan reserves were adjusted.

The company repeatedly expanded its Stock Incentive Plan: 3,500,000 units in 2005 (claim #21088), 1,500,000 shares in 2009 (claim #20723), 700,000 shares in each of 2010 and 2011 (claims #20722, #20714, #20710), 425,000 shares in 2013 (claim #21041) and 1,800,000 shares in 2014 (claim #21011). It also disclosed a 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas Hepler (claim #21107). What has not been said is the cumulative dilution these increases represent, the annual burn rate, which executives received the bulk of the grants, and the strike price and vesting terms of the Hepler grant.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051), in the same filing that referenced a 2012 common stock offering (claim #21048). What has not been said is why four directors left at once, whether any resignation involved a disagreement with management, and the size, price and investor identity of the concurrent offering.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that it was pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore (claim #21050) and had entered an exclusive license for its animal health IP (claim #21049). It had earlier cited license arrangements with three universities (claim #21095). What has not been said is the regulatory pathway and submission date for AppyScore, the identity of the animal-health licensee and the upfront and royalty terms, and which universities hold the underlying licenses and on what royalty basis.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-15

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), alongside license arrangements with three universities (claim #21095). What has not been said is the economics of the Merial deal: term, territory, minimum purchase commitments, milestone or royalty rates, and termination triggers. Nor have the three licensing universities been named, or the royalty burden those licenses place on the product pipeline (claim #21098).

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25 (claims #21108, #21081). What has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration (cash, stock or assumed liabilities), and whether any officer, director or founder held an interest in Vitro Diagnostics at the time. That last point would make it a related-party transaction requiring proxy disclosure.

The company disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13 (claim #21099), then disclosed his termination roughly a year later on 2005-09-25 (claim #21087), concurrent with Richard Donnelly's appointment as CEO (claim #21082). What has not been said is whether the termination was for cause, what severance or option acceleration was paid, and whether non-compete or IP-assignment provisions survived.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051), in the same filing that disclosed a 2012 common stock offering (claim #21048) and an exclusive license of its animal health IP (claim #21049). What has not been said is whether any departing director cited a disagreement with management. It has also not been said who the animal-health licensee is, or what upfront, milestone and royalty terms the company accepted when it effectively exited the business its SurBred and StayBred products were built on (claims #21096, #21097).

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split of up to 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011 (claims #20721, #20715). Both claims still sit at not_yet_verifiable. What has not been said is whether the split was ever executed, at what ratio, and if not, why the authority was allowed to lapse. Similarly, no follow-up confirms the FDA clearance pursued for AppyScore (claims #21047, #21050), including submission dates, the 510(k) versus de novo pathway, or the outcome.

The company disclosed repeated equity plan expansions: 3,500,000 units in 2005 (claim #21088), 1,500,000 in 2009 (claim #20723), 700,000 in both 2010 and 2011 (claims #20722/#20714, #20710), 425,000 in 2013 (claim #21041) and 1,800,000 in 2014 (claim #21011). It also disclosed a 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas Hepler (claim #21107). What has not been said is the strike price and vesting of the Hepler grant, how much of each reserve went to named executive officers, and the cumulative overhang as a percentage of shares outstanding. The 2014 increase is the largest since 2005, yet no accompanying compensation rationale appears on the record. Note that the record supplied here truncates at the 2016 Venaxis-to-Bioptix rename (claim #20981), so no disclosures from the company's later business pivot could be assessed.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-15

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081, alongside an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (#21099) that ended in termination a year later (#21087). What has not been said is the purchase price or form of consideration, whether Vitro Diagnostics or its principals had any relationship with Hurst or other insiders that would make this a related-party transaction, and what severance or continuing obligations followed Hurst's termination.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (#21094) and that it has license arrangements with three universities (#21095). What has not been said is the economics of the Merial deal, including any upfront payment, milestones, minimum purchase commitments, territory and term. The three universities are not named, and their royalty rates and field-of-use limits are not given. Nor has the company said what revenue, if any, SurBred 15 produced after its regulatory status was characterized as outside FDA oversight (#21100).

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (#21051), in the same filing that referenced a 2012 common stock offering (#21048) and an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property (#21049). What has not been said is which directors left, whether any resignation involved a disagreement with management, the size, price and placement agent of the offering, and the identity of the animal health licensee and the license's financial terms.

The company repeatedly expanded its Stock Incentive Plan: by 3,500,000 units on 2005-09-25 (#21088), by 1,500,000 shares on 2009-10-15 (#20723), by 700,000 shares in 2010 and 2011 (#20722, #20714, #20710), by 425,000 shares in 2013 (#21041) and by 1,800,000 shares in 2014 (#21011). What has not been said is who received these grants, the annual burn rate and fully diluted overhang after each increase, and the strike price and vesting schedule of Douglas Hepler's 100,000-share option grant (#21107). The compensation terms for Stephen Lundy's 2010 appointment as CEO (#20711) and any separation arrangements tied to Daryl Faulkner stepping down as Executive Chairman (#20717) are also absent.

The company disclosed board authorization on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 for a reverse stock split of 1-for-2 to 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715, and both remain not yet verifiable. What has not been said is whether the split was executed and at what ratio. Separately, the authorized-share actions of 60,000,000 units on 2005-09-25 (#21089) and 2013-04-28 (#21040) leave unclear whether each was an increase to 60 million or an increase by 60 million, and what the resulting authorized total was.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that it is pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore (#21050, #21047), and on 2004-09-13 that StayBred requires FDA approval or an ANDA filing (#21101). What has not been said is the regulatory pathway and submission date for AppyScore, the size and endpoints of its supporting clinical study, and whether a StayBred filing was ever made. The record also gives no stated rationale for the 2016 rename from Venaxis to Bioptix (#20981), or for what happened to these product programs around that change.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-15

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), and that it sells over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102); what has not been said is what the Merial deal is worth, including any upfront payment, minimum purchase commitment, royalty rate, or term. Nor has the company said whether any single diagnostics customer accounts for a material share of product revenue.

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25 (claims #21108 and #21081); what has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration, or whether any officer or director had a relationship with the seller. That last point matters because the record also shows Roger Hurst's exclusive employment agreement (claim #21099) followed by the termination of that employment a year later (claim #21087), and no severance terms or reason for the departure have been disclosed.

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split at a ratio between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011, on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 (claims #20721 and #20715); what has not been said on the record is whether the split was actually carried out, at what ratio, and how the share reserves in the incentive plan were adjusted afterward.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051). That filing came alongside a 2012 common stock offering (claim #21048) and the pursuit of FDA clearance for AppyScore (claim #21050). What has not been said is who the four directors were, whether any resignation involved a disagreement with management, and what size, price, and use of proceeds the offering carried. The company has also not said whether an FDA submission for AppyScore was ever filed, or when.

The company disclosed a series of Stock Incentive Plan expansions: 3,500,000 shares in 2005 (claim #21088), 1,500,000 in 2009 (claim #20723), 700,000 in 2010 and again in 2011 (claims #20722, #20714 and #20710), 425,000 in 2013 (claim #21041), and 1,800,000 in 2014 (claim #21011). What has not been said is how many of those shares were granted to named executives, what the cumulative dilution overhang is, and whether the 2010 and 2011 700,000-share increases are separate or the same amendment recorded twice. The 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas Hepler (claim #21107) also lacks a disclosed strike price and vesting schedule.

The company disclosed an exclusive license agreement for its animal health intellectual property on 2012-10-14 (claim #21049); what has not been said is who the licensee is, what upfront or milestone payments were received, and whether the StayBred and SurBred products are covered (claims #21097 and #21096).

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-15

The company disclosed the acquisition of an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081, alongside an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim #21099) that was terminated by 2005-09-25 (claim #21087). What has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration, and whether Vitro or Hurst stood on both sides of the deal. Was this a related-party transaction, and what severance or continuing obligations followed Hurst's departure?

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), that it has license arrangements with three universities (claim #21095), and that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102). What has not been said is which universities are involved, what royalty or milestone obligations they carry, what minimums, term or revenue share the Merial deal contains, and whether any single unnamed customer accounts for a material share of product revenue. Who are these counterparties, and what are the economics?

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected before 2011-02-04, cited as claims #20721 and #20715. Both remain not_yet_verifiable. What has not been said on the record is whether the split was ever executed, at what ratio, and how the many share-denominated figures before and after it (claims #21089, #21040, #20714) should be restated on a split-adjusted basis. Was the authorization used, and at what ratio?

The company disclosed that four directors resigned on 2012-09-26 (claim #21051), in the same filing that announced a 2012 common stock offering (claim #21048) and an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property (claim #21049). What has not been said is why the directors left, whether any departure involved a disagreement with management, how large the offering was and at what price, and who the licensee is and on what terms. Was the animal health IP sale connected to the board turnover?

The company disclosed repeated increases to its Stock Incentive Plan: 3,500,000 units (claim #21088), 1,500,000 shares (claim #20723), 700,000 shares across claims #20722, #20714 and #20710, 425,000 shares (claim #21041) and 1,800,000 shares (claim #21011). It also disclosed a 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas Hepler (claim #21107) and Stephen Lundy's appointment as CEO (claim #20711). What has not been said is the strike price and vesting of the Hepler grant, Lundy's compensation package, any separation terms for Daryl Faulkner's exit as Executive Chairman (claim #20717), and the plan's annual burn rate and overhang. Are the three 700,000-share entries one amendment reported three times or cumulative increases?

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that it was pursuing FDA clearance for the AppyScore appendicitis test (claim #21050). It disclosed the corporate name change from Venaxis to Bioptix on 2016-10-06 (claim #20981), and the record ends there. What has not been said is the regulatory pathway, the clinical trial size or outcome, and a target submission date for AppyScore, nor whether the program was abandoned before the rebrand. The claims on file also never cover the business Riot runs today, so the disclosures behind the current enterprise are missing from this record entirely. What became of AppyScore, and where are the claims for the Riot-era business?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-13

The company disclosed the acquisition of an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081; what has not been said is the consideration paid. What were the cash, stock or earn-out terms, what assets and liabilities transferred, and did any officer or director of the acquirer have a relationship with Vitro Diagnostics that would make this a related-party transaction?

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 and that it has license arrangements with three universities, cited as claims #21094 and #21095; what has not been said is the economics or the counterparties. What royalty rates, minimum purchase commitments, milestones and term or termination provisions govern the Merial deal, and which three universities license which technologies on what royalty terms? The same filing says the company markets over 30 products to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102). How concentrated is that revenue among named customers?

The company disclosed on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 a board authorization for a reverse stock split at a ratio of 1-for-2 up to 1-for-6, to be effected before 2011-02-04, cited as claims #20715 and #20721; what has not been said is whether the split was carried out. Was it executed, at what ratio and on what date, or did the authority lapse? If it lapsed, why, and how should the many share-count figures before and after that date be compared?

The company disclosed repeated Stock Incentive Plan expansions, cited as claims #21088 (3.5M shares, 2005), #20723 (1.5M, 2009), #20722/#20714/#20710 (700K, 2010–2011), #21041 (425K, 2013) and #21011 (1.8M, 2014), plus 100,000 options to director Douglas I. Hepler (claim #21107); what has not been said is who received those grants and at what prices. How much of each increase went to named executives such as incoming CEOs Richard G. Donnelly (claim #21082) and Stephen T. Lundy (claim #20711), at what strike prices and vesting schedules? What was the cumulative overhang as a percentage of shares outstanding after each increase?

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on 2012-09-26 and, in the same filing, an exclusive license agreement for its animal health intellectual property, cited as claims #21051 and #21049; what has not been said is why the directors left, who the licensee is, or what the license pays. Were the resignations tied to a disagreement with management or to the animal-health divestiture, and what upfront, royalty and milestone terms did the licensee agree to?

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that it was pursuing FDA clearance for the AppyScore appendicitis test and had begun a common stock offering, cited as claims #21050 and #21048; what has not been said is the regulatory pathway or the size of the raise. Was AppyScore filed as a 510(k) or de novo, what was the pivotal trial's enrollment and primary endpoint, and what was the target submission date? How many shares were offered, at what price, and how many months of runway did the proceeds fund?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-13

The company disclosed the acquisition of an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 (claim #21108) and restated it on 2005-09-25 (claim #21081). What has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration, and any assumed liabilities. A reader would also want to know whether Roger Hurst, whose exclusive employment agreement was disclosed on 2004-09-13 (claim #21099) and terminated on 2005-09-25 (claim #21087), had any ownership or management link to Vitro Diagnostics, and what severance or related-party payments followed that termination.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), that it has license arrangements with three universities (claim #21095), and that it sells over 30 products to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102). What has not been said is the economics of the Merial deal (royalty or margin split, minimum purchase commitments, term, and territory), which universities are the licensors and what royalties are owed to them, and whether any single diagnostic customer accounts for a material share of revenue.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that StayBred requires FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claim #21101), and on 2012-10-14 that it was pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore (claim #21050). What has not been said is which regulatory pathway was actually chosen for each product, whether a submission was ever filed, its date, and the agency's response. Neither claim carries a target date against which progress can be measured.

The company disclosed board authorization on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 for a reverse stock split of up to 1-for-6 before 2011-02-04 (claims #20721 and #20715). Both remain not_yet_verifiable. What has not been said is whether the split was executed, at what ratio, and on what effective date. On 2012-10-14 the company disclosed that four directors resigned on 2012-09-26 (claim #21051), alongside an exclusive license of its animal health IP (claim #21049). What has not been said is whether any resigning director cited a disagreement with management, who the licensee is, and what upfront payment or royalty the company receives.

The company disclosed a long series of Stock Incentive Plan expansions: 3,500,000 shares on 2005-09-25 (claim #21088), 1,500,000 on 2009-10-15 (claim #20723), 700,000 on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 (claims #20722 and #20714), 700,000 on 2011-05-31 (claim #20710), 425,000 on 2013-04-28 (claim #21041), and 1,800,000 on 2014-04-29 (claim #21011). It also disclosed a 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas I. Hepler on 2004-03-23 (claim #21107). What has not been said is the cumulative overhang as a percentage of shares outstanding, the annual burn rate, the exercise price and vesting terms of the Hepler grant, and the pay package for Stephen T. Lundy on becoming CEO (claim #20711).

The record contains duplicate appointments on different dates. Jeffrey G. McGonegal is named CFO on both 2004-03-23 and 2005-09-25 (claims #21106 and #21084), and Douglas I. Hepler joins the board on both 2004-03-23 and 2005-09-25 (claims #21105 and #21085). What has not been said is the actual effective date of each appointment, and whether the 2005 entries reflect re-appointment at a new holding company after the restructuring (claim #21091) and the AspenBio name change (claim #21090).

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-11

The company disclosed the acquisition of an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 (claim #21108), restated on 2005-09-25 (claim #21081). What has not been said is the purchase price, the mix of cash and stock, and any earn-out. It also has not said whether the deal involved related parties, given that Roger Hurst signed an exclusive employment agreement in the same period (claim #21099) and was terminated a year later (claim #21087), with no reason or severance terms given.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claim #21094, and that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claim #21102. What has not been said is the Merial agreement's economics: royalty or transfer-price structure, minimum purchase commitments, term, and termination rights. Nor has it named its largest customers or what share of revenue they represent. The three university license arrangements (claim #21095) also lack licensor names and royalty obligations.

The company disclosed a 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas I. Hepler on 2004-03-23, cited as claim #21107. It also disclosed a string of Stock Incentive Plan reserve increases: 3.5 million (claim #21088), 1.5 million (claim #20723), 700,000 (claims #20722, #20714, #20710), 425,000 (claim #21041) and 1.8 million (claim #21011). What has not been said is the strike price and vesting on the Hepler grant. Nor has it given the cumulative overhang as a percentage of shares outstanding, or which executives received the bulk of grants after each increase.

The company disclosed board authority for a reverse split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715. What has not been said is whether the split was executed, at what ratio and on what date. This leaves ambiguous whether the 700,000-share reserve increase dated 2011-05-31 (claim #20710) is stated in pre- or post-split units.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051, alongside a 2012 common stock offering, cited as claim #21048. What has not been said is why four directors left at once, or whether any resignation involved a disagreement with management. Nor has the company given the offering's size, price per share, underwriter or use of proceeds.

The company disclosed that it was pursuing FDA clearance for the AppyScore appendicitis test, cited as claim #21050, and earlier that StayBred would require FDA approval or an ANDA filing, cited as claim #21101. What has not been said is the regulatory pathway and submission date for AppyScore, or any update on whether StayBred was ever filed or abandoned. The record also stops at the 2016 Venaxis-to-Bioptix name change (claim #20981) and says nothing about the transition to the current business or what happened to the animal-health license (claim #21049).

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-11

The company disclosed the acquisition of an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23, cited as claim #21108, and repeated it on 2005-09-25, cited as claim #21081. What has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration (cash, stock or assumed liabilities), any earn-out, and whether any insider of the company had an interest in Vitro Diagnostics, which would make it a related-party transaction.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claim #21094, and that it markets more than 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claim #21102. What has not been said is the economics of the Merial deal (royalty or transfer-price structure, minimum purchase commitments, territory, term and termination rights) or how concentrated revenue is among the unnamed diagnostic customers, including whether any single customer exceeds 10% of sales.

The company disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13, cited as claim #21099, and then the termination of that employment on 2005-09-25, cited as claim #21087. What has not been said is why the employment ended, what severance or settlement was paid, and whether the termination affected the company's rights to the license arrangements and pipeline tied to that work, cited as claims #21095 and #21098.

The company disclosed board authority to effect a reverse stock split at a ratio between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6 before 2011-02-04, cited as claims #20721 and #20715, and both remain not yet verifiable. What has not been said is whether the split was actually carried out, at what ratio and on what date, or whether the authority was allowed to lapse.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on 2012-09-26, cited as claim #21051, in the same filing that announced a 2012 common stock offering, cited as claim #21048, and an FDA clearance effort for AppyScore, cited as claims #21047 and #21050. What has not been said is whether any departing director cited a disagreement with management, the offering's size, price and use of proceeds, and the expected AppyScore submission or clearance timeline and pathway.

The company has repeatedly enlarged its stock incentive plan: 3,500,000 shares (claim #21088), 1,500,000 (claim #20723), 700,000 (claims #20722, #20714 and #20710), 425,000 (claim #21041) and 1,800,000 (claim #21011). It also disclosed a 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas Hepler, cited as claim #21107. What has not been said is the cumulative dilution these increases represent, the share of each increase granted to named executive officers, or the strike price and vesting terms of the Hepler grant. The 2016 renaming from Venaxis to Bioptix, cited as claim #20981, also arrives with no stated business rationale on the record shown.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-11

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), and that it sells more than 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102). What has not been said is what the Merial deal is worth: its term, royalty or margin split, any minimum purchase commitments, or termination triggers. Nor has the company named any customer or said whether a few buyers make up most of that product revenue.

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25 (claims #21108 and #21081), and an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim #21099), later terminated (claim #21087). What has not been said is the purchase price and form of consideration, whether any insiders were on both sides of that deal, and why Hurst left and what severance or continuing obligations came with his exit.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051). In the same filing it disclosed a common stock offering (claim #21048) and an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property (claim #21049). What has not been said is why the four directors left at once and whether they disagreed with the board. The company also has not said how much the offering raised or at what price, or who the licensee is and what upfront and royalty terms it pays.

The company disclosed on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 that the board was authorized to effect a reverse stock split at ratios from 1-for-2 to 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011 (claims #20721 and #20715). What has not been said is whether the split was ever carried out, which ratio was chosen, and how it affects the share counts in the later stock plan increases.

The company disclosed a series of stock incentive plan increases: 3,500,000 shares in 2005 (claim #21088), 1,500,000 in 2009 (claim #20723), 700,000 in 2010 and 2011 (claims #20714 and #20710), 425,000 in 2013 (claim #21041) and 1,800,000 in 2014 (claim #21011). It also disclosed a 100,000-share option grant to Douglas Hepler (claim #21107) and the appointment of Stephen Lundy as CEO (claim #20711). What has not been said is the strike price and vesting of the Hepler grant, Lundy's compensation package, and how much of each new share reserve went to named executives. The company also has not given a cumulative dilution figure across these increases.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that it was pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore (claim #21050), and on 2004-09-13 that StayBred required FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claim #21101). What has not been said is whether either submission was ever filed, when, under which regulatory pathway, and what came of it before the company renamed itself Bioptix in 2016 (claim #20981).

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-11

The company disclosed the acquisition of an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23, cited as claim #21108 and restated on 2005-09-25 as claim #21081. What has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration (cash, stock, or assumed liabilities), and whether any Vitro Diagnostics principals became insiders of the acquirer. What did the company pay, and was this a related-party transaction?

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claim #21094, and that it sells over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claim #21102. What has not been said is the economics of the Merial deal (upfront payment, royalty or margin split, minimum purchase commitments, term) or who the largest diagnostic customers are and what share of revenue they represent. How concentrated was revenue, and what does Merial owe the company?

The company disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13, cited as claim #21099, and his termination roughly a year later on 2005-09-25, cited as claim #21087. What has not been said is why the employment ended, whether severance or other termination payments were made, and whether any non-compete or IP assignment survived. Was the termination for cause, and what did it cost the company?

The company disclosed that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051, in the same filing that announced a 2012 common stock offering, cited as claim #21048. What has not been said is whether any departing director cited a disagreement with management, and what the offering's size, price, and use of proceeds were. Did the board turnover relate to the financing or to AppyScore strategy?

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split of 1-for-2 up to 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715. What has not been said is whether the split was carried out, at what ratio, and how share counts in later disclosures were adjusted. Was the split effected, and if so, at which ratio?

The company disclosed repeated increases to its stock incentive plan reserve: 3,500,000 shares in 2005 (claim #21088), 1,500,000 in 2009 (claim #20723), 700,000 in 2010-2011 (claims #20722, #20714, #20710), 425,000 in 2013 (claim #21041), and 1,800,000 in 2014 (claim #21011), alongside 100,000 options to director Douglas Hepler (claim #21107). It also disclosed a "60,000,000" authorized-share figure in both 2005 (claim #21089) and 2013 (claim #21040) without clarifying whether that was an increase by or an increase to that number. What has not been said is the cumulative dilution these increases represent, which executives received the grants, and the strike prices and vesting terms. How much of the reserve went to named executive officers, and what is the authorized share count after each amendment?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-10

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial held exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claim #21094. What has not been said is the economics of that exclusivity: the royalty or transfer-price structure, any minimum purchase commitments, the term and territory, and how many SurBred 15 units Merial actually sold before the product line faded from later disclosures.

The company disclosed on 2004-03-23 that it acquired the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics, restated on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081. It also disclosed Roger Hurst's exclusive employment agreement on 2004-09-13 (claim #21099) and his termination on 2005-09-25 (claim #21087). What has not been said is the purchase price and form of consideration for the antigen business, whether any insider had a relationship with the seller, and what severance or separation terms, along with what stated reason, accompanied Hurst's exit roughly a year after his exclusive agreement was announced.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051, in the same filing that announced a 2012 common stock offering (claim #21048). What has not been said is why a near-majority of the board left on a single day, whether any departing director cited a disagreement with management, and the size, price per share, and net proceeds of the offering that coincided with the exodus.

The company disclosed on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 a board authorization for a reverse stock split of 1-for-2 to 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715. Both remain unverified on the record. What has not been said is whether the split was actually executed, and if so at what ratio and on what date, which matters for interpreting every share count disclosed afterward.

The company disclosed repeated expansions of its Stock Incentive Plan: 3,500,000 shares on 2005-09-25 (claim #21088), 1,500,000 on 2009-10-15 (claim #20723), 700,000 on 2010-10-21 and again on 2011-05-31 (claims #20714 and #20710), 425,000 on 2013-04-28 (claim #21041), and 1,800,000 on 2014-04-29 (claim #21011). It also disclosed 100,000 options to director Douglas Hepler on 2004-03-23 (claim #21107). What has not been said is the strike price and vesting schedule of the Hepler grant, how the plan increases were allocated among named executives, and what cumulative dilution these increases represent against shares outstanding.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that it was pursuing FDA clearance for the AppyScore appendicitis test, cited as claim #21050, and earlier, on 2004-09-13, that StayBred required FDA approval or an ANDA filing, cited as claim #21101. Neither claim is followed by a submission date, a pathway (510(k) versus de novo, for example), clinical endpoint results, or a disposition. What has not been said is whether either product ever reached a regulatory decision. The record also ends with the 2016 Venaxis-to-Bioptix name change (claim #20981) and contains nothing explaining the company's transition into the business behind the RIOT ticker.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-10

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23, cited as claim #21108, and restated it on 2005-09-25, cited as claim #21081. What has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration (cash, stock, or assumed liabilities), and whether any Vitro principals stayed on or kept an economic interest in the acquired business.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claim #21094, and that it has license arrangements with three universities, cited as claim #21095. What has not been said is the economics of the Merial deal (upfront payments, milestones, royalty rate, minimum purchase commitments, term) or which three universities are the licensors and what royalties the company owes them. Relatedly, the company says it sells over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claim #21102, but names no customers and gives no revenue concentration figures.

The company disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13, cited as claim #21099, and his termination roughly a year later on 2005-09-25, cited as claim #21087. What has not been said is why the relationship ended so soon after an exclusive agreement was signed, whether severance or option acceleration was paid, and whether any non-compete or IP-assignment terms survived.

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be done before February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715. What has not been said is whether the split was ever effected, at what ratio, and if it lapsed, why the board let the authority expire.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051, alongside a stock offering, cited as claim #21048. What has not been said is whether any of the four departures involved a disagreement with management over operations, policies, or the offering, as Item 5.02 would require if one existed, and how the board was reconstituted afterward.

Across 2005-2014 the company repeatedly enlarged its stock incentive plan: by 3,500,000 units (claim #21088), 1,500,000 shares (claim #20723), 700,000 shares several times (claims #20722, #20714, #20710), 425,000 shares (claim #21041), and 1,800,000 shares (claim #21011). It also disclosed a 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas Hepler (claim #21107) and the appointment of Stephen Lundy as CEO (claim #20711). What has not been said is the strike price and vesting of the Hepler grant, the Lundy compensation package, and how much of each reserve increase went to named executive officers versus the broader workforce. On the product side, AppyScore's FDA pathway (claim #21050) and StayBred's FDA-approval-or-ANDA requirement (claim #21101) were never followed up with a submission type, filing date, or clearance outcome.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-10

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23, cited as claim #21108 and restated on 2005-09-25 as claim #21081. What has not been said is the purchase consideration, how it was split between cash, stock and assumed liabilities, and whether any officer or director had an interest in Vitro, which would make this a related-party transaction. It is also unclear whether the 2004-09-13 exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim #21099) was tied to the deal, and what severance, if any, was paid when his employment ended (claim #21087).

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claim #21094, and that it has license arrangements with three universities, cited as claim #21095. What has not been said is the economics of the Merial deal: upfront or milestone payments, royalty or transfer-price structure, minimum purchase commitments, term, and termination rights. The three universities are not named, and neither are the royalty obligations owed to them. In the same filing the company said it markets over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102) but named no customer and gave no revenue concentration.

The board authorized a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected by 2011-02-04, cited as claims #20721 and #20715. What has not been said on the record is whether the split was actually carried out, at what ratio, and on what date. That matters for reading every later share count, including the 60,000,000-share authorized increase in claim #21040 and the option reserves.

The company has repeatedly expanded its Stock Incentive Plan: 3,500,000 units (claim #21088), 1,500,000 shares (claim #20723), 700,000 shares (claims #20722, #20714 and #20710), 425,000 shares (claim #21041) and 1,800,000 shares (claim #21011). What has not been said is whether the three 700,000-share entries are one amendment or several, how many awards went to named executives versus the broad workforce, and what cumulative dilution these increases represent. Separately, the 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas I. Hepler (claim #21107) was disclosed without a strike price, vesting schedule or expiry.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on 2012-09-26, cited as claim #21051, alongside a common stock offering (claim #21048) and an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property (claim #21049). What has not been said is who resigned, whether any of them cited disagreement with management, who the licensee is, and what the license pays. Together these suggest a significant strategic turn that the record does not explain.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that it is pursuing FDA clearance for the AppyScore appendicitis test, cited as claims #21047 and #21050. What has not been said is the regulatory pathway (510(k) or de novo), the submission date, the size and endpoints of the clinical study, and the expected decision timeline. The record also never reports an outcome for that clearance effort.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-10

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094) and that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102). What has not been said is the economics of the Merial deal: its royalty or transfer-price terms, any minimum purchase commitments, its duration and termination triggers. It also has not named any of its diagnostic-product customers or said what share of revenue the largest of them account for.

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and restated it on 2005-09-25 (claims #21108, #21081). It also disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13 (claim #21099), followed by his termination on 2005-09-25 (claim #21087). What has not been said is the purchase price and form of consideration for the Vitro assets, whether any insider had a relationship with Vitro, why Hurst's employment ended barely a year into an exclusive agreement, and what severance was paid.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051), alongside a common stock offering initiated in 2012 (claim #21048). What has not been said is why a near-majority of the board left on a single day, whether any departing director sent a disagreement letter, and the offering's size, price, placement agent and net proceeds.

The company disclosed on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 a board authorization for a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected by February 4, 2011 (claims #20721, #20715). The record still shows these as not yet verifiable. What has not been said is whether the split was ever executed, at what ratio, and if not, why the authority was allowed to lapse.

The company disclosed repeated increases to its stock incentive plan reserve: 3,500,000 shares on 2005-09-25, 1,500,000 on 2009-10-15, 700,000 on 2010-10-11, 2010-10-21 and 2011-05-31, 425,000 on 2013-04-28, and 1,800,000 on 2014-04-29 (claims #21088, #20723, #20722, #20714, #20710, #21041, #21011). It also disclosed a 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas Hepler (claim #21107) and Stephen Lundy's appointment as CEO (claim #20711). What has not been said is whether the three 700,000-share entries are a single increase or separate ones. Also undisclosed are the cumulative overhang and dilution these increases represent, the strike price and vesting terms of the Hepler grant, and the compensation package given to Lundy on appointment.

The company disclosed that it was pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore on 2012-10-14 (claim #21050), that StayBred requires FDA approval or an ANDA on 2004-09-13 (claim #21101), and that it had granted an exclusive license of its animal-health IP on 2012-10-14 (claim #21049). What has not been said is the submission pathway and filing date for AppyScore, whether a StayBred application was ever filed, and who the animal-health licensee is and what it paid. The record also ends with an auditor ratification on 2016-10-06 (claim #20982) and contains no disclosure linking this diagnostics history to the business now trading as Riot.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-10

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), alongside license arrangements with three universities (claim #21095). What has not been said is what the economics are: the royalty or margin split with Merial, any minimum purchase commitments, the term and termination triggers, and which three universities license the underlying IP and on what royalty terms.

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25 (claims #21108 and #21081), and on 2004-09-13 said it markets over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102). What has not been said is the purchase price and form of consideration, whether Vitro Diagnostics or its principals had any relationship to company insiders, and whether any single customer accounts for a material share of that antigen revenue.

The company disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13 (claim #21099), then disclosed on 2005-09-25 that the employment had been terminated (claim #21087). What has not been said is why the agreement ended within roughly a year, whether termination was for cause, and what severance, option acceleration or non-compete terms applied.

The company disclosed a 700,000-share Stock Incentive Plan increase on 2010-10-11, again on 2010-10-21, and a 700,000-share reserve increase on 2011-05-31 (claims #20722, #20714 and #20710), on top of earlier increases of 3,500,000 and 1,500,000 shares (claims #21088 and #20723) and later 425,000 and 1,800,000 (claims #21041 and #21011). What has not been said is whether the three 700,000-share items are one amendment or separate increases, and what the cumulative reserve, overhang and grants to named executives were after each change.

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split at a ratio between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected before 2011-02-04 (claims #20721 and #20715). What has not been said is whether the split was executed, at what ratio and on what date, and whether earlier share counts on record, including the 60,000,000 authorized shares in claims #21089 and #21040, are stated pre- or post-split.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051), in the same disclosure as a 2012 common stock offering (claim #21048) and an exclusive license of its animal health IP (claim #21049). What has not been said is why four directors left at once, whether any disagreement with management or the offering terms was involved, and who the animal health licensee is and what it paid. The 2016-10-06 BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition (claim #20980) likewise appears without stated consideration or structure.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-09

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), and described the product and its regulatory status (claims #21096, #21100). What has not been said is the economics of that exclusivity: minimum purchase commitments, the revenue split or transfer price, the term and termination triggers, and how much of reported revenue actually flowed through Merial. Why grant a sole distributor exclusive rights without quantifying what the company gets in return?

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102) and holds license arrangements with three universities (claim #21095). What has not been said is who any of these customers or licensors are, whether one or two buyers account for most antigen revenue, and what royalty or milestone obligations the university licenses impose. Is the business concentrated in a handful of unnamed accounts, and what does the company owe its academic licensors?

The company disclosed on 2010-10-11 and again on 2010-10-21 that the board was authorized to effect a reverse stock split at a ratio between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6 before 2011-02-04 (claims #20721, #20715). Neither the claims nor any follow-up on record says whether the split was executed, at what ratio, or why the authorization was needed. That matters because the stock incentive plan increases of 700,000 shares (claims #20722, #20714, #20710) are stated in share counts whose pre- or post-split basis is ambiguous. Was the split carried out, and on which basis are the plan reserves stated?

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on 2012-09-26 (claim #21051), alongside a common stock offering begun in 2012 (claim #21048) and an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property (claim #21049). What has not been said is why a majority-scale board exodus happened, whether any departing director cited a disagreement, how much the offering raised and at what price, and who licensed the animal health IP and on what terms. Were the resignations, the offering and the divestiture of the company's original business connected?

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim #21099), and on 2005-09-25 that his employment was terminated (claim #21087), the same filing that named Richard G. Donnelly President and CEO (claim #21082). It also disclosed a 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas I. Hepler on 2004-03-23 (claim #21107). What has not been said is whether Hurst received severance or retained equity, why he left about a year after signing an exclusive agreement, and what strike price and vesting schedule attach to the Hepler grant. What did the leadership change cost shareholders, and what are the terms of the director grant?

The company disclosed on 2010-10-21 that Stephen T. Lundy was appointed CEO and President with an effective date of 2010-03-24 (claim #20711), and that Daryl Faulkner stepped down as Executive Chairman as Gail Schoettler became non-executive Chair (claims #20712, #20716, #20717). What has not been said is Lundy's compensation package, whether Faulkner received separation pay or a consulting arrangement, and why the Lead Director and Vice Chairman roles were eliminated at the same time (claims #20719, #20718). What were the pay and governance terms of this restructuring? Note that the claim record supplied here is truncated after the 2016 Bioptix renaming (claim #20981), so gaps from the later bitcoin-mining period cannot be assessed from this data.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-09

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claim #21102; what has not been said is who the largest of those customers are, what share of revenue the top customers represent, and whether any single buyer accounts for a concentration risk.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 and that it has license arrangements with three universities, cited as claims #21094 and #21095; what has not been said is the economics of the Merial deal (royalty or margin split, minimum purchase commitments, term, and termination triggers), or which three universities are counterparties and what royalties or milestones the company owes them.

The company disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13, cited as claim #21099, and then his termination on 2005-09-25, cited as claim #21087; what has not been said is why an executive under an exclusive agreement was terminated roughly a year later, whether the departure was for cause, and what severance or equity acceleration was paid.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051; what has not been said is which directors left, whether any resignation stemmed from a disagreement with management over operations, policies, or practices, and how the board's committee composition and independence were restored afterward.

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6 to be effected by February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715; what has not been said is whether the split was actually executed before the deadline, at what ratio, and how the 700,000-share Stock Incentive Plan increases disclosed in 2010 and again in 2011 (claims #20722, #20714, and #20710) were adjusted for it, including whether the 2011 increase is additive or a restatement of the earlier one.

The company disclosed the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics on 2016-10-06, cited as claim #20980, after earlier disclosing the purchase of an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics (claims #21108 and #21081) and an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property (claim #21049); what has not been said in any of these is the purchase price or consideration mix, the identity of the animal health licensee and its royalty terms, and whether any of these counterparties had relationships with directors or officers who were granted options at the same time, such as the 100,000 options to Douglas I. Hepler cited as claim #21107, whose strike price and vesting terms were never disclosed.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-09

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081. What has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration (cash, stock, or assumed liabilities), and whether any officer or director had an interest in Vitro Diagnostics that would make this a related-party transaction.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, and that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claims #21094 and #21102. What has not been said is the Merial contract's term, royalty or margin split, and any minimum purchase commitments. The company also has not named any of the customers behind the 30-plus products or said what share of revenue the largest ones represent.

The company disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13, cited as claim #21099, and then the termination of his employment on 2005-09-25, cited as claim #21087. What has not been said is why the employment ended within about a year, whether severance or accelerated equity was paid, and what happened to the non-compete and exclusivity terms after termination.

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split of 1-for-2 to 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011, on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21, cited as claims #20721 and #20715. What has not been said is whether the split was actually carried out, at which ratio, and how the later share-count figures in claims #20710, #21041 and #21011 should be adjusted for it.

The company disclosed that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, alongside a common stock offering begun in 2012, both on 2012-10-14, cited as claims #21051 and #21048. What has not been said is whether any departing director disagreed with management or the offering terms. The company also has not disclosed the offering's size, price, placement agent, or net proceeds, or how much of those proceeds was earmarked for the AppyScore FDA clearance effort cited as claim #21050.

The company disclosed repeated expansions of its Stock Incentive Plan: 3,500,000 shares (claim #21088), 1,500,000 (#20723), 700,000 (#20722, #20714, #20710), 425,000 (#21041) and 1,800,000 (#21011). It also disclosed a 100,000-share option grant to Douglas I. Hepler on 2004-03-23 (claim #21107) and the appointment of Stephen T. Lundy as CEO (claim #20711). What has not been said is the strike price and vesting of the Hepler grant, the compensation package for Lundy, and how much of each reserve increase went to named executive officers versus the broader employee base.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-09

The company disclosed on 2004-03-23 (claim #21108), and again on 2005-09-25 (claim #21081), that it acquired an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics. Neither the purchase price, the form of consideration, nor whether any officer or director had a relationship with the seller has been stated. What did the company pay for this business, and was it a related-party transaction?

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), alongside license arrangements with three unnamed universities (claim #21095) and sales of over 30 products to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102). What has not been said is the economics of the Merial deal: royalty rate, minimum purchase commitments, term, and termination rights. The universities, and any customer concentration within the antigen product line, are also unnamed.

The company disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13 (claim #21099) and his termination on 2005-09-25 (claim #21087), in the same filing that installed Richard G. Donnelly as President and CEO (claim #21082). What has not been said is why Hurst left, what severance or continuing consideration he received, and whether he kept any interest in licensed technology or the Vitro-sourced antigen business.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051). The same filing references a 2012 common stock offering (claim #21048) and an exclusive license of animal health IP (claim #21049). What has not been said is who resigned and why, including whether any disagreement letters were filed; the size and pricing of the offering; and who licensed the animal health assets on what upfront and royalty terms.

The company disclosed on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 a board authorization for a reverse split of 1-for-2 to 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011 (claims #20721 and #20715). It also disclosed a series of Stock Incentive Plan increases: claims #21088, #20723, #20722, #20714, #20710, #21041 and #21011, the last adding 1.8 million shares in 2014. What has not been said is whether the split was executed and at what ratio, and how the cumulative plan reserves compare with shares outstanding on a post-split basis. Which named executives received the resulting grants is also undisclosed. The 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas I. Hepler (claim #21107) likewise lacks a strike price and vesting terms.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that it was pursuing FDA clearance for the AppyScore appendicitis test (claim #21050). Earlier, on 2004-09-13, it said StayBred would require FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claim #21101). What has not been said for either product is the regulatory pathway actually filed, the submission date, the expected decision timing, or the cost to reach clearance.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-09

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23, cited as claims #21108 and #21081, alongside an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim #21099) whose employment was terminated by 2005-09-25 (claim #21087). What has not been said is the purchase price and form of consideration, whether any acquisition-related payments or earn-outs flowed to individuals who then became employees, and what severance or contract terms applied when that employment ended roughly eighteen months later.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claim #21094, and that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claim #21102. What has not been said is the economics of the Merial arrangement (term, minimum purchase commitments, royalty or margin split, termination triggers) or which customers account for the antigen revenue and how concentrated that revenue is.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051, in the same filing that announced a common stock offering (claim #21048) and an exclusive license of its animal health IP (claim #21049). What has not been said is who the four directors were, whether any resignation involved a disagreement with management, and whether the departures were connected to the offering terms or the license counterparty, which is itself unnamed.

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split ranging from 1-for-2 to 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715, and both claims are now marked delayed. What has not been said is whether the split was ever executed, at what ratio, and if it lapsed, why the board let the authorization expire.

The company disclosed the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16, cited as claims #20980, #20979 and #20981. What has not been said is the consideration paid, how the deal was valued, whether any BiOptix holders or insiders received board seats or compensation, and what became of the AppyScore program whose FDA clearance the company said it was pursuing in claim #21050 without ever naming a submission pathway or target date.

The company disclosed a long series of equity plan expansions, including 100,000 options to director Douglas I. Hepler (claim #21107), a 3,500,000-unit plan increase (claim #21088), 1,500,000 shares (claim #20723), 700,000-share increases recorded in 2010 and 2011 (claims #20722, #20714, #20710), 425,000 shares (claim #21041) and 1,800,000 shares (claim #21011). What has not been said is the strike price and vesting on the Hepler grant, whether the repeated 700,000-share figures are one increase or several, and how much cumulative dilution these authorizations represent relative to shares outstanding; the most recent record, a 2017-04-27 financing (claim #20905), carries no amount, instrument or counterparty at all.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-08

The company disclosed the acquisition of an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081. What has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration (cash, stock or assumed liabilities), and whether any officer or director had a relationship with the seller. That context matters because this deal founded the operating business.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, and that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claims #21094 and #21102. What has not been said is the economics of the Merial arrangement: royalty or transfer-price terms, minimum purchase commitments, term and exclusivity carve-outs. Also missing is how much revenue Merial or any other single customer represents.

The company disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13, cited as claim #21099, and that employment ending on 2005-09-25, cited as claim #21087. What has not been said is why the relationship ended within about a year, whether severance or a non-compete applied, and what happened to any options or IP assignments tied to the agreement.

On 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21, shareholders authorized a reverse split of 1-for-2 to 1-for-6, to be done before February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715. Both are flagged delayed. What has not been said is whether the board ever effected the split, at what ratio and on what date, or why it lapsed if it went unused.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, alongside an unspecified 2012 common stock offering and an exclusive license of its animal health IP to an unnamed party, cited as claims #21051, #21048 and #21049. What has not been said is whether the resignations involved any disagreement with management, the offering's size and price, who licensed the animal health IP, and on what upfront and royalty terms. Claim #21050 also records that the company was pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore, and no later claim reports the outcome.

The company disclosed the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition and the name change from Venaxis to Bioptix on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16, cited as claims #20980, #20979 and #20981. What has not been said is the consideration paid, BiOptix's revenue or cash at closing, and any goodwill or impairment expectation. Separately, the stock plan reserve was increased six times between 2005 and 2014, cited as claims #21088, #20723, #20714, #20710, #21041 and #21011, and the 100,000 options granted to Douglas Hepler on joining the board, cited as claim #21107, came with no strike price or vesting terms. What has not been said is cumulative dilution from these increases or which executives and directors received the grants.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-08

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claim #21094, and that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claim #21102. What has not been said is what Merial pays: the royalty or margin split, any minimum purchase commitments, and the term of the exclusivity. The company also has not named its largest antigen customers or said what share of revenue they account for.

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23, cited as claim #21108, and repeated it on 2005-09-25, cited as claim #21081. What has not been said is the purchase price and the form of consideration. Nor has the company said whether any director, officer or founder had an interest in Vitro Diagnostics, which would make this a related-party transaction.

The company disclosed on 2004-03-23 that it granted 100,000 stock options to Douglas I. Hepler, cited as claim #21107, at the same time as his board appointment, cited as claim #21105. What has not been said is the strike price, the vesting schedule, or whether the grant was tied to consulting or other services beyond board duties. The record has a similar gap for Roger Hurst. He had an exclusive employment agreement, cited as claim #21099, and his employment was terminated on 2005-09-25, cited as claim #21087. What severance, option acceleration or non-compete terms applied has not been disclosed.

The company disclosed on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 that the board was authorized to effect a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715, both now marked delayed. What has not been said is whether the split was ever carried out, at what ratio, and on what date. The company has also not given a running dilution figure. The stock incentive plan reserve was raised repeatedly: 3,500,000 shares (claim #21088), 1,500,000 (claim #20723), 700,000 (claims #20722, #20714 and #20710, which may be the same increase reported more than once), 425,000 (claim #21041) and 1,800,000 (claim #21011). The total shares reserved, issued and still available after all of these increases has never been stated.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051. In the same filing it disclosed a 2012 common stock offering, cited as claim #21048, and an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property, cited as claim #21049. What has not been said is why four directors left at once, and whether any of them disagreed with management or with the offering. The licensee of the animal health IP is not named, and its upfront and royalty terms are not given.

The company disclosed the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16, cited as claims #20980, #20979 and #20981. What has not been said is the purchase consideration and how it was split between cash and stock. The company also has not said what revenue or cash burn BiOptix brought, or what happened to the AppyScore program, which was pursuing FDA clearance under claims #21047 and #21050. The claim record supplied here is cut off at claim #20905 (dated 2017-04-27, with no content), so later disclosures were not reviewed.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-08

The company disclosed on 2004-03-23 that it acquired the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics, cited as claim #21108 and restated on 2005-09-25 as claim #21081; what has not been said is what consideration was paid in cash, stock or assumed liabilities, and whether Vitro Diagnostics or its principals had any prior relationship with company insiders that would make this a related-party transaction.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claim #21094, alongside license arrangements with three universities, cited as claim #21095; what has not been said is which universities are the licensors, and what the economics of both deals are, including royalty rates, minimum purchase or performance thresholds, term, and termination rights.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst, cited as claim #21099, then disclosed on 2005-09-25 that his employment had been terminated, cited as claim #21087; what has not been said is why an exclusive agreement ended within about a year, and what severance, option acceleration or continuing consulting or IP obligations were triggered.

The board authorized a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be completed before February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715 (both now flagged delayed); what has not been said is whether the split was ever effected, at what ratio and on what date, or, if it lapsed unused, why the board abandoned an authority it had specifically sought.

The company repeatedly expanded its Stock Incentive Plan reserve, by 3,500,000 shares (#21088), 1,500,000 (#20723), 700,000 in each of #20722, #20714 and #20710, 425,000 (#21041) and 1,800,000 (#21011), and granted Douglas Hepler 100,000 options on joining the board (#21107); what has not been said is the cumulative overhang as a percentage of shares outstanding after each increase, which named executives and directors received the resulting grants, and the strike prices and vesting terms of the Hepler options.

The company disclosed that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051, while it was pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore (#21050) and running a common stock offering (#21048); what has not been said is whether any resignation stemmed from a disagreement with management, whether AppyScore ever received clearance, and what consideration was paid in the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition disclosed on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16 (claims #20980 and #20979), including how BiOptix was valued against the company's remaining cash.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-07

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081. What has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration, and whether any director, officer, or the newly employed Roger Hurst had an interest in Vitro, which would make this a related-party transaction.

The company disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13, cited as claim #21099, and his termination on 2005-09-25, cited as claim #21087. What has not been said is why an exclusive arrangement ended within about a year, whether severance or accelerated equity was paid, and whether Hurst kept any non-compete or IP obligations tied to the antigen business.

The company disclosed Merial's exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, licenses from three universities, and sales of over 30 products to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities on 2004-09-13, cited as claims #21094, #21095 and #21102. What has not been said is which universities granted the licenses, what royalties and milestones are owed under them or by Merial, and what share of revenue its largest unnamed diagnostic customers represent.

The company disclosed that four directors resigned on 2012-09-26, in the same filing that noted a 2012 common stock offering, cited as claims #21051 and #21048. What has not been said is whether any resignation involved a disagreement with management, and the offering's size, price, and underwriter.

The company disclosed board authority for a reverse stock split of 1-for-2 to 1-for-6 before 2011-02-04, cited as claims #20721 and #20715, both now marked delayed. What has not been said is whether the split was ever carried out and at what ratio. A related ambiguity is whether the 60,000,000-share authorized-capital figures in 2005 and 2013, cited as claims #21089 and #21040, are increases by that amount or to that total.

The company disclosed repeated stock incentive plan expansions of 3,500,000, 1,500,000, 700,000, 425,000 and 1,800,000 shares, along with a 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas Hepler, cited as claims #21088, #20723, #20722, #21041, #21011 and #21107. What has not been said is the cumulative dilution, who received the bulk of the grants, and the strike price and vesting of Hepler's options. The 2016 BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition, cited as claims #20980 and #20979, likewise appears without any stated consideration or valuation.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-07

The company disclosed the acquisition of an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081; what has not been said is the purchase consideration, how it was paid (cash, stock, or assumed obligations), and whether the seller had any relationship to insiders. Given that Roger Hurst had an exclusive employment agreement (claim #21099) and was terminated in 2005 (claim #21087), what were the termination terms, and was any of that consideration tied to Hurst?

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claim #21094, along with license arrangements with three universities, cited as claim #21095; what has not been said is the economics of the Merial deal (upfront payments, minimum purchase commitments, royalty rates, term, and termination rights) or which universities are the licensors and what royalties or milestones the company owes them. The 2012 exclusive license of animal health intellectual property, cited as claim #21049, likewise names no licensee and gives no deal value. Is that the same Merial relationship or a new counterparty?

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051, in the same period as a common stock offering, cited as claim #21048; what has not been said is who the four directors were, whether any resignation stemmed from a disagreement with management, and the size, price, and proceeds of the offering. Did the board turnover and the raise share a cause?

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be done before February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715; what has not been said is whether the split was ever effected and, if so, at what ratio. The record never states that the deadline was met, so share counts disclosed after that date cannot be compared with the counts before it. Which ratio, if any, was applied, and were the stock plan reserves adjusted accordingly?

The company disclosed repeated expansions of its Stock Incentive Plan: 3,500,000 units on 2005-09-25 (claim #21088), 1,500,000 shares on 2009-10-15 (claim #20723), 700,000 shares in 2010 and 2011 (claims #20722, #20714, #20710), 425,000 shares in 2013 (claim #21041), and 1,800,000 shares in 2014 (claim #21011). What has not been said is the cumulative overhang as a percentage of shares outstanding, the annual burn rate, and which executives received the grants. Were the 700,000-share increases in 2010 and 2011 separate approvals or the same one disclosed twice? The 100,000 options granted to Douglas Hepler, cited as claim #21107, also come with no exercise price or vesting terms.

The company disclosed the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and its rename from Venaxis to Bioptix on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16, cited as claims #20980, #20979, and #20981; what has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration, any goodwill or impairment expectations, or why a company that had been pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore (claim #21050) changed direction. What happened to the AppyScore program and the capital spent on it?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-06

The company disclosed the acquisition of an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23, cited as claim #21108, and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claim #21081; what has not been said is what consideration was paid, whether in cash, stock or assumed liabilities, and whether any director, officer or significant holder had an interest in Vitro Diagnostics. What did the company pay, and was this a related-party transaction?

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claim #21094, and that it sells more than 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claim #21102; what has not been said is the term, territory, minimum purchase commitments or royalty economics of the Merial arrangement, or how concentrated revenue is among those unnamed diagnostic customers. What share of revenue came from Merial and from the largest antigen customers?

The company disclosed license arrangements with three universities on 2004-09-13, cited as claim #21095, and an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property on 2012-10-14, cited as claim #21049; what has not been said is which universities are involved, which party took the animal health license, and the royalty, milestone or upfront terms in either direction. Who are these counterparties, and what are the economics?

The company disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13, cited as claim #21099, and the termination of his employment on 2005-09-25, cited as claim #21087; what has not been said is why the agreement ended within about a year, whether severance or accelerated equity was paid, and whether any non-compete or IP assignment survived. On what terms did Hurst depart? Relatedly, the company disclosed 100,000 stock options granted to director Douglas I. Hepler on 2004-03-23, cited as claim #21107, but not their strike price or vesting schedule. That gap matters more given repeated plan expansions of 3,500,000, 1,500,000, 700,000, 425,000 and 1,800,000 shares, cited as claims #21088, #20723, #20722, #21041 and #21011. How much of each increase went to named executives, and what was the cumulative dilution?

The company disclosed board authority for a reverse stock split of 1-for-2 to 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011, on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21, cited as claims #20721 and #20715; what has not been said is whether the split was ever effected, at what ratio, and why. Was the split tied to an exchange listing deficiency? Similarly, the company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051, alongside a common stock offering initiated that year, cited as claim #21048; what has not been said is why the directors resigned, whether any disagreement with management was reported, and the size, price and investors of the offering. Were the resignations and the financing connected?

The company disclosed the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16, cited as claims #20980, #20981 and #20979; what has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration, whether a fairness opinion was obtained, and what became of the AppyScore FDA clearance effort disclosed on 2012-10-14, cited as claims #21047 and #21050. Was AppyScore abandoned, impaired or sold, and what did BiOptix cost? The record on file ends mid-2017, so how these legacy diagnostic assets were treated in the later business transformation also remains unaddressed.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-06

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081, alongside an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim #21099) that was later terminated (claim #21087). What has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration, and whether Hurst or any other insider held an interest in Vitro Diagnostics. Was this a related-party transaction, and what severance or continuing obligations followed Hurst's termination?

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, and that it has license arrangements with three universities, cited as claims #21094 and #21095. What has not been said is the economics of either arrangement: the term, territory, minimum purchase or milestone commitments with Merial, and the names, royalty rates and field-of-use limits of the three university licensors. How much of SurBred 15's value does the company actually retain after these obligations?

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claim #21102. What has not been said is who those customers are or how concentrated revenue is among them. What share of antigen revenue came from the largest one to three customers, and are any of them under multi-year supply contracts?

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected before 2011-02-04, cited as claims #20721 and #20715, and Stephen T. Lundy's appointment as CEO and President with a stated effective date of 2010-03-24 that was not reported until 2010-10-21, cited as claim #20711. What has not been said is whether the split was executed, at what ratio and on what date, and what Lundy's base salary, equity grant and severance terms were. These questions matter because the stock plan reserve was increased in nearly every proxy cycle (claims #21088, #20723, #20714, #20710, #21041, #21011).

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on 2012-09-26, a 2012 common stock offering, and an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property, cited as claims #21051, #21048 and #21049. What has not been said is why the four directors left at once, and whether any of them cited a disagreement with management. Also undisclosed are the size and pricing of the offering and the identity of the animal health licensee, along with any upfront payment or royalty it pays.

The company disclosed the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16, cited as claims #20980, #20979 and #20981. What has not been said is the consideration paid, how many shares were issued, and whether the sellers had any prior relationship with directors or officers. What strategic rationale did the board use for a deal that came just months before the company's next reinvention, and how much of the acquired value was later written off?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-06

The company disclosed the acquisition of an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23, cited as claim #21108 and restated on 2005-09-25 as claim #21081; what has not been said is what consideration was paid, in cash, stock or assumed liabilities, and whether Vitro Diagnostics or its principals had any relationship with insiders. Without a purchase price and a related-party statement, how should a reader judge whether the deal was negotiated at arm's length?

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claim #21094, and that it sells more than 30 products to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claim #21102; what has not been said is the economics of the Merial deal, including term, royalty or transfer pricing, minimum purchase commitments and territory, or which customers account for most of the antigen revenue. How concentrated is revenue in Merial and a handful of unnamed buyers?

The company disclosed Roger Hurst's exclusive employment agreement on 2004-09-13, cited as claim #21099, and his termination on 2005-09-25, cited as claim #21087, alongside a 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas Hepler, cited as claim #21107; what has not been said is whether Hurst's exit triggered severance, option acceleration or a consulting arrangement, why he left, and the exercise price and vesting schedule of Hepler's options. What did these personnel changes actually cost shareholders?

The company disclosed that four directors resigned on 2012-09-26, cited as claim #21051, in the same filing that announced a 2012 common stock offering, cited as claim #21048; what has not been said is whether any departing director cited a disagreement with management, and what the offering's size, price per share and resulting dilution were. Was the board exodus connected to the financing or to the AppyScore regulatory path, claims #21047 and #21050, whose FDA clearance outcome is never reported in the record?

The company disclosed board authority for a reverse stock split of 1-for-2 to 1-for-6 to be effected before 2011-02-04, cited as claims #20721 and #20715, both now flagged delayed; what has not been said is whether the split was ever executed, at what ratio, and whether it was driven by a listing-compliance deficiency notice. Given the repeated share-reserve increases in claims #20714, #20710, #21041 and #21011, what is the cumulative dilution from equity-plan expansions over this period?

The company disclosed the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition and the name change from Venaxis to Bioptix on 2016-10-06, cited as claims #20980, #20979 and #20981; what has not been said is the purchase consideration, the assets and liabilities acquired, and how the deal fit a strategy that later took the company to the Riot name. The record available here is cut off at claim #20909 in 2017, so the pivot itself, and any counterparties, sites or financing tied to it, cannot be assessed from these claims. What drove the shift away from diagnostics?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-05

The company disclosed the acquisition of an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081; what has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration (cash, stock, or assumed liabilities), and whether any officer or director had a prior relationship with Vitro Diagnostics that would make this a related-party transaction.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 and that it has license arrangements with three universities, cited as claims #21094 and #21095; what has not been said is the term, territory, minimum purchase commitments, and revenue split under the Merial agreement, or which three universities are the licensors and what royalty or milestone obligations the company owes them.

The company disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13, cited as claim #21099, and his termination on 2005-09-25, cited as claim #21087; what has not been said is why the employment ended within roughly a year, what severance or option acceleration was paid, and whether any non-compete or IP assignment terms survived. Relatedly, the 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas I. Hepler, cited as claim #21107, was disclosed without a strike price, vesting schedule, or explanation of why a single new director received a grant of that size.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051, alongside an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property, cited as claim #21049; what has not been said is whether any departing director cited a disagreement with management, and who the animal health licensee is, along with the upfront payment, royalty rate, and whether that licensee has any connection to a former insider.

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split of 1-for-2 to 1-for-6 by February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715 (both now flagged delayed); what has not been said is whether the split was actually effected, at what ratio, and if it was abandoned, why. The same gap applies to AppyScore, cited as claims #21047 and #21050: the company disclosed it was pursuing FDA clearance but not the regulatory pathway (510(k) versus de novo), the submission date, or the clinical study size supporting it.

The company disclosed the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16, cited as claims #20980, #20979, and #20981; what has not been said is the deal consideration and valuation, how much of the price was allocated to goodwill versus identifiable assets, and what strategic rationale justified pivoting away from the AppyScore diagnostic program that the company had been funding through repeated stock incentive plan expansions and offerings (claims #21011, #21040, #21048).

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-05

The company disclosed on 2004-03-23 that it acquired the antigen business of Vitro Diagnostics, cited as claim #21108 and restated on 2005-09-25 as claim #21081. What has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration (cash, stock, or assumed liabilities), and whether any officer or director of the company had an ownership interest in Vitro Diagnostics. Without that, a reader cannot tell whether this was an arm's-length deal.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claim #21094, and that it sells more than 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claim #21102. What has not been said is how the Merial deal pays out: any upfront fee, milestones, royalty or margin split, term, or minimum purchase commitments. It is also unclear whether any single unnamed diagnostic customer accounts for a material share of product revenue.

The company disclosed on 2004-03-23 that Douglas I. Hepler received options on 100,000 shares, cited as claim #21107, and that Jeffrey G. McGonegal was appointed CFO, cited as claims #21106, #21104 and #21084. What has not been said is the exercise price, vesting schedule and expiry of the Hepler grant, or the salary, bonus and equity terms of McGonegal's appointment. The CFO appointment is also reported again in the 2005 filing without explaining whether the role or its terms changed in between.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst, cited as claim #21099, and on 2005-09-25 that his employment was terminated, cited as claim #21087. On 2012-10-14 it disclosed that four directors resigned together on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051. What has not been said is why Hurst left, what severance or non-compete terms applied, and whether the four directors left over a disagreement with management or the board. A simultaneous resignation of that size would normally prompt such a disclosure.

The company disclosed on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 that the board was authorized to effect a reverse stock split between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715. What has not been said is whether the split was ever carried out, at what ratio, and on what date. The same applies to the 2012 common stock offering, cited as claim #21048, whose size, price and net proceeds are missing.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that it was pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore, cited as claims #21047 and #21050, and on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16 that it acquired BiOptix Diagnostics and renamed itself from Venaxis to Bioptix, cited as claims #20980, #20979 and #20981. What has not been said is how the AppyScore submission turned out, what was paid for BiOptix and in what form, and whether the acquisition marked a strategic shift away from AppyScore. The claims on record end in 2017 and contain nothing on the company's later business as Riot, so no gaps can be drawn for that period from this data.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-03

The company disclosed the acquisition of an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081. It also disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13 (claim #21099) and that his employment was terminated by 2005-09-25 (claim #21087). What has not been said is the purchase consideration, how it was split between cash, stock and assumed liabilities, and whether Hurst or other insiders had an ownership interest in the seller. Was this a related-party transaction, and was anything owed or forfeited when Hurst left?

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 and that it has license arrangements with three universities, cited as claims #21094 and #21095. What has not been said is the economics and term of the Merial deal: royalty or margin split, minimum purchase commitments, territory and termination rights. The three universities are not named, and the royalty obligations owed to them are not stated.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claim #21102. What has not been said is who the largest customers are, or what share of revenue the top one or two account for. For a small antigen supplier, customer concentration is the first question an analyst would ask.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that StayBred requires FDA approval or an ANDA filing, and on 2012-10-14 that it is pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore, cited as claims #21101 and #21050. What has not been said is the specific pathway for AppyScore (510(k), de novo or PMA), the filing date, the expected decision date, or whether any StayBred submission was ever made. Neither product has a disclosed regulatory timeline.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, alongside a common stock offering and an exclusive animal-health IP license, cited as claims #21051, #21048 and #21049. What has not been said is why four directors left at once, and whether any resignation involved a disagreement with management. The licensee or licensor of the animal-health IP is not named, and the offering's size and price are not given.

The company disclosed board authority for a reverse split of up to 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011, on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21, cited as claims #20721 and #20715. It also disclosed the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition and the Venaxis-to-Bioptix name change on 2016-10-06, cited as claims #20980, #20979 and #20981. What has not been said is whether the split was effected and at what ratio, or the BiOptix purchase price, form of consideration and post-closing ownership. Against repeated incentive-plan increases of 3.5 million, 1.5 million, 700,000, 425,000 and 1.8 million shares (claims #21088, #20723, #20722, #20710, #21041, #21011), cumulative dilution to existing holders is also left unstated.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-03

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), alongside license arrangements with three universities (claim #21095). What has not been said is the economics of either arrangement: the term, territory, minimum purchase or milestone obligations under the Merial deal, which universities are the licensors, and what royalty rates or sublicense fees flow back to them.

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25 (claims #21108 and #21081). What has not been said is the purchase consideration, how much revenue the acquired business contributed to the 30-plus products marketed to diagnostic manufacturers (claim #21102), and whether any officer, director or employee had a prior relationship with Vitro that would make this a related-party transaction.

The company disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13 (claim #21099), then disclosed on 2005-09-25 that Roger D. Hurst's employment had been terminated (claim #21087). What has not been said is why the agreement ended roughly a year after it was highlighted, whether severance or other termination payments were made, and whether any restrictive covenants or IP assignments survived.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051), in the same filing that described a 2012 common stock offering (claim #21048) and an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property (claim #21049). What has not been said is whether any resigning director cited a disagreement with management, the size and pricing of the offering, and who the animal health licensee is and on what upfront, milestone and royalty terms.

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011 (claims #20721 and #20715), and repeatedly expanded its stock incentive plan by 700,000 shares in 2010-2011, 425,000 in 2013 and 1,800,000 in 2014 (claims #20714, #20710, #21041 and #21011). What has not been said is whether the split was executed and at what ratio, and therefore what the cumulative overhang from these plan increases represents as a percentage of shares outstanding on a split-adjusted basis.

The company disclosed it was pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore on 2012-10-14 (claim #21050) and then the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition with a name change on 2016-10-06 (claims #20980, #20979 and #20981). What has not been said is the regulatory outcome for AppyScore, including submission type, timing and any FDA response, or the consideration paid for BiOptix and its strategic rationale. The record also breaks off at a 2017-04-27 financing entry (claim #20905) with no detail, so nothing on file covers the company's later transition into its current business.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-03

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), and that it sells more than 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102). What has not been said is what Merial pays: the royalty or margin split, any minimum purchase commitments, and the term and termination triggers. The record also never says whether any single customer accounts for a material share of that product revenue.

The antigen business acquired from Vitro Diagnostics was disclosed on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25 (claims #21108, #21081), but no purchase price, form of consideration, or assumed liabilities appear anywhere. A reader would also want to know whether any officer or director had a prior relationship with Vitro Diagnostics. The 2004-09-13 license arrangements with three universities (claim #21095) are similarly unnamed, with no royalty rates or milestone obligations.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Roger Hurst signed an exclusive employment agreement (claim #21099). It then disclosed on 2005-09-25 that the employment was terminated (claim #21087), the same filing that named Richard G. Donnelly President and CEO (claim #21082). What has not been said is why the termination happened, whether it was for cause, and what severance or equity acceleration was paid. Nor has the company said whether Hurst kept a shareholding large enough to matter for control.

On 2012-10-14 the company disclosed that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051), alongside a 2012 common stock offering (claim #21048) and FDA pursuit for AppyScore (claim #21050). What has not been said is whether any departing director cited a disagreement with management, as an 8-K Item 5.02 would require. The record is also silent on the offering's size, price, and use of proceeds.

The board was authorized to effect a reverse split of 1-for-2 up to 1-for-6 by February 4, 2011, disclosed on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 (claims #20721, #20715). Both claims are now marked delayed. What has not been said is whether a split was ever executed before the deadline, and at what ratio. Separately, Stephen T. Lundy's appointment as CEO (claim #20711) comes with no disclosed salary, bonus, or option grant, and the record carries a 2010-03-24 date that predates the filing.

The BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition and the name change from Venaxis to Bioptix were disclosed on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16 (claims #20980, #20981, #20979), with no consideration, valuation, or share count issued. More broadly, the record stops at a truncated 2017-04-27 financing entry (claim #20905). Nothing on file explains the strategic pivot from diagnostics to the business now traded as RIOT, or what happened to the legacy AppyScore and animal-health assets.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-03

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), and that it sells over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102). What has not been said is what the Merial deal is worth: upfront or milestone payments, minimum purchase commitments, term, and territory. Nor has the company named its largest diagnostic customers or said how concentrated that revenue is.

The company disclosed licenses with three universities on 2004-09-13 (claim #21095) and an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property on 2012-10-14 (claim #21049). What has not been said is who the three universities are, what royalties or milestones the company owes them, who the 2012 licensee is, and what consideration the company received for giving up exclusivity.

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25 (claims #21108, #21081), alongside an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim #21099) that was terminated by 2005-09-25 (claim #21087). What has not been said is the purchase price and form of consideration for the antigen business, whether Hurst or other insiders had any interest in the seller, and what severance or other terms applied to his termination.

The company disclosed that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051), in the same year it began a common stock offering (claim #21048). What has not been said is who those directors were, whether any of them resigned over a disagreement with management, and the size, price and dilution of the 2012 offering.

The company disclosed board authority for a reverse stock split of up to 1-for-6, to be done before February 4, 2011, on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 (claims #20721, #20715). Both claims carry a delayed status. What has not been said is whether the split was ever carried out, at what ratio, and if not, why the board let the authority lapse.

The company disclosed the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition and the name change from Venaxis on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16 (claims #20980, #20981, #20979). It also disclosed repeated increases to the stock incentive plan reserve, including 1,500,000 shares in 2009 (claim #20723), 700,000 shares in 2010 to 2011 (claims #20722, #20714, #20710), 425,000 in 2013 (claim #21041) and 1,800,000 in 2014 (claim #21011), plus a 100,000-share option grant to Douglas Hepler (claim #21107). What has not been said is the price paid for BiOptix and how it was valued, and who received grants under each plan increase and at what strike prices and vesting terms. The company also has not said what the cumulative dilution from these plan increases has been.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-02

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), alongside the product itself (claim #21096). What has not been said is the economics of that exclusivity: the term, territory, royalty or transfer-price structure, any minimum purchase commitments, and what happens to the rights if Merial underperforms.

The company disclosed on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25 that it acquired an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics (claims #21108, #21081), and separately disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim #21099) followed by his termination (claim #21087). What has not been said is the purchase price and form of consideration for the antigen business, whether any officer or director had an interest in Vitro Diagnostics that would make this a related-party transaction, and what severance or continuing obligations attached to Hurst's departure.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102) and holds license arrangements with three universities (claim #21095). What has not been said is which customers account for the bulk of that revenue and whether any single customer is material, nor which universities are licensors and what royalty rates or milestone payments the company owes them.

The company disclosed on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 a board authorization for a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6 to be effected before February 4, 2011 (claims #20721, #20715), and the record now carries both as delayed. What has not been said is whether the split was ever executed, at what ratio, and if it lapsed unused, why the board sought the authority in the first place.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051), in the same filing that described a common stock offering (claim #21048) and the pursuit of FDA clearance for AppyScore (claims #21047, #21050). What has not been said is why four directors left on a single day, whether any resignation involved a disagreement with management, and what regulatory pathway, submission date, and clearance timeline the company was actually working against for AppyScore.

The company disclosed on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16 the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and a corresponding name change (claims #20980, #20979, #20981), after a long run of stock incentive plan increases including 3,500,000 shares in 2005, 1,500,000 in 2009, 700,000 in 2010 and 2011, 425,000 in 2013, and 1,800,000 in 2014 (claims #21088, #20723, #20722, #20710, #21041, #21011). What has not been said is the consideration paid for BiOptix and how it was valued, and how much of the cumulative plan reserve was granted to named executives such as Stephen T. Lundy (claim #20711) versus the broader workforce.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-02

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081, alongside an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (#21099) that was terminated by 2005-09-25 (#21087). What has not been said is the purchase consideration, whether any seller-side party was related to company insiders, and what severance or continuing obligations, if any, accompanied the Hurst termination.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (#21094), that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (#21102), and that it holds license arrangements with three universities (#21095). What has not been said is any revenue, minimum-purchase or royalty figure under the Merial agreement, the share of sales from the largest diagnostic customers, or which three universities license the technology and on what royalty terms.

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715, and both are now tracked as delayed. What has not been said is whether the split was ever effected, at what ratio and on what date, or why the authorization was allowed to lapse if it was not used.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (#21051), in the same filing that announced a common stock offering (#21048) and an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property (#21049). What has not been said is why four directors left at once, who the animal health licensee is, and what upfront payment, royalty rate or milestones the license carries.

The company disclosed the AppyScore blood test for appendicitis and its pursuit of FDA clearance on 2012-10-14, cited as claims #21047 and #21050, and then the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition and the name change from Venaxis on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16 (#20980, #20979, #20981). What has not been said is the outcome of the FDA submission, whether AppyScore was abandoned before the pivot, and the consideration, valuation and dilution attached to the BiOptix deal.

The company disclosed repeated increases to its stock incentive plan, including 3,500,000 shares in 2005 (#21088), 1,500,000 in 2009 (#20723), 700,000 in 2010 and 2011 (#20722, #20714, #20710), 425,000 in 2013 (#21041) and 1,800,000 in 2014 (#21011), plus a 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas I. Hepler in 2004 (#21107). What has not been said is the exercise price and vesting schedule of the Hepler grant, how much of each new reserve went to named executives such as CEOs Richard G. Donnelly (#21082) and Stephen T. Lundy (#20711), and what burn rate justified expanding the pool almost every year.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-01

The company disclosed the acquisition of an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081, and the same filings record an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim #21099) and its later termination (claim #21087). What has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration, and whether the seller or its principals had any relationship with the company's management at the time. Investors would also want to know why the Hurst agreement was terminated and on what severance terms.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claims #21094 and #21096. It also said it sells more than 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claim #21102. What has not been said is the economics of the Merial arrangement: royalty or margin split, minimum purchase commitments, term, and territory. Nor has the company named any of its largest diagnostic customers or disclosed how concentrated its revenue was among them.

The company disclosed license arrangements with three universities on 2004-09-13, cited as claim #21095, alongside a pipeline that includes StayBred, which requires FDA approval or an ANDA filing, cited as claims #21097 and #21101. What has not been said is which universities are involved, which products each license covers, and what royalty or milestone obligations apply. There is also no filing timeline or cost estimate for the StayBred regulatory pathway.

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715, both now marked delayed. What has not been said is whether the split was ever effected, at what ratio, or why the deadline passed. This matters for interpreting the repeated Stock Incentive Plan reserve increases of 700,000 shares, cited as claims #20714, #20722 and #20710, and the 60,000,000-share authorized increase, cited as claim #21040.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051, in the same filing that announced a 2012 common stock offering and the pursuit of FDA clearance for AppyScore, cited as claims #21048 and #21050. What has not been said is why four directors left at once, whether any of them disagreed with management, and the size and pricing of the offering. The company also gave no submission type or expected timing for AppyScore clearance.

The company disclosed the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition and the name change from Venaxis to Bioptix in October 2016, cited as claims #20980, #20979 and #20981. What has not been said is the purchase consideration, any earn-outs, or the acquired business's revenue and cash burn. Earlier, the company appointed Stephen T. Lundy as CEO, cited as claim #20711, and granted Douglas I. Hepler 100,000 stock options, cited as claim #21107, without disclosing the CEO's compensation package or the strike price and vesting schedule of the Hepler grant.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-10-01

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claim #21094, and that it sells over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claim #21102. What has not been said is what Merial pays: are there royalty rates, minimum purchase commitments, milestone payments or a term and termination trigger for the exclusivity? Nor has the company named its largest diagnostic customers or said what share of revenue they represent.

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081. In the same 2004 filings it disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst, cited as claim #21099, and on 2005-09-25 it disclosed that his employment had been terminated, cited as claim #21087. What has not been said is the purchase price and form of consideration for the antigen business, or whether any insider had a relationship with Vitro. Why was Hurst terminated barely a year after signing an exclusive agreement, and what severance or continuing obligations followed?

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051. In the same filing it disclosed a 2012 common stock offering and an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property, cited as claims #21048 and #21049. What has not been said is why a near-majority of the board left on a single day, and whether any of them expressed disagreement with management. Who is the animal health licensee, and what upfront, royalty and milestone terms did the company accept for assets it had spent eight years developing? The same filing says the company is pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore, cited as claim #21050, but gives no regulatory pathway, submission date or clinical trial size.

The board authorized a reverse stock split of 1-for-2 to 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011, disclosed on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 and cited as claims #20721 and #20715, both now tracked as delayed. What has not been said is whether the split was ever executed, at what ratio and on what date. If it was not executed, why did the board let the authorization lapse?

The company has repeatedly enlarged its Stock Incentive Plan: 3,500,000 shares in 2005 (claim #21088), 1,500,000 in 2009 (claim #20723), 700,000 in 2010 and again in 2011 (claims #20722, #20714, #20710), 425,000 in 2013 (claim #21041) and 1,800,000 in 2014 (claim #21011). Separately, director Douglas Hepler received 100,000 options in 2004, cited as claim #21107. What has not been said is the annual burn rate, how much of each increase went to named executive officers versus directors, and the cumulative dilution from these grants. The record also gives no strike price or vesting terms for the Hepler grant.

The company disclosed the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16, cited as claims #20980, #20979 and #20981. What has not been said is the consideration paid, the valuation basis, and whether any BiOptix holders were existing Venaxis insiders. What strategic rationale or revenue contribution justified the deal? The claim record ends in April 2017 (claim #20905 is truncated), so none of these gaps can be checked against later disclosures.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-30

The company disclosed on 2004-03-23 the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics (claim #21108, restated 2005-09-25 as claim #21081), and on 2004-09-13 an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim #21099), whose employment was terminated by 2005-09-25 (claim #21087). What has not been said is the purchase price and form of consideration for the antigen business, whether Vitro Diagnostics or Hurst was a related party to the transaction, and why Hurst's exclusive agreement ended within about a year, including what severance or non-compete terms applied.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), that it has license arrangements with three universities (claim #21095), and that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102). What has not been said is the economics of the Merial deal (royalty rate, minimum purchase commitments, term, and termination rights), which three universities are the licensors and what royalties the company owes them, and how concentrated the antigen revenue is among its largest diagnostic customers.

The company disclosed on 2010-10-11 and again on 2010-10-21 a board authorization for a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011 (claims #20721 and #20715), both now marked delayed. What has not been said is whether the split was ever effected, at what ratio and on what date, or, if it lapsed, why the board let the authorization expire. Relatedly, Stephen T. Lundy's appointment as CEO and President (claim #20711) carries a promised-by date of 2010-03-24, earlier than the 2010-10-21 disclosure, and no compensation terms, sign-on equity, or severance arrangements are on record for him.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051), alongside a common stock offering initiated in 2012 (claim #21048) and an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property (claim #21049). What has not been said is why a majority-scale board departure happened on a single date, and whether any director cited a disagreement with management. The offering's size, price, and use of proceeds are also absent, as is the name of the animal health licensee and the upfront payment and royalty terms the company received for the assets it built through SurBred 15 and StayBred.

The company disclosed repeated expansions of its Stock Incentive Plan: 3,500,000 shares in 2005 (claim #21088), 1,500,000 in 2009 (claim #20723), 700,000 in 2010–2011 (claims #20722, #20714, #20710), 425,000 in 2013 (claim #21041), and 1,800,000 in 2014 (claim #21011). It also disclosed a 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas I. Hepler (claim #21107). What has not been said is the strike price and vesting terms of the Hepler grant, the annual burn rate and overhang each increase was meant to cover, and how much of each tranche went to named executive officers versus the broader employee base.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that it was pursuing FDA clearance for the AppyScore appendicitis test (claim #21050), then on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16 that it was acquiring BiOptix Diagnostics and renaming itself from Venaxis to Bioptix (claims #20980, #20979, #20981). What has not been said is the outcome of the AppyScore FDA submission and whether that program was abandoned before the pivot. The BiOptix acquisition's purchase price, consideration mix, and target's pre-deal revenue and cash burn are also absent. The record also ends with an incomplete 2017-04-27 regulatory claim (#20907), so nothing on file explains the company's subsequent transition to its current Riot identity.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-30

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23, cited as claim #21108 and repeated on 2005-09-25 as claim #21081; what has not been said is what was paid for it, in cash, stock, or earn-out, and whether any officer or director had a prior relationship with Vitro Diagnostics that would make this a related-party transaction?

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claim #21094, alongside license arrangements with three universities (claim #21095) and sales of over 30 products to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102); what has not been said is the economics of the Merial deal, including royalty rates, minimum purchase commitments, term and exclusivity carve-outs, which three universities are licensors, and whether any single customer accounts for a material share of revenue?

The company disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13, cited as claim #21099, and then his termination on 2005-09-25, cited as claim #21087; what has not been said is why an employment agreement described as exclusive ended within roughly a year, whether severance or a separation agreement was paid, and whether Hurst retained any equity, royalty, or IP interest in the products he was tied to?

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split of 1-for-2 up to 1-for-6 to be effected before February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715, both now marked delayed; what has not been said is whether the split was ever executed, at what ratio, and if not, why the board let the authorization lapse after seeking shareholder approval?

The company disclosed that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051, in the same filing as a 2012 common stock offering (claim #21048) and an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property (claim #21049); what has not been said is who the departing directors were and whether any disagreement was cited, how many shares were sold at what price in the offering, and who the licensee of the animal health IP is and on what upfront and royalty terms?

The company disclosed repeated expansions of its Stock Incentive Plan, including 3,500,000 shares in 2005 (claim #21088), 1,500,000 in 2009 (claim #20723), 700,000 in 2010 and 2011 (claims #20722, #20714, #20710), 425,000 in 2013 (claim #21041) and 1,800,000 in 2014 (claim #21011), plus 100,000 options to director Douglas I. Hepler in 2004 (claim #21107); what has not been said is the strike price and vesting on the Hepler grant, which executives received the bulk of the expanded pools, and what cumulative dilution these increases represent, particularly given that AppyScore FDA clearance (claim #21050) and the 2016 BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition (claims #20980, #20979) were disclosed without any stated purchase price or regulatory outcome?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-30

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), alongside license arrangements with three universities (claim #21095). What has not been said is the economics of either: the term, territory, minimum purchase or milestone obligations, and royalty or revenue-share rates under the Merial deal, and which three universities license the IP and on what royalty terms.

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25 (claims #21108, #21081), and an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim #21099) that was later terminated (claim #21087). What has not been said is the purchase price and form of consideration for the antigen business, whether any director, officer or employee, including Mr. Hurst, had an interest in Vitro Diagnostics that makes this a related-party transaction, and what severance or separation terms accompanied his termination.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102). What has not been said is who the largest customers are, what share of revenue the top one or two account for, and whether any of them are under supply contracts or buy purchase-order to purchase-order.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051), in the same filing as a 2012 common stock offering (claim #21048) and an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property (claim #21049). What has not been said is why four directors left at once and whether any cited a disagreement with management, what the offering's size, price and underwriter were, and who the animal health licensee is and what it pays upfront, in milestones, or in royalties.

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split of up to 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011 (claims #20721, #20715), and repeatedly increased the Stock Incentive Plan reserve: 3,500,000 shares in 2005, 1,500,000 in 2009, 700,000 in 2010 and 2011, 425,000 in 2013, and 1,800,000 in 2014 (claims #21088, #20723, #20722, #20714, #20710, #21041, #21011). What has not been said is whether the split was actually effected and at what ratio, and, on a split-adjusted basis, how much cumulative dilution these reserve increases represent and which executives received the resulting grants, including the strike price and vesting of Douglas Hepler's 100,000 options (claim #21107).

The company disclosed on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16 the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix (claims #20980, #20979, #20981). What has not been said is the consideration paid, whether in cash, stock or earnout, BiOptix's revenue and cash burn at closing, and whether any Venaxis insiders held a stake in the target.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-29

The company disclosed the acquisition of an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081. What has not been said is the consideration paid, whether in cash, stock or assumed liabilities, and whether any party on either side was related to insiders. This matters more because Roger Hurst signed an exclusive employment agreement (claim #21099) and was terminated about a year later (claim #21087), with no disclosed reason, severance or post-employment restrictions.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claim #21094. It also disclosed licenses with three universities (claim #21095) and sales of over 30 products to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102). What has not been said is the economics of the Merial arrangement: royalty rate, minimum purchase commitments, term and termination triggers. The record also does not name the three universities or identify any customer concentration within the 30-plus product line.

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split of 1-for-2 up to 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715. Both are now marked delayed. What has not been said is whether the split was ever executed, at what ratio and on what date, or why the authorization lapsed if it was not used.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051, alongside a common stock offering initiated that year (claim #21048). What has not been said is who the four directors were, whether any resigned over a disagreement with management, and whether the resignations were connected to the offering's terms, pricing or investors.

The company disclosed repeated increases to its Stock Incentive Plan reserve across claims #21088, #20723, #20722, #20714, #20710, #21041 and #21011, plus a 100,000-share option grant to director Douglas Hepler (claim #21107). What has not been said is how many of those shares went to named executives, including incoming CEO Stephen Lundy (claim #20711), or what the strike prices and vesting terms were. The record also gives no cumulative dilution figure for the plan expansions taken together.

The company disclosed the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16, cited as claims #20980, #20979 and #20981. What has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration or the valuation basis for the target. Separately, the record provided here ends mid-entry at claim #20909 (2017-04-27), so it contains nothing from the period in which the company became Riot. Any disclosures about that pivot fall outside this dataset.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-29

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), alongside license arrangements with three universities (claim #21095). What has not been said is the economics of either: the Merial agreement's term, minimum purchase or royalty commitments, and termination triggers, and which three universities license which pipeline products (claim #21098), on what royalty terms.

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25 (claims #21108, #21081). What has not been said is the purchase price, form of consideration, or revenue contributed by the acquired business. It is also unclear whether Roger Hurst, whose exclusive employment agreement was disclosed on 2004-09-13 (claim #21099) and whose employment was terminated by 2005-09-25 (claim #21087), had any relationship with Vitro. The record gives no reason for his termination and no severance terms.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051), alongside a common stock offering initiated that year (claim #21048). What has not been said is who the four directors were, whether any resignation involved a disagreement with management, and the offering's size, price, and use of proceeds.

The board sought authority on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 for a reverse split of 1-for-2 to 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011 (claims #20721, #20715). Both claims now carry a delayed status. What has not been said is whether the split was executed, at what ratio, and if not, why the authority lapsed.

The company repeatedly expanded its Stock Incentive Plan: 3,500,000 units in 2005 (claim #21088), 1,500,000 shares in 2009 (claim #20723), 700,000 shares in 2010–2011 (claims #20722, #20714, #20710), 425,000 in 2013 (claim #21041), and 1,800,000 in 2014 (claim #21011). It also granted Douglas Hepler 100,000 options on appointment (claim #21107). What has not been said is the cumulative overhang as a share of outstanding stock, who received the grants, and the Hepler options' strike price and vesting schedule.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that it was pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore (claim #21050). In 2016 it disclosed the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition and a name change from Venaxis (claims #20980, #20979, #20981). What has not been said is the regulatory pathway and outcome for AppyScore, and the consideration paid for BiOptix, including shares issued and the target's assets or revenue at closing.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-29

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), and that it markets more than 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102). What has not been said is the economics of the Merial arrangement: its royalty or margin split, minimum purchase commitments, term, and termination rights. The company also has not named any of the diagnostic-manufacturer customers or said what share of revenue the largest of them represents.

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25 (claims #21108, #21081). It also disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13 (claim #21099) and his termination on 2005-09-25 (claim #21087). What has not been said is the purchase price and form of consideration for the Vitro assets, the reason for Hurst's departure barely a year into an exclusive agreement, and whether any severance or post-termination payments were made.

The company disclosed license arrangements with three universities on 2004-09-13 (claim #21095) and an exclusive license for animal health intellectual property on 2012-10-14 (claim #21049). What has not been said is which universities and which licensor are involved, along with the upfront, milestone and royalty obligations attached to each. Without those terms, the pipeline claims (claim #21098) cannot be valued.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051), in the same filing that referenced a 2012 common stock offering (claim #21048) and ongoing FDA clearance efforts for AppyScore (claim #21050). What has not been said is why nearly half the board left at once, whether any director cited a disagreement with management, and the size, price and use of proceeds of the 2012 offering.

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split at a ratio between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011 (claims #20715, #20721); both claims are now marked delayed. What has not been said is whether the split was ever effected, at what ratio, and on what date. That matters for reconciling every share count disclosed afterward. Separately, Stephen T. Lundy's CEO appointment was disclosed on 2010-10-21 with a promised-by date of 2010-03-24 (claim #20711), and the record does not explain that seven-month mismatch.

The company repeatedly expanded its stock incentive plan: - 3,500,000 units in 2005 (claim #21088) - 1,500,000 shares in 2009 (claim #20723) - 700,000 shares cited in 2010 and again in 2011 (claims #20722, #20714, #20710) - 425,000 shares in 2013 (claim #21041) - 1,800,000 shares in 2014 (claim #21011)

What has not been said is whether the 700,000-share increases are one authorization or two, the cumulative dilution relative to shares outstanding, and who received the grants. Finally, the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition and the name change from Venaxis in October 2016 (claims #20980, #20979, #20981) came with no disclosed purchase price, share consideration or rationale for the change in strategy.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-29

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094), alongside the product itself (claim #21096). What has not been said is the economics of that exclusivity: what royalty or transfer-price structure, minimum purchase commitments, territory, and term govern the Merial deal, and what happens to exclusivity if Merial fails to hit volume thresholds?

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that it holds license arrangements with three universities (claim #21095) and markets over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102). What has not been said is who any of these counterparties are. Which three universities license IP to the company, what royalty and milestone obligations attach to those licenses, and do any single customers account for a material share of the 30-plus-product revenue base?

The company disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13 (claim #21099), then disclosed his termination on 2005-09-25 (claim #21087), in the same filing that restated the antigen business acquisition from Vitro Diagnostics (claims #21081, #21108). What has not been said is why the relationship ended within about a year, what severance or continuing obligations were paid, and whether Hurst had any ownership or related-party interest in Vitro Diagnostics that bears on the acquisition price, which itself was never quantified in these claims.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051), in the same period it was pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore (claims #21047, #21050) and running a common stock offering (claim #21048). What has not been said is whether the simultaneous departure of four directors involved any disagreement with management over the offering, the AppyScore regulatory strategy, or disclosure. The filing also does not give a submission pathway, filing date, or expected clearance timeline for AppyScore.

The company disclosed board authorization on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 for a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011 (claims #20721, #20715). Both claims are now tracked as delayed. What has not been said is whether the split was ever executed, at what ratio, and if it lapsed, why the board let the authorization expire. This matters because the record shows repeated stock plan reserve increases (claims #20723, #20722, #20710, #21041, #21011) with no disclosed cumulative dilution figure.

The company disclosed the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition and the rename from Venaxis to Bioptix on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16 (claims #20980, #20981, #20979). What has not been said is the consideration paid, whether in cash or shares, what share count was issued, and what BiOptix's revenue or asset base was at closing. The record on file also ends at 2017-04-27 (claim #20909) with no claims covering the subsequent rename to Riot or the pivot away from diagnostics. What operating assets from AppyScore and BiOptix were written off or sold, and on what terms?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-28

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15, cited as claim #21094, and that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities, cited as claim #21102. What has not been said is what the Merial arrangement is worth: its term, royalty or transfer-pricing structure, minimum purchase commitments, and whether Merial or any other customer accounts for a material share of revenue. What economics does Merial's exclusivity actually carry?

The company disclosed the acquisition of the antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081. What has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration, any earn-out or assumed liabilities, and whether any director, officer or founder had a relationship with Vitro Diagnostics. Was this an arm's-length transaction, and what was paid?

The company disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst on 2004-09-13, cited as claim #21099, and then his termination on 2005-09-25, cited as claim #21087, alongside Douglas I. Hepler's 100,000-share option grant, cited as claim #21107. What has not been said is the reason for Hurst's departure and any severance or non-compete terms, or the strike price, vesting schedule and expiry of Hepler's options. What did these personnel changes cost shareholders?

The company disclosed that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051, in the same filing that references a 2012 common stock offering, cited as claim #21048. What has not been said is whether any departing director cited a disagreement with management, and what the offering's size, price and use of proceeds were. Why did a majority-scale board exit coincide with a capital raise?

The company disclosed board authorization for a reverse stock split of up to 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715. It also disclosed Stephen T. Lundy's appointment as CEO with an effective date of 2010-03-24, seven months before the 2010-10-21 filing, cited as claim #20711. What has not been said is whether the split was executed and at what ratio, or why the CEO appointment was reported so long after it took effect. Did the split happen, and when did Lundy actually assume the role?

The company disclosed the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition and the Venaxis-to-Bioptix name change in October 2016, cited as claims #20980, #20979 and #20981, with the two acquisition records dated ten days apart. What has not been said is the purchase price, the consideration mix, any assumed debt, or the closing date. Separately, the record provided ends mid-entry at claim #20904 in April 2017 and contains nothing on the later pivot to the Riot name and bitcoin mining. What did Bioptix pay, and what happened after April 2017?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-28

On 2004-09-13 the company disclosed that Merial held exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 (claim #21094) and that it sold more than 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102). What has not been said is what the Merial arrangement is worth: are there minimum purchase commitments, royalty or margin terms, a termination date, or performance triggers? The company also has not said which of its research-product customers account for a material share of revenue, or how concentrated that revenue is.

On 2004-09-13 the company disclosed an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim #21099), and on 2005-09-25 it disclosed that his employment was terminated (claim #21087). In the same filing Richard G. Donnelly was named President and CEO (claim #21082). What has not been said is why the termination came so soon after an exclusive agreement, what severance or equity acceleration was paid, and whether Hurst kept any rights to the pipeline and university-licensed IP (claims #21095 and #21098).

On 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 the company disclosed board authorization for a reverse split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be done before 2011-02-04 (claims #20721 and #20715). Both claims now show as delayed. What has not been said is whether the split was ever carried out, what ratio was chosen, and, if the authority lapsed, why management let it expire.

On 2010-10-11 the company disclosed that Daryl Faulkner stepped down as Executive Chairman, and that the Vice Chairman office and the Lead Director designation were both eliminated (claims #20717, #20718 and #20719). Around the same time Stephen T. Lundy was appointed CEO (claim #20711), and that claim carries a promised-by date of 2010-03-24, which is earlier than the disclosure itself. What has not been said is what Faulkner received on his exit, what Lundy's pay package and inducement grants were, and why that date sits seven months before the filing. The same compensation gap applies to the 100,000 options granted to Douglas I. Hepler (claim #21107), which were disclosed without a strike price or vesting schedule.

On 2012-10-14 the company disclosed that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim #21051). The same filing mentioned a 2012 common stock offering (claim #21048), plans to seek FDA clearance for AppyScore (claim #21050), and an exclusive license of its animal health IP to a counterparty it did not name (claim #21049). What has not been said is why a board majority resigned on a single day and whether any director sent a letter of disagreement. The company also has not given the size and price of the offering, the filing pathway and timeline for AppyScore, or the licensee's identity and the upfront and royalty terms of the animal health license.

On 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16 the company disclosed the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix (claims #20980, #20979 and #20981). What has not been said is the purchase price, the mix of consideration, the dilution to existing holders, whether any insider had a prior relationship with BiOptix, and how the deal fit a strategy that later turned into the current Riot business. Note also that the claim record provided cuts off at claim #20906 (2017-04-27), so any gaps after that date could not be assessed.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-27

The company disclosed the acquisition of an antigen business from Vitro Diagnostics on 2004-03-23 and again on 2005-09-25, cited as claims #21108 and #21081, alongside an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim #21099) that was terminated by 2005-09-25 (claim #21087); what has not been said is what consideration was paid for the antigen business, whether any related-party relationship existed between Vitro Diagnostics and company insiders, and what severance or continuing obligations attached to the Hurst termination.

The company disclosed on 2004-09-13 that Merial holds exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15 and that it has license arrangements with three universities, cited as claims #21094 and #21095, and that it markets over 30 products to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities (claim #21102); what has not been said is which universities are the licensors, what royalty, milestone or minimum-purchase terms govern the Merial arrangement, and whether any single customer accounts for a material share of product revenue.

The company disclosed on 2012-10-14 that four directors resigned on September 26, 2012, cited as claim #21051, in the same filing that announced an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property (claim #21049) and a common stock offering (claim #21048); what has not been said is why the four directors left, whether any resignation involved a disagreement with management, who the animal health licensee is and on what economics, and how much the 2012 offering raised at what price.

The company disclosed board authorization on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 for a reverse stock split of up to 1-for-6 by February 4, 2011, cited as claims #20721 and #20715, and Stephen T. Lundy's appointment as CEO with a date of 2010-03-24 that precedes the filing (claim #20711); what has not been said is whether the split was actually effected and at what ratio, and when the Lundy appointment actually took effect and on what compensation terms.

The company disclosed repeated equity plan expansions, including 3,500,000 shares on 2005-09-25 (claim #21088), 1,500,000 on 2009-10-15 (claim #20723), 700,000 in both 2010 and 2011 (claims #20722, #20714, #20710), 425,000 in 2013 (claim #21041), 1,800,000 in 2014 (claim #21011) and a new 895,000-share plan in 2017 (claim #20909); what has not been said is how many of those shares were granted, to which named executives, and what cumulative dilution the plans represent against shares outstanding at each date.

The company disclosed the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition and the name change from Venaxis to Bioptix in October 2016, cited as claims #20980 and #20979, followed by a private placement of convertible notes, warrants and preferred stock closed March 16, 2017 (claim #20904) whose recorded figure of 4750 carries no stated unit; what has not been said is the purchase price paid for BiOptix, whether the 4750 figure refers to thousands of dollars, shares or units, and what conversion prices, warrant strikes and investor identities attach to that placement.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-27

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a lease for a 107,000-square-foot Oklahoma City data center, cited as claims #15504, #15519, #15533 and #15542, sized for 12 MW at full deployment (claims #15507, #15526, #15538). What has not been said is where the site is, who the landlord is, and what the lease term and rent are. Who supplies the 12 MW, under what tariff or power purchase agreement, and is that capacity already energized at the substation or still pending an interconnection upgrade?

On 2018-06-28 the company reported 3,500 miners installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims #15505, #15520, #15543), against a full-deployment target of 8,000 miners and 110 PH/s (claims #15506, #15537, #15551, #15508, #15539, #15552). Claim #15543 carries a delayed status. What has not been said is when full deployment is expected, and what caused the slippage. How much of the 13.5 TH/s-per-unit specification (claim #15550) is actually being realized in fleet hash rate today?

The company disclosed the purchase of 6,800 additional miners in February 2018 (claims #15518, #15503, #15541) and the Kairos Global Technology acquisition bringing 1,200 miners (claims #15517, #15502, #15540). What has not been said is who sold the 6,800 miners and at what price per unit. What consideration was paid for Kairos, in cash or stock, and are any of the sellers related to officers, directors or significant holders?

The company disclosed a $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp with CFTC, NFA, FinCEN and Florida registrations (claims #15509, #15544, #15510, #15511). Claim #15544 was marked delayed against a 2018-03-27 target. What has not been said is who the sellers were and why the closing slipped. Did the licenses transfer cleanly, and when will the exchange offerings in claim #15516 generate reportable revenue?

The company disclosed a 12.9 percent stake in Coinsquare (claims #15512, #15545), a 52 percent stake in Tess Inc. (claims #15524, #15547), and a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claim #15513, #15546). What has not been said is the cost basis and current carrying value of each position, and the note's interest rate, maturity and conversion price. Has any of these holdings been impaired, and does majority control of Tess mean it is consolidated with its losses?

The company disclosed a Chief Executive Officer change effective 2018-04-01 (claim #16647), a 2018 director slate (claim #15554), regained Nasdaq compliance (claim #15553), and MNP LLP as 2018 auditor, a claim marked delayed (claim #15555). Separately it disclosed repeated stock-plan expansions of 1,500,000 and 700,000 shares (claims #20723, #20722, #20714, #20710) and a reverse-split authorization of up to 1-for-6 (claims #20721, #20715). What has not been said is the new CEO's compensation package and equity grants, and which listing deficiency was cured. Why was the auditor appointment delayed, and was the reverse split ever executed, and at what ratio?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-27

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims #15505, #15520, #15543), against a full deployment of 8,000 miners (claims #15506, #15551) producing about 110 PH/s (claims #15508, #15527, #15539). What has not been said is the date full deployment was actually reached, if it was. The per-unit hardware spec is also given two ways, 13.75 TH/s in claim #15530 and 13.5 TH/s in claim #15550, so which figure underpins the 110 PH/s target?

The company disclosed a 107,000 square foot Oklahoma City data center lease on 2018-06-28 (claims #15504, #15519, #15533, #15542) and a 12 MW power capacity for the site (claims #15507, #15526, #15538). What has not been said is the landlord, the street address, the lease term, the rent, or who supplies the 12 MW. Is that power under a firm contract with a named utility at a disclosed price per kWh, or is it simply the site's nameplate capacity?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that it acquired Kairos Global Technology with 1,200 miners (claims #15502, #15517, #15531, #15540) and another 6,800 miners in February 2018 (claims #15503, #15518, #15532, #15541). What has not been said is the consideration paid in either transaction, the seller of the 6,800 units, or whether any Riot officer, director, or major holder had an interest in Kairos or in that seller. Given that these purchases make up the whole mining fleet, why are the counterparty and related-party context absent?

The company disclosed a $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp (claims #15509, #15521, #15534), tracked as delayed against a 2018-03-27 target (claim #15544). It also cited that entity's CFTC/NFA, FinCEN, and Florida money transmitter status (claims #15510, #15511, #15528, #15529, #15535, #15536, #15548, #15549). What has not been said is the actual closing date, whether those registrations survived the change of control without new regulatory approval, and what revenue, if any, the exchange offerings in claim #15516 have produced.

The company disclosed a 12.9% Coinsquare stake (claims #15512, #15522, #15545), a $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (claims #15513, #15523, #15546), and 52% ownership of Tess Inc (claims #15514, #15524, #15547), followed by a completed Tess acquisition on 2018-07-09 (claim #15472). What has not been said is the cost basis and current carrying value of the Coinsquare position, the Verady note's maturity, rate, and conversion terms, and what was paid to take Tess from 52% to full ownership.

The company disclosed a Chief Executive Officer personnel item dated 2018-04-01 (claim #16647), the appointment of MNP LLP as 2018 auditor, tracked as delayed (claim #15555), and a regained Nasdaq listing compliance on 2018-06-20 (claim #15553). What has not been said is the nature of the Nasdaq deficiency that was cured, why the auditor item is flagged as delayed, and the incoming CEO's compensation package and any relationships with the counterparties above.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-27

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 against a full-deployment target of 8,000 miners (claims #15505, #15506, #15551), and the 3,500-unit milestone is tracked as delayed (claim #15543). What has not been said is the dated schedule for installing the remaining 4,500 machines, or what caused the shortfall against the March 31 target.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 an acquisition of 6,800 additional miners in February 2018 (claims #15503, #15518, #15532, #15541) alongside the Kairos Global Technology acquisition of 1,200 miners (claims #15502, #15517, #15531). What has not been said is who sold the 6,800 machines, what Riot paid for either tranche, and how the Kairos consideration was structured. Nor has the company said whether any Kairos principals had a prior relationship with Riot directors, officers or significant shareholders, which is exactly the related-party context a proxy reader would look for.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a per-machine specification of 13.75 TH/s (claim #15530) and, in the same filing set, 13.5 TH/s (claim #15550), both feeding a 110 PH/s full-deployment target (claims #15508, #15527, #15539, #15552). What has not been said is which figure is correct: 8,000 units at 13.5 TH/s yields about 108 PH/s rather than 110. The company also has not said what hash rate was actually achieved with 3,500 units online.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 107,000-square-foot Oklahoma City facility lease (claims #15504, #15519, #15533, #15542) and 12 MW of power capacity at full deployment (claims #15507, #15526, #15538). What has not been said is the lessor, lease term, rent, and street address of the site. The filings also omit the utility supplying the 12 MW, the contracted price per kWh, and whether that capacity is firm or interruptible, all of which drive the unit economics of the mining operation.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 the $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp with its CFTC/NFA registrations and FinCEN/Florida licensing (claims #15509, #15510, #15511, #15521), and that acquisition is tracked as delayed against a 2018-03-27 date (claim #15544). What has not been said is the actual closing date, who the sellers were, and when the exchange offerings described in claim #15516 would launch and generate revenue.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 12.9% stake in Coinsquare (claims #15512, #15545), 52% ownership of Tess Inc (claims #15514, #15547), and a $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (claims #15513, #15546). On 2018-07-09 it described Tess as a completed acquisition (claim #15472). What has not been said is the cost basis and carrying value of the Coinsquare and Tess positions, the interest rate, maturity and conversion terms of the Verady note, and how a 52% holding reconciles with a completed acquisition. Separately, the MNP LLP auditor appointment is tracked as delayed (claim #15555) and the CEO personnel item (claim #16647) names no individual. That leaves open who held the role and on what compensation terms.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-27

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that it acquired Kairos Global Technology with 1,200 miners (claims #15531, #15540, #15502, #15517) and another 6,800 miners in February 2018 (claims #15532, #15541, #15503, #15518). What has not been said is the consideration paid for either purchase, who sold the 6,800-unit batch, and whether any seller had a prior relationship with Riot's officers or directors. Were these arm's-length purchases, and what was the per-unit cost?

The company guided on 2018-06-28 to 110 PH/s from roughly 8,000 miners drawing 12 MW (claims #15527, #15552, #15539, #15508, #15506, #15551, #15526, #15538, #15507). It also cited per-unit hardware performance of both 13.75 TH/s (claim #15530) and 13.5 TH/s (claim #15550) in the same filing. Which figure is correct? At 13.5 TH/s the fleet reaches only about 108 PH/s. And who supplies the 12 MW, at what contracted rate and term?

The company disclosed a 107,000-square-foot data center lease in Oklahoma City (claims #15533, #15542, #15504, #15519, #15469). What has not been said is the street address, the landlord, the lease term and rent, and whether that landlord is related to any insider. Was the power service to the site contracted separately from the lease?

The company reported 3,500 miners installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims #15505, #15520), and claim #15543 is marked delayed against that date. The company also said it may establish mining operations elsewhere (claim #15474). What has not been said is a target date for reaching the full 8,000-unit deployment, or what caused the shortfall. How many miners were operating at the end of the second quarter?

The company disclosed a $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp (claims #15521, #15534, #15509), and claim #15544 is marked delayed against a 2018-03-27 date. It also cited Logical Brokerage's CFTC/NFA registrations and its FinCEN and Florida money transmitter licensing (claims #15535, #15536, #15548, #15529, #15510, #15511). What has not been said is who sold the business, whether regulators approved the change of control, and what revenue the exchange offerings (claim #15516) have generated since closing.

The company disclosed a 52% stake in Tess Inc. (claims #15547, #15514, #15524), then announced a completed Tess acquisition on 2018-07-09 (claim #15472). It also disclosed a 12.9% Coinsquare stake (claims #15545, #15522, #15512, #15473) and a $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (claims #15546, #15513, #15523). What has not been said is what was paid for the remaining Tess interest, the carrying value of the Coinsquare holding and whether it has been diluted, and the Verady note's maturity and conversion terms. Separately, MNP LLP's appointment as auditor is marked delayed (claim #15555), and the company says it regained Nasdaq compliance (claim #15553) without naming the original deficiency. Why was the auditor engagement delayed, and which listing rule had the company breached?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-27

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that it bought 1,200 miners through the Kairos Global Technology acquisition, cited as claims #15540, #15531, #15517 and #15502, and a further 6,800 miners in February 2018, cited as claims #15541, #15532, #15518 and #15503. It has not said what it paid for either tranche, whether the consideration was cash or stock, who sold the 6,800 miners, or whether any of Kairos's principals had a prior relationship with Riot's directors or officers. Without that, how can a reader judge cost per terahash or rule out a related-party transaction?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of March 31, 2018, cited as claims #15505, #15520 and #15543, against a full deployment of 8,000 miners, cited as claims #15506, #15537 and #15551. It has not given a date for full deployment, and claim #15543 already carries a delayed status. Per-unit hardware performance is also given as both 13.5 TH/s (claim #15550) and 13.75 TH/s (claim #15530). Which figure underlies the 110 PH/s target in claims #15508, #15527, #15539 and #15552, and by what quarter was that hash rate expected to be reached?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 107,000 square foot Oklahoma City facility lease, cited as claims #15504, #15519, #15533 and #15542, with 12 MW of power, cited as claims #15507, #15526 and #15538. It has not given the site address, landlord, lease term or rent, or the utility supplying the power, the contracted $/kWh rate and the contract length. The 12 MW is also described inconsistently: claim #15538 calls it supply capacity, while claim #15507 calls it full-deployment consumption. Is 12 MW the interconnection ceiling, or the expected draw, leaving no headroom for the expansion to other locations floated in claim #15474?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 the $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp, cited as claims #15509, #15521, #15534 and #15544, together with that entity's CFTC/NFA registrations and FinCEN/Florida money transmitter licensing, cited as claims #15510, #15511, #15528 and #15529. Claim #15544 carries a promised-by date of 2018-03-27, which precedes the disclosure, and a delayed status. It has not said when the deal actually closed, whether the licenses transferred intact on the change of control, or whether the U.S. exchange under investigation in claims #15470 and #15516 has a launch date or budget.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 12.9% stake in Coinsquare (claims #15512, #15522, #15545), 52% ownership of Tess Inc (claims #15514, #15524, #15547), and a $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (claims #15513, #15523, #15546). It has not given the cost basis and carrying value of the Coinsquare position, how Tess is consolidated and what minority interest and losses it brings, or the Verady note's interest rate, maturity and conversion terms. It has also not said what Digital Green Energy Corp (claims #15515, #15525) was formed to do.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-20 that it had regained Nasdaq listing compliance, cited as claim #15553, and on 2018-06-14 that MNP LLP was appointed auditor for 2018, cited as claim #15555, which now carries a delayed status. It has not said what deficiency caused the non-compliance, why the audit engagement slipped, or who the Chief Executive Officer referenced in claim #16647 of 2018-04-01 is and on what compensation terms. Given the year's acquisitions and minority investments, a reader would expect the proxy to address that CEO's pay and any related-party ties to the counterparties above.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-26

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that full deployment of 8,000 miners (claims #15506, #15537, #15551) would deliver about 110 PH/s (claims #15508, #15527, #15539, #15552), but only 3,500 miners were operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims #15505, #15520, #15543). What has not been said is when the remaining 4,500 miners will be energized, and what hash rate is actually being achieved today. Is the 110 PH/s figure based on the 13.75 TH/s per-unit specification (claim #15530) or the 13.5 TH/s one (claim #15550), and which is correct?

The company disclosed a 107,000 square foot Oklahoma City lease (claims #15504, #15519, #15533, #15542) with 12 MW of power at full deployment (claims #15507, #15526, #15538). What has not been said is who the landlord and utility are, how long the lease runs, what the rent is, and what the contracted all-in power price per kWh is. None of the claims give a street address, a substation, or any detail on whether the 12 MW is contracted firm capacity or merely an expected draw.

The company disclosed acquiring Kairos Global Technology with 1,200 miners (claims #15502, #15517, #15531, #15540), a deal completed as of 2018-07-09 (claim #15471). It also disclosed buying 6,800 more miners in February 2018 (claims #15503, #15518, #15532, #15541). What has not been said is the price paid in either deal, whether it was cash or stock, who sold the 6,800 miners, and whether any seller or Kairos principal had a prior relationship with Riot's officers or directors.

The company disclosed the $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp (claims #15509, #15521, #15534), along with its CFTC/NFA registrations and its FinCEN/Florida licensing (claims #15510, #15511, #15528, #15529, #15535, #15536, #15548, #15549). However, claim #15544 carries a 2018-03-27 target date and is marked delayed. What has not been said is when the deal actually closed and what caused the slip. The company also has not given a timeline, a capital budget, or a regulatory path for the US crypto exchange it said on 2018-07-09 it was investigating (claim #15470).

The company disclosed a 12.9% stake in Coinsquare (claims #15512, #15522, #15545, #15473), 52% ownership of Tess Inc (claims #15514, #15524, #15547), and a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claims #15513, #15523, #15546). What has not been said is the cost basis and current carrying value of each holding, the note's conversion price and maturity, and whether Tess is consolidated along with any funding obligations to it.

The company disclosed a Chief Executive Officer personnel item dated 2018-04-01 (claim #16647), and on 2018-06-14 it disclosed director elections (claim #15554) and MNP LLP's appointment as auditor (claim #15555, marked delayed). The record does not name the CEO or give their compensation package. It also does not explain what deficiency triggered the Nasdaq non-compliance that the company said on 2018-06-20 it had cured (claim #15553).

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-26

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a leased Oklahoma City data center of 107,000 square feet (claims #15504, #15519, #15533, #15542) and a full-deployment power draw of 12 MW (claims #15507, #15526, #15538). What has not been said is who the landlord is, what the lease term and rent are, which utility serves the site, and whether the 12 MW is contracted, at what price per kWh, and for how long. Is that 12 MW firm capacity or only a target?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 an expected 110 PH/s at full deployment of 8,000 miners (claims #15508, #15527, #15539, #15552, #15506, #15551), but only 3,500 miners installed as of March 31, 2018 (claims #15505, #15520), with the install milestone itself flagged as delayed (claim #15543). What has not been said is when the remaining 4,500 units will be energized. The per-unit specification also appears as both 13.75 TH/s (claim #15530) and 13.5 TH/s (claim #15550), so which figure underlies the 110 PH/s guidance?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 the acquisition of 6,800 miners in February 2018 (claims #15503, #15518, #15532, #15541) and of Kairos Global Technology with 1,200 miners (claims #15502, #15517, #15531, #15540), completed per a 2018-07-09 filing (claim #15471). What has not been said is who sold the 6,800 miners, what Riot paid for either tranche, and whether the Kairos consideration was cash or stock. Did any Riot director, officer, or significant shareholder have an interest in Kairos or in the miner seller?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp (claims #15509, #15521, #15534), one record of which carries a promised-by date of 2018-03-27 and a delayed status (claim #15544). It also disclosed that Logical holds CFTC/NFA registration, FinCEN MSB registration, and a Florida money transmitter license (claims #15510, #15511, #15528, #15529, #15535, #15536, #15548, #15549), and on 2018-07-09 that it was investigating a US crypto exchange launch (claim #15470). What has not been said is how the $600,000 was paid, who the sellers were, and which additional state licenses, what timeline, and what capital an exchange launch would require beyond the single Florida license.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 12.9% stake in Coinsquare (claims #15512, #15522, #15545), 52% ownership of Tess Inc (claims #15514, #15524, #15547), and a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claims #15513, #15523, #15546). What has not been said is the cost basis and current carrying value of each position. For the Verady note, what are the conversion price, maturity, and interest rate? For Tess, who holds the other 48%, and is it consolidated?

The company disclosed a Chief Executive Officer on 2018-04-01 (claim #16647), directors elected at the 2018 annual meeting on 2018-06-14 (claim #15554), MNP LLP appointed as auditor with a status recorded as delayed (claim #15555), and regained Nasdaq compliance on 2018-06-20 (claim #15553). What has not been said is who the CEO and elected directors are, and what their compensation and any related-party ties to the Kairos, Logical, or Coinsquare transactions are. Which Nasdaq rule had the company fallen out of compliance with, and why was the auditor matter flagged as delayed?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-26

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that full deployment of its Oklahoma City operation would reach 8,000 miners and roughly 110 PH/s at 12 MW, cited as claims #15506, #15508, #15526 and #15552. What has not been said is which hardware model is being run and at what efficiency. The same filing gives per-unit performance as both 13.75 TH/s (claim #15530) and 13.5 TH/s (claim #15550), which works out to about 110 PH/s or about 108 PH/s, and the 12 MW figure is never tied to a stated per-miner power draw or a hosting overhead.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of March 31, 2018, cited as claims #15505 and #15520, with claim #15543 flagged as delayed against that date. What has not been said is when the remaining 4,500 units would be energized, or what hash rate was actually achieved at quarter-end versus the 110 PH/s target. An analyst would ask for the monthly deployment schedule and whether any of the delay traces to power delivery or to hardware delivery.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 an executed lease on a 107,000 square foot Oklahoma City facility with 12 MW of power supply, cited as claims #15519, #15533 and #15538. What has not been said is the landlord, the street address, the lease term and rent, the utility providing the 12 MW, and the contracted power price per kWh. For a mining operation, that last number is the single largest driver of unit economics.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 the Kairos Global Technology acquisition bringing 1,200 miners and a separate February 2018 purchase of 6,800 additional miners, cited as claims #15502, #15518 and #15471. What has not been said is the consideration paid for Kairos, whether in cash or shares, or the identity of the vendor and the per-unit price for the 6,800-miner order. Nor has the company said whether any party to either transaction is related to company insiders.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 the $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp, cited as claims #15521 and #15509, with claim #15544 carrying a 2018-03-27 date marked delayed. The same filing notes it is investigating a US cryptocurrency exchange launch, cited as claim #15470 on 2018-07-09. What has not been said is who the sellers were, how the $600,000 was split between cash and stock, what caused the closing slip, and whether there is any timeline or capital budget for the exchange.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 52% stake in Tess Inc, a 12.9% stake in Coinsquare and a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC, cited as claims #15524, #15522 and #15523. What has not been said is the cost basis and current carrying value of each position, the interest rate, maturity and conversion terms of the Verady note, or whether Tess is consolidated. Separately, a CEO change is recorded on 2018-04-01 (claim #16647) without the executive's name or compensation terms, and the MNP LLP auditor appointment (claim #15555) is marked delayed without explanation.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-25

On 2018-06-28 the company disclosed a 107,000 square foot Oklahoma City data center lease (claims #15542, #15519, #15533, #15504) and a 12 MW power supply at full deployment (claims #15538, #15507, #15526). It has not given a street address, the lease term or rent, the utility or power counterparty, the contracted $/kWh rate, or any interconnection or substation detail. Who supplies the 12 MW, at what price, and for how long?

The company reported 3,500 miners installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims #15505, #15520), a figure flagged as delayed against its own date (claim #15543). It also guided to 8,000 miners and 110 PH/s at full deployment (claims #15506, #15537, #15551, #15527, #15552, #15539, #15508). What has not been said is when full deployment will be reached, or what hash rate was actually being produced from the 3,500 units in service.

The per-unit hardware specification appears as both 13.75 TH/s (claim #15530) and 13.5 TH/s (claim #15550) in the same 2018-06-28 disclosure. 8,000 units at 13.75 TH/s gives exactly the 110 PH/s guidance, while 13.5 TH/s gives about 108 PH/s. Which specification is correct, and is the 110 PH/s target a nameplate figure or a realized one?

The company disclosed the Kairos Global Technology acquisition bringing 1,200 miners (claims #15540, #15531, #15517, #15502), completed per claim #15471, and a separate February 2018 purchase of 6,800 miners (claims #15518, #15541, #15532, #15503). The seller of the 6,800 units is not named. Neither the total consideration nor the per-miner cost for either transaction is stated. What was paid, to whom, and were any of the sellers related parties?

Riot disclosed a 52% ownership stake in Tess Inc. (claims #15514, #15524, #15547) and a 12.9% stake in Coinsquare (claims #15545, #15512, #15522, #15473). It separately described the Tess deal as a completed acquisition (claim #15472). What has not been said is the consideration paid for either stake, their carrying values, or who holds the remaining 48% of Tess. The $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (claims #15523, #15546, #15513) similarly lacks a conversion price, maturity, and interest rate.

The $600,000 Logical Brokerage acquisition (claims #15521, #15534, #15509) carries a promised-by date of 2018-03-27 that is marked delayed (claim #15544), and the company says it is investigating a US cryptocurrency exchange launch (claim #15470). Why did the closing slip, and what capital, timeline, and regulatory approvals beyond the existing CFTC/NFA and FinCEN/Florida registrations (claims #15510, #15511) would the exchange require? Separately, a CEO appointment is recorded (claim #16647) without a name or compensation terms, and the MNP LLP auditor engagement is flagged delayed (claim #15555), with no explanation given for the delay.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-25

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that it acquired Kairos Global Technology and its 1,200 miners, and reported the acquisition completed on 2018-07-09 (claims #15531, #15540, #15502, #15517, #15471). What has not been said is the purchase price, the form of consideration, or who owned Kairos before the deal. Were any Riot directors, officers or major shareholders on the selling side, and if so, how was the price reviewed and approved?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that it bought 6,800 additional miners in February 2018 (claims #15541, #15532, #15503, #15518). What has not been said is who the vendor was, what the total and per-unit cost was, or the delivery schedule. The same filing also gives two different per-unit hash rates, 13.5 TH/s (claim #15550) and 13.75 TH/s (claim #15530). Which figure is correct, and which one feeds the 110 PH/s estimate?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims #15505, #15520, #15543, the last now tracked as delayed). It set that against full deployment of 8,000 miners, 12 MW and 110 PH/s (claims #15506, #15537, #15551, #15507, #15526, #15538, #15552, #15527, #15508, #15539). What has not been said is a target date for full deployment, what is holding it up, or how many miners were running at the end of the second quarter. Is the remaining gap of 4,500 units constrained by power, space, or cash?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that it executed a lease for a 107,000-square-foot data center in Oklahoma City (claims #15542, #15504, #15519, #15533). It tied that site to 12 MW of power (claim #15538). What has not been said is the landlord, the physical address, the lease term and rent, or who supplies the 12 MW, on what contract and at what price per kWh. Can the site grow beyond 12 MW, given that the company has floated mining operations at other locations (claim #15474)?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that it holds 12.9% of Coinsquare, 52% of Tess Inc. and a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claims #15545, #15522, #15512, #15547, #15524, #15514, #15546, #15523, #15513, #15472). What has not been said is what Riot paid for each stake, how each is valued on the balance sheet, and what governance rights it holds. For the Verady note, what are the conversion price, maturity and interest terms?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp and cited its CFTC/NFA, FinCEN and Florida money-transmitter registrations (claims #15534, #15509, #15521, #15535, #15548, #15510, #15536, #15549, #15511, #15528, #15529). That is tied to a planned US cryptocurrency exchange (claim #15470). What has not been said is why the deal is tracked as missing its 2018-03-27 target (claim #15544), whether the change of control needs regulator approval before the licenses carry over, and when an exchange launch is expected. Separately, the company said it regained Nasdaq compliance on 2018-06-20 (claim #15553) and named a new CEO (claim #16647), but has not said what the original deficiency was or who the CEO is and on what pay terms.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-24

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that it acquired Kairos Global Technology and its 1,200 miners, cited as claims #15531, #15540, #15502 and #15517, and said on 2018-07-09 that the deal had closed, cited as claim #15471. What has not been said is what Riot paid, whether in cash or shares, who the Kairos sellers were, and whether any of them had a prior relationship with Riot's insiders. What was the consideration, and was it a related-party transaction?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that it acquired 6,800 additional miners in February 2018, cited as claims #15532, #15503, #15518 and #15541. What has not been said is who sold them, what the per-unit or total price was, and whether the purchase was paid in cash, equity or on deferred terms. Who was the vendor, and what did the fleet cost?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of March 31, 2018, cited as claims #15505 and #15520, against a full-deployment target of 8,000 miners and 110 PH/s, cited as claims #15506, #15551, #15508 and #15527. The related deployment claim #15543 is tracked as delayed. What has not been said is a target date for reaching full deployment. The per-unit hardware spec was given as both 13.5 TH/s (claim #15550) and 13.75 TH/s (claim #15530), and at 8,000 units those two figures imply about 108 versus 110 PH/s. When will full deployment be reached, and which spec is correct?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 107,000 square foot Oklahoma City data center lease, cited as claims #15504, #15519, #15533 and #15542, with 12 MW of power capacity, cited as claims #15538, #15507 and #15526. What has not been said is the facility's street address, the landlord, the lease term and rent, the utility supplying the power, and the contracted price per kWh. What does power cost at this site, and how long is the site secured for?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 12.9% stake in Coinsquare (claims #15522, #15512 and #15545), a 52% stake in Tess Inc. (claims #15524, #15514 and #15547, with completion noted in claim #15472), and a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claims #15523, #15513 and #15546). What has not been said is the cost basis or carrying value of the Coinsquare and Tess stakes, or the Verady note's interest rate, maturity and conversion terms. What did Riot pay for each position, and how is each currently valued?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp and its CFTC/NFA, FinCEN and Florida registrations, cited as claims #15509, #15521 and #15534. One version of that claim, #15544, carried a March 27, 2018 date and is tracked as delayed. On 2018-07-09 the company also said it was investigating a U.S. cryptocurrency exchange launch, cited as claim #15470. What has not been said is whether and when the Logical Brokerage deal actually closed, and what capital and timeline the exchange would need. Separately, a CEO change was recorded on 2018-04-01 (claim #16647), and the MNP LLP auditor appointment is tracked as delayed (claim #15555). No compensation terms or explanation for either has been disclosed. When did the Logical Brokerage deal close, and what is the new CEO being paid?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-24

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that it leased a 107,000 square foot data center in Oklahoma City, cited as claims #15504, #15519, #15533 and #15542, with a 12 MW power capacity at full deployment, cited as claims #15507, #15526 and #15538. What has not been said is who the landlord and utility are, the lease term and rent, the facility's street address, and the contracted power price per kWh. Without these, the economics of the 110 PH/s plan cannot be assessed.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that it acquired 6,800 additional miners in February 2018, cited as claims #15503, #15518, #15532 and #15541, and 1,200 miners through the Kairos Global Technology acquisition, cited as claims #15502, #15517, #15531 and #15540, completed per claim #15471 on 2018-07-09. What has not been said is who sold the 6,800 machines, what Riot paid for either tranche, and whether any Riot officers, directors or significant holders had an interest in Kairos or the equipment vendor.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that only 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of March 31, 2018, cited as claims #15505 and #15520, a milestone now carried as delayed in claim #15543, against an 8,000-miner full build, cited as claims #15506, #15537 and #15551. What has not been said is the date by which the remaining 4,500 units would be energized. The per-unit hashrate is also cited inconsistently: 13.5 TH/s in claim #15550 and 13.75 TH/s in claim #15530. At 13.5 TH/s, 8,000 units yield about 108 PH/s rather than the 110 PH/s guided in claims #15508, #15527, #15539 and #15552, so which hardware model and firmware assumption underlies the guidance?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp, cited as claims #15509, #15521 and #15534, which carries a 2018-03-27 target now marked delayed in claim #15544. It also cited the subsidiary's CFTC, NFA, FinCEN and Florida registrations in claims #15510, #15511, #15528 and #15529, and on 2018-07-09 said it was investigating a US exchange launch in claim #15470. What has not been said is who the sellers were, when the deal actually closed, and what launch timeline, capital commitment and regulatory approvals the exchange plan requires.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 12.9% stake in Coinsquare, cited as claims #15512, #15522 and #15545, a 52% stake in Tess Inc, cited as claims #15514, #15524 and #15547, completed per claim #15472, and a $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note, cited as claims #15513, #15523 and #15546. What has not been said is the cost basis and current carrying value of the Coinsquare and Tess positions, the consideration paid for Tess, and the Verady note's interest rate, conversion price and maturity.

The company disclosed a Chief Executive Officer appointment dated 2018-04-01, cited as claim #16647, and the appointment of MNP LLP as 2018 auditor on 2018-06-14, cited as claim #15555 and now marked delayed. What has not been said is who the CEO is and on what compensation terms, including any equity grants tied to the mining build-out or the Logical Brokerage and Tess transactions. Nor has the company said whether MNP completed the 2018 audit or was replaced, and for what reason.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-23

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that it leased a 107,000-square-foot data center in Oklahoma City (claims #15504, #15519, #15533, #15542) sized for 12 MW at full deployment (claims #15507, #15526, #15538). What has not been said is who the landlord and power provider are, what the lease term and rent are, what the contracted electricity rate is, and whether the 12 MW is secured firm capacity at a named substation or just an estimate of the load 8,000 miners would draw.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 the purchase of 6,800 additional miners in February 2018 (claims #15503, #15518, #15532, #15541) alongside the Kairos Global Technology acquisition that brought 1,200 miners (claims #15502, #15517, #15531, #15540). What has not been said is who sold the 6,800 units, what price was paid per unit, and how much consideration went to Kairos. Were any of the sellers or Kairos principals related to Riot insiders or directors?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims #15505, #15520), a milestone now tracked as delayed (claim #15543). It also guided to 8,000 miners and 110 PH/s at full deployment (claims #15506, #15508, #15527, #15539, #15552), with per-unit performance cited inconsistently as 13.5 TH/s (claim #15550) and 13.75 TH/s (claim #15530). What has not been said is the target date for installing the remaining 4,500 miners, the hash rate actually achieved at each quarter-end, and which per-unit figure the 110 PH/s guidance assumes.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 the $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp (claims #15509, #15521, #15534), with its CFTC/NFA, FinCEN and Florida licensing (claims #15510, #15511, #15528, #15529). One record ties the deal to a 2018-03-27 date and carries a delayed status (claim #15544). On 2018-07-09 the company said it was investigating a US cryptocurrency exchange launch (claim #15470). What has not been said is the actual closing date, whether the existing licenses cover spot crypto exchange activity or further state money-transmitter licenses are needed, and what launch timeline and capital budget the exchange carries.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 12.9% stake in Coinsquare (claims #15512, #15522, #15545), a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claims #15513, #15523, #15546), and 52% ownership of Tess Inc. (claims #15514, #15524, #15547), with the Tess acquisition reported complete on 2018-07-09 (claim #15472). What has not been said is the cost basis and current carrying value of the Coinsquare stake, the Verady note's maturity, interest rate and conversion terms, what Riot paid for control of Tess, and who holds the remaining 48%.

The company disclosed a Chief Executive Officer personnel event effective 2018-04-01 (claim #16647), and MNP LLP's appointment as 2018 auditor is flagged as delayed (claim #15555). What has not been said is who the CEO is and what compensation and equity package was granted. Why is the auditor engagement milestone shown as delayed, and was there any disagreement or scope limitation behind it?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-23

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 107,000-square-foot Oklahoma City data center lease (claims #15519, #15504, #15533, #15542) sized for 12 MW at full deployment (claims #15507, #15538). What has not been said is who the landlord and the electric utility are, the lease term and rent, the facility's street address, and the contracted power price or interconnection capacity. At 12 MW, the power rate drives mining margin, so why is the per-kWh cost absent?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 the Kairos Global Technology acquisition bringing 1,200 miners (claims #15502, #15517, #15531) and a separate February 2018 purchase of 6,800 miners (claims #15503, #15518, #15532). What has not been said is the consideration paid in either deal, the identity of the seller of the 6,800 units, and whether any Riot officer, director or major holder had an interest in Kairos or that seller. Without these, a reader cannot assess the per-miner cost basis or any related-party exposure.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that 3,500 miners were operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims #15505, #15520; #15543 is flagged delayed) against an 8,000-miner, 110 PH/s full-deployment target (claims #15506, #15508, #15527). What has not been said is a date for full deployment or a monthly installed-hash-rate trajectory. The per-unit spec is also cited as both 13.75 TH/s (claim #15530) and 13.5 TH/s (claim #15550); which figure underlies the 110 PH/s guidance?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp (claims #15509, #15521, #15534), with a 2018-03-27 target now marked delayed (claim #15544). It also cited CFTC/NFA, FinCEN and Florida money-transmitter registrations (claims #15510, #15528, #15529) and later said it was investigating a US exchange launch (claim #15470). What has not been said is when the acquisition actually closed, why it slipped, and what capital, timeline and additional state licenses a US exchange would require.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 12.9% stake in Coinsquare (claim #15512), 52% ownership of Tess Inc. (claim #15514) and a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claim #15513). What has not been said is the cost basis and current carrying value of the Coinsquare stake, what was paid for Tess and whether it is consolidated, and the Verady note's interest rate, maturity and conversion terms. How much of the balance sheet sits in these non-mining positions?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-14 the appointment of MNP LLP as its 2018 auditor (claim #15555, marked delayed) and on 2018-06-20 that it had regained Nasdaq listing compliance (claim #15553). What has not been said is why the prior auditor was replaced, whether there were any disagreements, and which Nasdaq deficiency triggered the non-compliance. The CEO appointment (claim #16647) also appears with no name or compensation terms on record; what were the employment and incentive terms?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-21

The company disclosed an executed lease on a 107,000 square foot Oklahoma City data center on 2018-06-28, cited as claims #15504, #15519, #15533 and #15542, alongside a 12.0 MW power supply figure in claims #15538, #15507 and #15526; what has not been said is the street address, the landlord or counterparty, the lease term and annual rent, the utility providing the 12 MW, the executed interconnection or substation status, and the contracted power price per kWh. A 107,000 square foot shell drawing only 12 MW is roughly 112 watts per square foot, which is a fraction of what a purpose-built mining hall consumes — is the 12 MW the full interconnected capacity at the site, the first phase of a larger service agreement, or simply the load of the 8,000 miners the company intends to place there?

The company disclosed 3,500 miners installed and operating as of March 31, 2018, cited as claims #15505, #15520 and #15543 (the last of which is carried as delayed against its 2018-03-31 date), while the Oklahoma City lease was only reported as executed in the same 2018-06-28 filing; what has not been said is where those 3,500 machines were physically running during the first quarter, who hosted them, and on what economics. If the 3,500 were at a third-party hosting site, what is the hosting rate, the contract term, and how many of them must be physically relocated to reach the 8,000-miner full deployment in claims #15506, #15537 and #15551?

The company disclosed a 110.0 PH/s hash rate at full deployment on 2018-06-28, cited as claims #15508, #15527, #15539 and #15552, and two different per-unit specifications — 13.75 TH/s in claim #15530 and 13.5 TH/s in claim #15550; what has not been said is which miner model and manufacturer each figure refers to, whether the specs are nameplate or measured, and above all the date by which full deployment is expected, since none of the four hash rate claims carries a promised-by date. What is the month-by-month energization schedule from the 3,500 machines now running to 110 PH/s, and at 110 PH/s and the company's delivered power cost, what is the implied all-in cost to mine one bitcoin?

The company disclosed the Kairos Global Technology acquisition bringing 1,200 miners on 2018-06-28 and its completion on 2018-07-09, cited as claims #15502, #15517, #15531, #15540 and #15471, and separately a purchase of 6,800 additional miners in February 2018, cited as claims #15503, #15518, #15532 and #15541; what has not been said is the consideration paid for either — the Logical Brokerage price of $600,000 is disclosed four times in claims #15509, #15521, #15534 and #15544, yet no dollar or share figure attaches to Kairos or to the 6,800 units. Was Kairos paid for in RIOT stock, what was the share count and the price used to value it, were any Kairos sellers officers, directors or affiliates of the company, and what was the per-miner cost and deposit schedule on the 6,800 machines?

The company disclosed a 12.9 percent stake in Coinsquare on 2018-06-28 and reiterated the investment on 2018-07-09, cited as claims #15512, #15522, #15545 and #15473, a 52 percent position in Tess Inc. in claims #15514, #15524 and #15547 with the acquisition completed per claim #15472, and a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC in claims #15513, #15523 and #15546; what has not been said is the cash cost and carrying value of the Coinsquare position, whether 12.9 percent is measured on an outstanding or fully diluted basis and whether it carries board or information rights, the consideration and goodwill recorded for Tess, whether Tess is consolidated given the 52 percent control position and what revenue and losses it contributes, and the Verady note's interest rate, maturity, discount and valuation cap. What is the aggregate carrying value of these three non-mining investments, and what independent marks or fair value inputs support them?

The company disclosed that MNP LLP was appointed as auditor for 2018 on 2018-06-14, cited as claim #15555 and carried as delayed against a 2018-12-31 date, that directors were elected at the 2018 annual meeting per claim #15554, that a Chief Executive Officer arrangement dates to 2018-04-01 per claim #16647, and that Nasdaq listing compliance was regained on 2018-06-20 per claim #15553; what has not been said is the identity of the predecessor auditor and whether there were any disagreements or reportable events on dismissal, the name of the CEO and the terms of that officer's compensation, the vote totals and any withheld votes on the director slate, and which specific Nasdaq rule the company had fallen out of compliance with and for how long. Were the auditor change and the listing deficiency related to a late periodic filing, and does the audit committee include a designated financial expert who reviewed the related-party aspects of the Kairos, Tess and Logical Brokerage transactions?

The company disclosed the formation of a wholly owned subsidiary, Digital Green Energy Corp, on 2018-06-28, cited as claims #15515 and #15525, and separately said on 2018-07-09 that it was investigating the launch of a cryptocurrency exchange in the US, cited as claim #15470, with Logical Brokerage's FinCEN, Florida money transmitter, CFTC and NFA registrations cited across claims #15510, #15511, #15528, #15529, #15535, #15536, #15548 and #15549; what has not been said is the capital committed to Digital Green Energy, whether it holds any identified power site or generation asset, and what additional state money transmitter licenses beyond Florida an exchange launch would require, at what cost and on what timeline. How much has been spent to date on the exchange initiative, and which of the fifty state regimes does management consider gating?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-21

The company disclosed the February 2018 purchase of 6,800 additional miners (claims #15532, #15541, #15518, #15503) and the acquisition of Kairos Global Technology carrying 1,200 miners (claims #15540, #15531, #15517, #15502); what has not been said is who the equipment vendor was, the per-unit purchase price, how much was paid as non-refundable deposit versus delivered inventory, and — for Kairos — what consideration was paid, in cash or shares, and to whom. Were any Kairos sellers, or any holders of the shares issued, officers, directors, or affiliates of Riot at the time, and what was the independent valuation support for that consideration?

The company disclosed an executed lease on a 107,000 square foot Oklahoma City data center (claims #15504, #15542, #15519, #15533) rated to 12 MW at full deployment (claims #15538, #15507, #15526); what has not been said is the street address of the site, the name of the serving utility, whether an interconnection or power purchase agreement is signed, the contracted all-in cost per kWh, and the lease term, annual rent, and renewal or termination rights. On which date was the full 12 MW energized, and is the 12 MW a contracted firm delivery or a facility design figure?

The company disclosed 3,500 miners installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims #15543, #15505, #15520, the first of which is flagged delayed) against an 8,000-unit full deployment (claims #15551, #15537, #15506) and a 110 PH/s expected hash rate (claims #15552, #15539, #15527, #15508); what has not been said is the target date for energizing the remaining 4,500 units, the actual average hash rate realized in the quarter, the number of bitcoin mined, and the mining pool counterparty. Separately, hardware is described as 13.5 TH/s in claim #15550 and 13.75 TH/s in claim #15530 — which figure is correct, what is the machine model and efficiency in J/TH, and does the 12 MW figure reconcile with the roughly 1,500 watts per unit those numbers imply?

The company disclosed a 12.9% interest in Coinsquare (claims #15512, #15522, #15545), a 52% interest in Tess Inc. (claims #15514, #15547, #15524), a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claims #15513, #15546, #15523), and formation of a wholly owned Digital Green Energy Corp (claims #15515, #15525); what has not been said is the cost basis and carrying value of each position, whether Tess is consolidated at 52% ownership and, if not, on what control analysis. What are the Verady note's maturity, interest rate, conversion discount or valuation cap, and how much capital has been committed to Digital Green Energy Corp and for what stated purpose?

The company disclosed the appointment of MNP LLP as auditor for 2018 (claim #15555, flagged delayed) and the regaining of Nasdaq listing compliance days later on June 20, 2018 (claim #15553); what has not been said is the identity of the predecessor auditor, whether that firm resigned or was dismissed, whether there were any disagreements on accounting or reportable events, and which specific listing rule the company had fallen out of compliance with. Were any material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting identified in connection with the delinquent filings that drove the deficiency?

The company disclosed a Chief Executive Officer personnel action dated April 1, 2018 (claim #16647) and the election of directors at the 2018 annual meeting (claim #15554); what has not been said is who the executive is, the terms of the employment agreement including base salary, equity grant size and vesting, and any severance paid to a predecessor. Which of the elected directors were independent under Nasdaq rules, and did any of them have a financial interest in Kairos, Logical Brokerage (claims #15544, #15534, #15521, #15509, the acquisition of which was promised by March 27, 2018 and is flagged delayed), Tess, or Coinsquare?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-21

The company disclosed a 107,000 square foot data center lease in Oklahoma City on 2018-06-28, cited as claims #15504, #15519, #15533 and #15542, together with a 12.0 MW power figure at full deployment, cited as claims #15538, #15507 and #15526; what has not been said is the street address of the building, the identity of the landlord and whether it is a related party, the lease term, rent and renewal or termination rights, the serving utility, the substation and interconnection status behind the 12 MW, and whether that 12 MW is contracted capacity, energized capacity or expected draw. Nor has the all-in delivered power price in cents per kWh been given, which is the single number that determines whether 8,000 machines are economic at any given hash price.

The company disclosed hardware performance of 13.5 TH/s on 2018-06-28, cited as claim #15550, and 13.75 TH/s in the same period, cited as claim #15530, alongside a full-deployment fleet of 8,000 units, cited as claims #15551, #15537 and #15506, and an expected 110.0 PH/s, cited as claims #15552, #15527, #15539 and #15508; what has not been said is which per-unit rating is correct, whether the 110 PH/s is a nameplate sum or a realized pool-measured figure net of downtime, and what efficiency in joules per terahash and facility PUE reconcile 8,000 machines to only 12 MW, which implies roughly 1.5 kW per unit including cooling and leaves little headroom.

The company disclosed that 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of 2018-03-31, cited as claims #15543, #15505 and #15520, with claim #15543 carrying a delayed status against that date; what has not been said is the deployment schedule for the remaining 4,500 units, whether those machines have been paid for in full and are in the company's physical possession or still with the vendor, what caused the slippage, and what the revised energization date is. No corresponding disclosure identifies the mining pool, the bitcoin mined per month, or the counterparty and venue through which mined coin is sold, so the revenue conversion path behind the hash rate remains unnamed.

The company disclosed the Kairos Global Technology acquisition carrying 1,200 miners on 2018-06-28, cited as claims #15540, #15531, #15517 and #15502, and separately an acquisition of 6,800 additional miners in February 2018, cited as claims #15541, #15532, #15518 and #15503; what has not been said is the purchase consideration for Kairos, whether it was paid in cash or newly issued shares and on what valuation, the identity of the Kairos sellers and their prior relationship to officers, directors or beneficial owners of the company, the vendor and unit price of the 6,800 machines, and whether those 6,800 and the 1,200 are the same 8,000 units described as full deployment capacity or are additive to it.

The company disclosed the Logical Brokerage Corp acquisition for $600,000 on 2018-06-28, cited as claims #15544, #15534, #15521 and #15509, with claim #15544 promised by 2018-03-27 and now carried as delayed, and disclosed CFTC, NFA, FinCEN and Florida money transmitter registrations for that entity, cited as claims #15548, #15549, #15535, #15529, #15528, #15536, #15511 and #15510; what has not been said is the actual closing date, the seller's identity, whether the $600,000 was cash or stock and whether any earnout or contingent consideration exists, what revenue and customer base Logical Brokerage contributes, and whether those registrations and the Florida license survived the change of control or required re-approval before the announced exchange offerings in claim #15516 could launch.

The company disclosed a 12.9% interest in Coinsquare, cited as claims #15512, #15522, #15545 and #15473, a 52% ownership of Tess Inc., cited as claims #15514, #15524 and #15547, a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC, cited as claims #15513, #15523 and #15546, and the formation of Digital Green Energy Corp, cited as claims #15515 and #15525; what has not been said is the cost basis and current carrying value of each position, whether the 52% Tess stake is consolidated or held at fair value and what revenue and losses it brings in, the conversion price, maturity and interest rate on the Verady note, and what Digital Green Energy Corp was capitalized with and whether it holds the Oklahoma lease or the power contract.

The company disclosed the appointment of MNP LLP as auditor for 2018 on 2018-06-14, cited as claim #15555 and carried as delayed against a 2018-12-31 date, the election of directors at the 2018 annual meeting on 2018-06-14, cited as claim #15554, a Chief Executive Officer matter dated 2018-04-01, cited as claim #16647, and regained Nasdaq listing compliance on 2018-06-20, cited as claim #15553; what has not been said is the identity of the predecessor auditor, whether there were disagreements or reportable events on dismissal, the names of the directors elected and the withheld-vote counts, the name of the CEO and the cash, equity and change-of-control terms of that person's compensation, and which listing rule the company had fallen out of compliance with and for how long.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-21

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that it had executed a lease for a 107,000 square foot data center facility in Oklahoma City (claims #15542, #15504, #15519, #15533) sized for 12 MW of power at full deployment (claims #15538, #15507, #15526); what has not been said is the street address of the site, the name of the serving utility or retail provider, whether the 12 MW is contracted and energized or merely the building's nameplate ceiling, and what the interconnection or substation energization date is. What is the contracted delivered power price per kWh, what is the lease term and annual rent, and is the 12 MW firm under a signed power agreement or still subject to a utility study?

The company disclosed hardware performance of 13.75 TH/s in one place (claim #15530) and 13.5 TH/s in another (claim #15550) on the same 2018-06-28 date, alongside an 8,000-miner full deployment (claims #15551, #15506, #15537) and an expected 110 PH/s at full deployment (claims #15527, #15552, #15539, #15508); what has not been said is which figure the 110 PH/s guidance was actually built on, or the manufacturer and model of the machines. Eight thousand units at 13.5 TH/s is 108 PH/s and at 13.75 TH/s is 110 PH/s, so which spec applies to which of the 1,200 Kairos units versus the 6,800 units, and does 12 MW at roughly 1,500 watts per unit include cooling and facility overhead or only the miners themselves?

The company disclosed that 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of 2018-03-31 (claims #15543, #15505, #15520), a figure carried into a filing dated 2018-06-28 and flagged as delayed against that March date; what has not been said is the deployed count as of the filing date itself, nearly three months later, or the schedule for energizing the remaining 4,500 units. How many miners were hashing on 2018-06-28, what realized hash rate did the fleet produce in the quarter, how many bitcoin were mined, and what is the month-by-month deployment plan to reach 8,000?

The company disclosed the acquisition of Kairos Global Technology and its 1,200 miners (claims #15531, #15540, #15517, #15502, #15471) and the separate acquisition of 6,800 additional miners in February 2018 (claims #15532, #15541, #15518, #15503); what has not been said is the purchase consideration for either transaction, whether it was paid in cash or newly issued shares, and the identity of the sellers. Were any Kairos or miner-purchase counterparties officers, directors, or affiliates of the company or its ten-percent holders, and if shares were issued, how many and at what deemed price?

The company disclosed a 12.9% stake in Coinsquare (claims #15545, #15522, #15512), a 52% position in Tess Inc. described as completed (claims #15547, #15514, #15524, #15472), a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claims #15546, #15523, #15513), and the formation of a wholly owned Digital Green Energy Corp (claims #15515, #15525); what has not been said is the cost basis and balance sheet carrying value of each position, the accounting treatment, and any revenue or operating results attributable to them. Is Tess consolidated at 52% and what did it contribute to revenue and loss, is Coinsquare carried at cost or fair value and on what marks, what are the Verady note's conversion price, interest rate and maturity, and what assets, capital, or contracts does Digital Green Energy actually hold?

The company disclosed the $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp (claims #15534, #15521, #15544, #15509) with a promised close of 2018-03-27 that is recorded as delayed, together with CFTC, NFA, FinCEN and Florida money transmitter licensing (claims #15548, #15510, #15535, #15529, #15528, #15536, #15549) and an unspecified investigation of launching a US cryptocurrency exchange on 2018-07-09 (claim #15470); what has not been said is why the close slipped, whether the change-of-control approvals from the NFA and the Florida Office of Financial Regulation were obtained or still pending, and what Logical Brokerage's standalone revenue and headcount are. Separately, the record shows a Chief Executive Officer item dated 2018-04-01 (claim #16647), the appointment of MNP LLP as 2018 auditor flagged as delayed (claim #15555), directors elected at the 2018 annual meeting (claim #15554), and the regaining of Nasdaq listing compliance on 2018-06-20 (claim #15553) — but not the executive's name or compensation terms, the reason the prior auditor departed or whether there were any disagreements on accounting matters, or which specific Nasdaq rule the company had been deficient under and for how long.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-19

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that it acquired 6,800 additional miners in February 2018, cited as claims #15503, #15518, #15532 and #15541, alongside 1,200 miners that came with the Kairos Global Technology acquisition, cited as claims #15502, #15517, #15531 and #15540, with the Kairos deal described as completed on 2018-07-09 in claim #15471. What has not been said is who sold the 6,800-unit batch, what Riot paid per unit or in total, and what consideration, whether cash, stock or both, was paid for Kairos. Did any director or significant holder have an interest in the seller or in Kairos?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 an expected 110 PH/s at full deployment of 8,000 miners, cited as claims #15508, #15527, #15539 and #15552. It gave the per-unit hardware spec as 13.75 TH/s in claim #15530 and as 13.5 TH/s in claim #15550. Eight thousand units at 13.5 TH/s is 108 PH/s, not 110, so what has not been said is which miner model and firmware the guidance assumes. The filings also do not say what date full deployment is expected, given that only 3,500 miners were operating as of 2018-03-31 (claims #15505 and #15520), and claim #15543 is marked delayed.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 107,000 square foot Oklahoma City facility lease, cited as claims #15504, #15519, #15533 and #15542, with 12 MW of power required at full deployment, cited as claims #15507, #15526 and #15538. What has not been said is the landlord, the lease term, the rent, the street address, and the utility or interconnection arrangement, including the tariff and whether 12 MW is contracted firm capacity or only an estimated load. For a miner, the power cost per kWh is the most important number, so what is it?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 52% stake in Tess Inc, cited as claims #15514, #15524 and #15547, and a 12.9% stake in Coinsquare, cited as claims #15512, #15522 and #15545. Claims #15472 and #15473 on 2018-07-09 reiterate both positions. What has not been said is the cost basis and carrying value of each position, whether Tess is consolidated, and whether any Riot director or insider elected on 2018-06-14 (claim #15554) also held interests in Tess, Coinsquare, Kairos or Verady. On the same date the company disclosed a $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note, cited as claims #15513, #15523 and #15546, without its conversion price, maturity or interest rate.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 the $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp, cited as claims #15509, #15521 and #15534, and listed its CFTC, NFA, FinCEN and Florida registrations in claims #15510, #15511, #15528, #15529 and #15535. Claim #15544 is marked delayed against a 2018-03-27 date. What has not been said is why closing slipped, what revenue or customer accounts came with the entity, and when the exchange offering described in claim #15516 is expected to launch.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-20 that it regained Nasdaq listing compliance, cited as claim #15553, and on 2018-06-14 that MNP LLP was appointed auditor for 2018, cited as claim #15555, which is itself marked delayed. What has not been said is which listing deficiency was cured, and whether the auditor appointment followed a resignation or a disagreement with the prior firm. The record supplied here is truncated after claim #15469, so later disclosures may answer some of these questions.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-19

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that full deployment at Oklahoma City would reach 8,000 miners, 12 MW and 110 PH/s, with 3,500 miners running as of March 31, 2018 (claims #15506, #15507, #15508, #15505, #15543). What has not been said is when full deployment will actually be reached, since no target date accompanies any of the full-deployment figures. The per-unit hardware spec is also cited as both 13.5 TH/s (claim #15550) and 13.75 TH/s (claim #15530), which changes whether 110 PH/s is achievable from 8,000 machines. What is the realized hash rate and miner count today, and which spec is correct?

The company disclosed a 107,000-square-foot Oklahoma City data center lease on 2018-06-28 (claims #15519, #15533, #15504) and a 12 MW power supply (claim #15538). What has not been said is the landlord, the lease term and rent, the physical address, the utility provider, or the contracted power price per kWh. These are the core unit-economics inputs for any mining operation. Is the 12 MW firm, interruptible, or subject to further interconnection upgrades?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 the acquisition of Kairos Global Technology with 1,200 miners (claims #15531, #15502, #15471) and a separate purchase of 6,800 additional miners in February 2018 (claims #15532, #15518). What has not been said is the consideration paid for Kairos, whether it was cash or stock, who the seller of the 6,800 miners was, the aggregate hardware cost, and whether any of these counterparties have ties to directors or officers elected at the 2018 annual meeting (claim #15554).

The company disclosed a $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp with CFTC/NFA registration and FinCEN and Florida money-transmitter licensing (claims #15534, #15510, #15528, #15529), alongside an investigation of a U.S. exchange launch (claim #15470). What has not been said is whether the deal has closed, given that the tracked milestone of 2018-03-27 is marked delayed (claim #15544). The disclosures also give no launch timeline, no capital budget, and no statement of which additional state licenses a national exchange would require.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 12.9% stake in Coinsquare, 52% of Tess Inc., and a $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (claims #15545, #15547, #15546). What has not been said is the cost basis or carrying value of the Coinsquare and Tess positions, or whether Tess is consolidated. The Verady note's interest rate, maturity, and conversion terms are also missing. The purpose and capitalization of the newly formed Digital Green Energy Corp (claim #15525) are likewise unstated.

The company disclosed MNP LLP's appointment as 2018 auditor on 2018-06-14 (claim #15555), a status now tracked as delayed, and that it regained Nasdaq listing compliance on 2018-06-20 (claim #15553). What has not been said is which listing deficiency triggered the noncompliance, why the audit milestone slipped, and whether a change of auditor or any restatement is involved.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-18

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that it acquired 1,200 miners through Kairos Global Technology and a further 6,800 miners in February 2018, cited as claims #15502, #15517, #15503 and #15518. What has not been said is who sold the 6,800 miners, what was paid for them, and whether the price was cash or stock. Nor has the company said whether any seller of either batch is a related party to its officers, directors or major holders.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of March 31, 2018, against a full-deployment target of 8,000 miners and 110 PH/s, cited as claims #15505, #15506 and #15527. Claim #15543 carries a delayed status. What has not been said is the date by which all 8,000 units would be energized, and how many were actually running at the time of the filing. The per-unit specification is also inconsistent: it is stated as 13.5 TH/s in claim #15550 and 13.75 TH/s in claim #15530. Which machine model is it, and does the 110 PH/s figure assume the higher number?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 12 MW figure, described as power supply capacity in claim #15538 and as power consumption in claim #15507. What has not been said is which of these it is. Is it contracted interconnection capacity or expected draw? Who is the utility or power counterparty, and what are the contracted price per kWh and the contract term, the main driver of mining margins?

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 an executed lease for a 107,000 square foot Oklahoma City data center, cited as claims #15519, #15533, #15542 and #15504. On 2018-07-09 it also floated mining in other locations, cited as claim #15474. What has not been said is the landlord, the physical address, the lease term and the annual rent. The company has also not named any candidate second site or given a capacity or timing target for one.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 the $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp, citing its CFTC/NFA, FinCEN and Florida money transmitter registrations, cited as claims #15509, #15535 and #15529. Claim #15544 shows the deal as delayed against a 2018-03-27 target, and claim #15470 on 2018-07-09 frames a US exchange as still under investigation. What has not been said is the closing date, the form of consideration and the identity of the sellers. The company has also given no launch date, capital budget or regulatory timeline for the exchange that the licenses were bought to support.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 52 percent stake in Tess Inc, a 12.9 percent stake in Coinsquare and a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC, cited as claims #15547, #15512 and #15546. On 2018-07-09 it reported completing the Tess acquisition, cited as claim #15472. What has not been said is the cost basis and current carrying value of each position and the valuation implied for Coinsquare. The interest rate, maturity and conversion terms of the Verady note are also missing. Separately, the company regained Nasdaq compliance on 2018-06-20 (claim #15553) and appointed MNP LLP as auditor with a delayed status (claim #15555). Which listing deficiency was cured, and why is the auditor engagement flagged as delayed?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-18

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that it expected a hash rate of 110 PH/s at full deployment (claims #15508, #15527, #15552, #15539) from 8,000 miners (claims #15506, #15551). It cited per-unit specifications of both 13.75 TH/s (claim #15530) and 13.5 TH/s (claim #15550). What has not been said is which figure is correct, what miner model and vendor are involved, and whether 110 PH/s is a nameplate number or an expected realized rate after downtime.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims #15505, #15520), and that milestone is tracked as delayed (claim #15543). The same filings describe full deployment of 8,000 miners (claim #15537). What has not been said is when the remaining 4,500 units would be energized, and what caused the slippage.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 107,000-square-foot Oklahoma City data center lease (claims #15504, #15519, #15533, #15542) and 12 MW of power capacity (claims #15507, #15526, #15538). What has not been said is the facility's physical address, the lessor, the lease term and rent, the utility supplying the 12 MW, the contracted power price, and whether 12 MW is already interconnected or only planned.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 the acquisition of 1,200 miners from Kairos Global Technology (claims #15502, #15517, #15540), and it reported that acquisition as completed on 2018-07-09 (claim #15471). It also disclosed a separate February 2018 purchase of 6,800 miners (claims #15503, #15518). What has not been said is the consideration paid in either deal, including the cash and share mix and the per-unit cost, as well as who sold the 6,800 miners. The filings also do not say whether any director, officer, or significant shareholder had an interest in Kairos or in that seller.

The company disclosed a $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage (claims #15509, #15521, #15534), and one record carries a 2018-03-27 target now marked delayed (claim #15544). It also cited that entity's CFTC/NFA, FinCEN, and Florida registrations (claims #15510, #15511, #15529) and said it was investigating a U.S. exchange launch (claim #15470). What has not been said is the actual closing date, the capital commitment and timeline for the exchange, and which additional state money-transmitter licenses would be needed beyond Florida.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 a 12.9% stake in Coinsquare (claims #15512, #15545), a $200,000 Verady convertible note (claims #15513, #15546), and 52% ownership of Tess Inc. (claims #15514, #15547). On 2018-07-09 it described the Tess acquisition as completed (claim #15472). What has not been said is the cost basis and carrying value of the Coinsquare stake, the Verady note's maturity, interest, and conversion terms, and the price paid for Tess. Also unexplained is what "completed" means for Tess, given the stated ownership is 52% rather than 100%. Separately, directors were elected on 2018-06-14 (claim #15554) and Nasdaq compliance was regained on 2018-06-20 (claim #15553), but the record names neither the directors and their compensation nor the specific listing deficiency that had been cured.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-18

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that it acquired Kairos Global Technology with 1,200 miners and separately bought 6,800 more miners in February 2018 (claims #15531, #15503, #15518). It has not said what it paid for Kairos, whether in cash, stock or assumed liabilities, or who sold the 6,800 miners, at what unit price, and whether any seller has ties to Riot insiders.

The company disclosed a 107,000-square-foot Oklahoma City data center lease and a 12 MW power figure for full deployment (claims #15542, #15519, #15538, #15507). It has not given the facility's street address, the landlord, the lease term and rent, or which utility supplies the 12 MW, under what tariff or power contract, and at what cost per kWh. Power cost is the main driver of mining margins.

The company disclosed that 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of March 31, 2018, against a full-deployment target of 8,000 miners and 110 PH/s (claims #15505, #15520, #15551, #15552). The March 31 milestone is recorded as delayed (claim #15543). It has not said when the remaining 4,500 units will be energized, what hash rate was actually achieved at quarter-end, or whether the 12 MW site can support all 8,000 units at once.

The company cited per-unit miner performance as 13.5 TH/s in one place and 13.75 TH/s in another (claims #15550, #15530). Only the 13.75 figure multiplies out to the stated 110 PH/s across 8,000 units. It has not said which specification is correct, which hardware model it uses, or whether the 110 PH/s guidance assumes nameplate rather than observed performance.

The company disclosed a 12.9% stake in Coinsquare, 52% ownership of Tess Inc., and a $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claims #15545, #15547, #15546). It has not disclosed its cost basis or current carrying value for Coinsquare and Tess, or the Verady note's interest rate, maturity and conversion terms. It also has not said whether any Riot director or officer holds interests in these counterparties.

The company disclosed the $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage with its CFTC, NFA, FinCEN and Florida registrations (claims #15509, #15510, #15511). The acquisition's 2018-03-27 target is recorded as delayed (claim #15544). The company also said on 2018-07-09 that it is investigating a U.S. crypto exchange launch (claim #15470). It has not said whether the deal has closed, what caused the slippage, or what timeline, capital budget and additional licensing an exchange launch would require. Separately, the MNP LLP auditor appointment is flagged as delayed (claim #15555), and no explanation has been given.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-15

The company disclosed on 2018-06-28 that 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims #15505, #15543), against a full-deployment target of 8,000 miners, 12 MW and 110 PH/s (claims #15506, #15507, #15508, #15527). What has not been said is when full deployment will be reached, or how many miners were actually hashing by the June 28 filing date, three months after the stated snapshot. The per-unit hardware specification also appears as both 13.75 TH/s and 13.5 TH/s (claims #15530, #15550). Which figure underlies the 110 PH/s guidance?

The company disclosed a 107,000-square-foot Oklahoma City data center lease on 2018-06-28, cited as claims #15504, #15519, #15533 and #15542. What has not been said is the site address, landlord, lease term and rent. Nor has it named the utility, the contracted power price per kWh, or whether the 12 MW (claim #15538) is firm, interconnected capacity or only a planned load. The 2018-07-09 statement about potential mining operations in other locations (claim #15474) gives no sites, megawatts or capital budget.

The company disclosed the Logical Brokerage acquisition for $600,000 on 2018-06-28 (claims #15509, #15521, #15534), and the extracted record flags a 2018-03-27 date as delayed (claim #15544). What has not been said is the split between cash and stock, the identity of the sellers and whether any are related parties, or what caused the timing slippage. The 2018-07-09 statement that the company is investigating a US exchange launch (claim #15470) gives no timeline, capital commitment or pending regulatory approvals beyond the existing CFTC/NFA and FinCEN/Florida registrations (claims #15510, #15511).

The company disclosed completing the Kairos Global Technology acquisition, which brought 1,200 miners (claims #15502, #15517, #15471), and holding 52% of Tess Inc. (claims #15514, #15524, #15472) and 12.9% of Coinsquare (claims #15512, #15522, #15545). What has not been said is the consideration paid for Kairos and Tess, the cost basis and current carrying value of the Coinsquare stake, and whether any sellers or counterparties had prior relationships with management or directors. Separately, what were the purchase price and vendor for the 6,800 miners bought in February 2018 (claims #15503, #15518)?

The company disclosed a $200,000 convertible note investment in Verady LLC on 2018-06-28 (claims #15513, #15523, #15546). What has not been said is the note's interest rate, maturity, conversion price or valuation cap, and whether the note has been impaired. The company also disclosed forming a wholly owned Digital Green Energy Corp subsidiary (claims #15515, #15525), but has not said what the entity does, how it is capitalized or which assets it will hold.

The company disclosed on 2018-06-14 that directors were elected at the 2018 annual meeting (claim #15554) and that MNP LLP was appointed auditor for 2018 (claim #15555, flagged delayed). On 2018-06-20 it disclosed regaining Nasdaq listing compliance (claim #15553). What has not been said is which deficiency caused the non-compliance, the names and compensation of the directors elected, and whether the auditor change followed any disagreement with the predecessor firm.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-14

The company disclosed a series of payments to BMSS on 2018-08-23: a $150,000 initial waiver payment, recurring $200,000 waiver payments beginning by 2018-09-30, a final $150,000 payment with accrued interest, and 50,000 restricted shares (claims #15431, #15432, #15433, #15434). What has not been said is what obligation BMSS waived, who BMSS is, how many $200,000 installments are owed, the total cash cost, and what interest rate accrues on the final payment. Why was the initial payment dated 2018-08-21, two days before the disclosure?

On 2018-09-06 the company disclosed an exclusive Coinsquare license for a U.S. exchange. It paid 450,000 Riot shares, 9.9% of RiotX Holdings, $485,331 in integration fees and a 0.1% ongoing transaction fee (claims #15417, #15419, #15420, #15421, #15422). Within twelve weeks it announced Synapse and Shift Markets as exchange partners instead (claims #15376, #15367, #15347). What has not been said is whether the Coinsquare license was terminated. Were the 450,000 shares and the 9.9% RiotX stake returned or cancelled, and was any of the integration fee recovered? The $3.0 million and $6.4 million investments behind the 12.9% Coinsquare stake (claims #15423, #15424, #15425, #15295) also have no stated carrying value or impairment test.

The company disclosed on 2018-09-06 that Cole Diamond joined the Riot Advisory Board for 15,000 restricted shares (claim #15426), in the same disclosure as the Coinsquare license and equity terms. What has not been said is whether Diamond has any role at or economic interest in Coinsquare. If so, the license and the advisory grant would need related-party treatment, and vesting and service terms for the grant are also absent.

The company disclosed an Oklahoma City facility with 8,000 miners, 95 PH/s maximum hash rate and "12 megawatts monthly power capacity" (claims #15342, #15343, #15305, #15306). It also disclosed monthly rent stepping from $235,000 to $230,000 to $190,000, a lease running only through August 2019, and unspecified renewal options (claims #15361 to #15366, #15344). What has not been said is who the landlord is, whether rent includes power, and what the all-in cost per kWh is. It is also unclear whether "12 MW monthly" means 12 MW of contracted load or some energy figure, and what the renewal terms are. What is the plan for the fleet if the lease is not extended past 2019-08-15?

The company disclosed the CEO's resignation on 2018-09-09 and Christopher Ensey's interim appointment at a $306,000 base salary, 100% bonus eligibility and 24,000 RSUs (claims #15413, #15402, #15403, #15404, #15405). What has not been said is the separation terms, severance or accelerated vesting for the departing CEO. The disclosure also omits the performance metrics for the interim bonus, the RSU vesting schedule, and whether any of it survives if a permanent CEO is hired. Why did Andrew Kaplan resign from the board (claim #15378) during the same period?

On 2018-10-22 the company disclosed that an SEC Section 8(e) examination was terminated but an SEC investigation is ongoing (claims #15381, #15382). On 2018-12-11 it guided to near-term operating losses and capital needs within 12 months while pursuing debt and equity (claims #15348, #15349, #15351). What has not been said is the subject of the investigation, whether current or former officers are named, and whether any reserve exists. It has also not quantified how much capital it needs, on what timeline, or what it paid for 92.5% of Logical Brokerage Corp (claim #15341), including who holds the remaining 7.5%.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-14

The company disclosed on 2020-03-24 that its Oklahoma City facility has 12 MW of power capacity in a 107,000 square foot leased building, cited as claims #14948 and #14962. It also disclosed short Kairos-related lease extensions through May 2020 and then June 30, 2020, cited as claims #15015 and #14937. What has not been said is who the landlord and utility counterparty are, what the rent and power rate are, and whether anything beyond a month-to-month extension exists. So what happens to the 4,000 installed S17 Pros (claim #14928) when the June 30 extension lapses?

The company disclosed a Co-Locating Mining Services Agreement with Coinmint in Massena on 2020-04-13, cited as claims #14938 and #14940. Capacity was stated as 9,500 kWh and the term runs to 2020-10-08 (claim #14939). What has not been said is whether 9,500 kWh is really a 9.5 MW power allocation, since kWh is a unit of energy and not capacity. The per-kWh or hosting fee, how many and which miners are allocated there, and the renewal terms after October 2020 are also missing. Is Massena a replacement for Oklahoma City or an addition to it?

The company disclosed miner purchases in several tranches. On 2019-12-03 it announced $4,850,465.85 for miners with 3,000 units delivered (claims #15046 and #15047). On 2019-12-17 it announced 1,000 more units with no price (claim #15017). On 2020-02-13 it reported delivery of 1,060 units against that 1,000-unit order (claim #15000). On 2020-03-24 it described a combined 4,000-unit purchase at $6.4 million, also recorded as "6.4 USD" (claims #14970 and #14945). What has not been said is how the tranches reconcile to the aggregate, what the per-unit price was for the December 17 order, and why 60 extra units arrived. The same question applies to the $2,437,000 S19 Pro order due by 2020-06-30 (claim #14935): were deposits paid, and has Bitmain delivered on schedule?

The company disclosed an estimated maximum hash rate of 248 PH/s for its S17 Pro fleet (claims #14947, #14954 and #14966). It also disclosed 7,400 operating ASIC miners in inventory (claim #14974) and a Kairos business combination tied to 8,000 units (claims #14949 and #14961). On 2020-05-07 it said previous-generation miners were taken offline with future use under evaluation (claim #14929). What has not been said is the realized, rather than maximum, hash rate and uptime. The count and net book value of the offline Kairos-era machines are also missing. Has an impairment been taken on the roughly 3,400 non-S17 units implied by the 7,400 figure?

The company disclosed the $600,000 Logical Brokerage (RiotX) acquisition with regulatory registrations (claims #14963 and #14967). It announced the RiotX sunset on 2020-02-25 (claim #14998), alongside an XMS Capital Partners engagement (claim #14997). It also reported minority stakes of 11.7% in Coinsquare, 8.8% in TessPay and 3.2% in Verady (claims #14957, #14959 and #14958). What has not been said is the write-off recognized on RiotX and whether the broker-dealer registrations were surrendered or sold. The scope and fee structure of the XMS mandate are undisclosed, as is whether it relates to monetizing these stakes. What carrying value or impairment is currently booked against each investment?

The company disclosed a $100 million at-the-market offering with H.C. Wainwright on 2019-11-11 (claim #15063), together with guidance that operating cash is sufficient for twelve months (claim #15065). It also disclosed an Equity Incentive Plan approval on 2019-10-27 (claim #15074) and the conclusion of an SEC investigation on 2020-02-02 (claim #15013). What has not been said is how much of the ATM has been drawn, at what average price and with how much dilution. The agent's commission rate is also undisclosed, as is whether the cash-sufficiency guidance depends on further ATM sales. Neither the incentive plan share reserve and grants to named executives nor the subject matter and outcome of the SEC investigation have been specified.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-14

The company disclosed on 2021-04-06 a Future Sales and Purchases Agreement with Bitmain for 42,000 Antminer S19j miners at a $138.5 million purchase price, adding 3.7 EH/s by November 2021, cited as claims #14725, #14726, #14727 and #14728. What has not been said is the deposit and installment schedule, what happens to prepayments if Bitmain delivers late or cancels, and where these machines will be hosted. Given that the only disclosed site is Coinmint's Massena facility, what interconnection or new-site power has been secured for a fleet of this size?

The company disclosed on 2020-04-13 a Co-Location Mining Services Agreement with Coinmint and a Massena facility capacity recorded as 9,500 kWh, cited as claims #14938, #14939 and #14940. It reaffirmed the agreement on 2020-10-06 with an October 8, 2020 date, and again on 2021-03-30, cited as claims #14822 and #14748. What has not been said is whether 9,500 means kW, kWh per day, or MW of dedicated load. The hosting rate per kWh, the power-cost pass-through, the renewal term after October 2020, and the curtailment or termination rights are also missing. Is there enough contracted Massena capacity for the 39,146-miner full-deployment fleet in claim #14753, let alone the April 2021 order?

The company disclosed a full-deployment fleet of 22,640 units on 2020-10-06, cited as claim #14823, and 39,146 Antminers producing 4.0 EH/s on 2021-03-30, cited as claims #14753 and #14741. On 2021-03-30 it also said 30,603 additional Antminers had been ordered, cited as claim #14741. The itemized tranches in claims #14745, #14746 and #14747 (11,900, 12,000 and 1,500 units) sum to 25,400, leaving roughly 5,200 units unexplained. Which orders make up the balance, and what is the per-tranche price and delivery status?

The company disclosed several purchase prices whose units and figures do not reconcile. The 4,000 S17 Pro miners are recorded at "6.3" on 2020-05-07 and 2021-03-30 (claims #14926 and #14739) but at $6.4 million on 2020-10-06 (claim #14815). The April 2020 S19 Pro order is $2.437 million in claim #14935 but $2.4 million in claim #14816. The same 1,040-unit order is called S19 Pro in claim #14917 and plain S19 in claim #14817. The 1,500 S19j order is recorded at "7.2" in claim #14747. What are the exact contract prices, model specifications and any credits applied, including the price reduction referenced in claim #14841?

The company disclosed on 2020-05-07 that previous-generation miners had been taken offline with future use under evaluation, cited as claim #14929. It also disclosed that the OKC facility lease expired and the Kairos subsidiary lease was extended to June 30, 2020, cited as claims #14749 and #14937. What has not been said is how many legacy machines were idled and what their carrying value was. Were they impaired, sold or scrapped, and were any exit costs or lease obligations left at Oklahoma City?

The company disclosed on 2020-05-07 an at-the-market facility with H.C. Wainwright recorded as "100.0" and a 12-month liquidity sufficiency statement, cited as claims #14930 and #14931. On 2020-10-06 it disclosed a $100 million shelf, cited as claim #14814, and on 2021-04-06 it hired Megan Brooks as COO at a $275,000 salary with a 6,000-unit equity award, cited as claims #14730, #14731 and #14732. What has not been said is how much the ATM actually raised, at what commission, and how much shelf capacity remains to fund the $138.5 million Bitmain commitment. On the COO package, are the 6,000 units shares or RSUs, and what are the vesting schedule, performance conditions and bonus target?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-14

The company disclosed on 2021-05-25 that it would acquire Whinstone US for $80 million in cash plus 11.8 million shares, cited as claims #14605 and #14606. A year later, on 2021-08-22, it recorded a purchase price of 267,409 and contingent consideration for future power credits of 83,138, cited as claims #14476 and #14478, with no units stated (presumably thousands of USD). What has not been said is how the headline figure grew to roughly $267 million. Nor has the company explained what the power-credit contingency actually obligates it to deliver, to whom, and on what schedule. Has any of that $83 million been paid out or remeasured since?

The company disclosed on 2021-05-26 that it issued 11.8 million common shares to Northern Data AG, the seller of Whinstone, cited as claim #14595. That made the seller a large holder of the company's stock. What has not been said is whether Northern Data received a board seat, information rights, a lock-up, or a standstill. How many of those shares does it still hold, and did any related-party dealings continue after closing?

The company disclosed on 2021-08-15 an infrastructure target of 1,500 MW by 2023-12-31, cited as claim #14495. On the same day it granted performance RSUs of 525,000 each to Benjamin Yi and Jason Les, 450,000 to Jeffrey McGonegal and 400,000 to Megan Brooks, all measured to that date, cited as claims #14496 through #14499. Its later disclosures describe only 700 MW at Whinstone and 370 MW energized by end of 2022, cited as claims #14267, #14270 and #14269. What has not been said is where the remaining roughly 800 MW would sit, with what ERCOT or utility interconnection agreement, and under which power contract. Was the 1,500 MW metric actually used to vest those awards, and how many units vested or were forfeited?

The company disclosed on 2021-11-07 a Bitmain Antminer S19j Pro purchase priced at 56.25, a 900,000 TH/s hashing specification and a payment schedule, cited as claims #14403, #14404 and #14406. It also gave a delivery deadline of 2022-05-01, cited as claim #14405. By 2022-03-15 it described a $480 million order with delivery running through December 2022, cited as claims #14271 and #14258. What has not been said is whether 56.25 means dollars per terahash, and what the dollar amounts and dates of the installments are. Why did delivery slip from May to December 2022, and did the 120,150-miner year-end target in claims #14268 and #14264 depend on the delayed batches?

The company disclosed on 2021-05-23 that Executive Chairperson Benjamin Yi would receive a $240,000 salary, 10 BTC and 15,000 RSUs over a three-year term ending 2024-05-24, cited as claims #14608 through #14611. On 2021-11-07 it disclosed a director compensation increase of 1,000 and a COO equity award of 6,000 units, cited as claims #14409 and #14408. What has not been said is how the 10 BTC is valued and on what schedule it is paid. It is also unclear whether the director and COO figures are dollars, thousands, or per-meeting amounts. Was Mr. Yi's term renewed or amended when it expired in May 2024, and did the Compensation Committee under chair Hannah Cho (claim #14614) retain an independent consultant?

The company disclosed on 2021-12-01 that it would pay $25 million in cash and 645,248 shares for ESS Metron, with 70,165 holdback shares due by 2023-06-01, cited as claims #14351, #14352 and #14353. Separately, on 2021-06-07 it disclosed the sale of its Coinsquare stake to Mogo for CAD 22 million, cited as claim #14580. What has not been said is whether the ESS Metron holdback was released in full or reduced by indemnity claims. How was the Coinsquare consideration split between cash and Mogo securities, and what proceeds were ultimately realized?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-14

The company disclosed a long-term power purchase agreement for the Whinstone facility on 2022-03-15, cited as claim #14254, and separately booked future power credits as contingent consideration of 83,138 (claim #14478, 2021-08-22). What has not been said is who the power counterparty is, the contract term, the fixed or indexed price, the contracted MW, or how the power-credit value was calculated. The contingent consideration is also recorded with no stated unit, so the reader cannot tell whether it means dollars or thousands of dollars.

The Bitmain miner order is recorded as 480.0 USD in claims #14258, #14266 and #14271 but as 480.0 million USD in claim #14251. An earlier S-19j Pro purchase is recorded as 56.25 USD (claim #14403). A payment schedule (claim #14406) and a delivery schedule running to 2022-05-01 (claim #14405) were disclosed without amounts or dates. What has not been said is the per-unit price, the deposit-versus-balance split, and the cumulative cash paid against each order at each quarter-end.

The company guided to 120,150 miners operational by year-end 2022 (claims #14249, #14256, #14264, #14268), yet the 2022-03-15 Bitmain order covers only 82,500 units (claim #14272). What has not been said is where the remaining roughly 37,650 miners come from: existing fleet, the November 2021 order behind claim #14404, or hosted machines. Nor has the company said whether the 120,150 figure and the 370 MW target (claims #14250, #14257, #14265, #14269) were actually reached by 2022-12-31.

On 2021-08-15 the company stated a 1,500 MW infrastructure development target by 2023-12-31 (claim #14495). Its site-level disclosures only add up to a 700 MW Whinstone expansion with no completion date (claims #14252, #14259, #14267), made up of 200 MW immersion-cooled and 200 MW air-cooled builds (claims #14423, #14424). What has not been said is which site, ERCOT interconnection agreement, or transmission provider accounts for the other roughly 800 MW. The company also hasn't said whether the Massena, New York co-location with Coinmint counts toward any of these totals. That arrangement is only described as month-to-month (claims #14253, #14275), with no MW, hosting rate, or termination terms.

Performance RSU grants of 525,000 units each to Jason Les and Benjamin Yi, 450,000 to Jeffrey McGonegal, and 400,000 to Megan Brooks were disclosed on 2021-08-15 with a 2023-12-31 horizon (claims #14496, #14497, #14498, #14499). They share the date and deadline of the 1,500 MW target. What has not been said is whether vesting was actually tied to that capacity milestone, what the other performance conditions were, and how many units ultimately vested. The related COO disclosures also leave magnitudes unclear: the 325,000 USD salary (claim #14407) is not described as a new base or an increment, the 6,000-unit award (claim #14408) has no stated type, and the 1,000 USD director compensation increase (claim #14409) has no stated period.

The Whinstone purchase is recorded at 267,409 USD (claim #14476) with a completion date of 2021-05-26 from seller Northern Data AG (claims #14260, #14273). The ESS Metron deal carried 25,000,000 USD cash, 645,248 shares at closing, and a 70,165-share holdback due by 2023-06-01 (claims #14351, #14352, #14353). What has not been said is the cash-versus-stock mix and unit basis of the Whinstone price, whether any Northern Data lock-up or ongoing commercial relationship survived closing, and whether the ESS Metron holdback shares were released in full or reduced by indemnity claims.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-14

The company disclosed on 2022-07-07 that Rhodium was its largest hosting customer (claim #13863), and on the same date said it was ending its Coinmint hosting relationship (claim #13864). What has not been said is how much of hosting revenue Rhodium accounts for, what its contract pays for power and when it expires, or what the Coinmint exit cost in termination payments, lost revenue or freed-up megawatts.

The company disclosed a 1 GW development in Corsicana / Navarro County on 2022-05-17, 2022-06-26, 2022-07-07 and 2022-08-14 (claims #13909, #13885, #13860, #13802), and said Navarro construction was underway on 2022-07-07 and 2022-07-11 (claims #13867, #13859). What has not been said is the site's physical location or parcel, whether ERCOT interconnection approval and a utility agreement are in place for the full gigawatt, when the first megawatts will be energized, and what total capital cost is expected.

The company disclosed a Whinstone/Rockdale expansion to 700 MW on 2022-06-26 (claim #13884), a 400 MW substation and a 100 MW immersion building on 2022-06-30 (claims #13871, #13869), and a 12.6 EH/s hash rate target (claim #13883), while the 2022-05-17 Rockdale expansion claim gave no figure at all (claim #13910). What has not been said is whether 700 MW is total or incremental capacity, how the 400 MW substation fits within it, how much is committed to self-mining versus hosting, and by what date 12.6 EH/s is expected to be reached.

The company disclosed a $500 million at-the-market program on 2022-03-30 and 2022-03-31 with a 3% agent commission (claims #14154, #14144, #14155), described intended use of proceeds only generally (claim #14162), and then sought 340 million more authorized common shares and 30 million preferred shares on 2022-06-06 (claims #13903, #13904). What has not been said is how much of the ATM has been sold, at what average price and how many shares, which projects the proceeds are earmarked for, and what the new preferred authorization is meant to be used for.

The company disclosed on 2022-07-07 that equity compensation was tied to an EBITDA target recorded as 500 USD and a 1,500 MW infrastructure target (claims #13866, #13865), alongside equity plan increases of 4.4 million and 10 million shares (claims #13952, #13905, #13890). What has not been said is the units of the EBITDA target (presumably $500 million) and the period it covers, how many units each executive received, and what pay terms came with Jason Les becoming CEO and Benjamin Yi becoming Executive Chairman (claims #13954, #13953).

The company disclosed a COO separation package on 2022-03-22, including $406,250 cash severance, an $81,250 transition services fee and a 75,000-unit transition services RSU grant (claims #14217, #14218, #14220, #14224), but characterized Megan Brooks' departure as a resignation on 2022-05-01 (claim #13955). It also disclosed a CFO retirement and advisor role on 2022-06-05 (claims #13906, #13907, #13908) and a Marcum LLP auditor engagement (claim #13888). What has not been said is what transition services justify a 75,000-unit grant to a resigning officer, how many performance RSUs actually vested (claim #14223), what the retiring CFO is paid as Senior Advisor, who the incoming CFO is, and why the prior auditor was replaced.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-14

The company identified Rhodium as its largest hosting customer on 2022-07-07 (claim #13863) and, in the same disclosure, said it was ending the Coinmint hosting relationship (claim #13864). What has not been said is what share of hosting or total revenue Rhodium represents, the contract's power-pricing and expiration terms, and how much revenue and hosted capacity leave with Coinmint, including any termination payments. Is Riot now more dependent on a single hosting counterparty?

The company disclosed a 1 GW Corsicana/Navarro County development on 2022-05-17, 2022-06-26, 2022-07-07 and 2022-08-14 (claims #13909, #13885, #13860, #13802), with Navarro expansion timelines referenced on 2022-07-07 and 2022-07-11 (claims #13867, #13859). What has not been said is the status of the site's interconnection agreement, the utility and substation involved, the phasing of the 1 GW, a first-energization date, or the capex budget. When does the first megawatt actually come online, and how much of the gigawatt is contracted versus aspirational?

The company set a 12.6 EH/s hash rate target on 2022-06-26 (claim #13883), described an expected miner delivery schedule on 2022-08-15 (claim #13799), and cited a Rockdale megawatt expansion without a stated figure on 2022-05-17 and 2022-08-15 (claims #13910, #13796). What has not been said is the target date for 12.6 EH/s, the number of machines still undelivered, the supplier, and the remaining purchase-price obligations. How many incremental megawatts does the Rockdale expansion add beyond the 700 MW Whinstone figure (claim #13884)?

The company disclosed equity-compensation performance targets on 2022-07-07: an EBITDA target recorded as 500 USD (claim #13866) and a 1,500 MW infrastructure target (claim #13865). Individual awards include Yee's 242,000 PSUs, measured through 2023-12-31, and Werner's 85,998 PSAs, both disclosed on 2022-10-02 (claims #13590, #13597). What has not been said, at least clearly, is the EBITDA figure's units (presumably $500 million, but not stated), its measurement period, whether it is adjusted, and which executives' vesting depends on each hurdle. Does the 1,500 MW goal count only energized capacity, or capacity under construction too?

The company disclosed an increase in authorized common stock to 340,000,000 shares, which appears on 2022-06-06 and 2022-06-16 (claims #13903, #13889) and again as a proposal on 2022-09-22 and 2022-10-02 (claims #13620, #13582). It also disclosed a 30,000,000-share preferred authorization on 2022-06-06 (claim #13904) and repeated equity-plan share increases (claims #13905, #13890, #13841, #13952). What has not been said is why the common-stock increase was brought back to shareholders after the June meeting, whether the earlier vote failed, and what issuance the new preferred and common capacity is meant to fund. Is the capacity intended for an at-the-market program, acquisitions, or Corsicana capex, and what dilution should holders expect?

The company disclosed on 2022-06-05 that its CFO would retire and a new CFO would be appointed by 2022-08-15 (claims #13906, #13908), with the retiring CFO serving as Senior Advisor through 2023-02-07 (claim #13907). It also disclosed COO Megan Brooks's resignation on 2022-05-01 (claim #13955) and a Marcum LLP auditor engagement on 2022-06-16 (claim #13888). What has not been said is the successor CFO's identity and pay, the Senior Advisor compensation, whether the COO role was filled or eliminated and on what separation terms, and which audit firm Marcum replaced and whether there were any disagreements.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-14

The company disclosed on 2022-07-07 that equity compensation was tied to an infrastructure target of 1,500 MW and an EBITDA target of 500 (claims #13865 and #13866); what has not been said is whether that EBITDA figure is $500 million or some other unit, what measurement period applies, and whether either target was certified as achieved and the associated awards vested. If they were, which executives received how many shares?

The company disclosed on 2022-07-07 that Rhodium was its largest hosting customer and that the Coinmint hosting relationship was ending (claims #13863 and #13864); what has not been said is what share of hosting revenue Rhodium represented, what pricing and power-pass-through terms applied, and what the financial effect of exiting Coinmint was, including any termination costs or stranded capacity. Are there any disputes or renegotiations with either counterparty?

The company disclosed a 1.0 GW Corsicana/Navarro County facility repeatedly between 2022-07-07 and 2023-03-01, including a 400 MW immersion-cooled first phase (claims #13860, #13802, #13529, #13280, #13248, #13263); what has not been said is the executed interconnection agreement status with the utility and ERCOT, the energization date for each phase, and the total capital budget. How will the build be financed, and how many megawatts beyond 400 MW have firm, dated construction schedules?

The company disclosed on 2022-09-22 and 2022-10-02 a proposal to raise authorized common stock to 340,000,000 shares, following an equity plan increase of 10,000,000 shares approved on 2022-08-01 (claims #13620, #13582, #13841, #13858); what has not been said is how much of the new authorization was earmarked for at-the-market offerings versus compensation, and what the expected dilution is against the Corsicana capital need. Did the vote pass, and at what margin?

The company disclosed on 2022-10-02 the CFO transition from McGonegal to Colin Yee, including a $350,000 base salary, 100,565 RSUs, 74,294 RSAs and 242,000 PSUs, plus Ryan Werner's CAO package (claims #13585, #13586, #13587, #13588, #13589, #13590, #13591, #13593, #13594, #13595); what has not been said is the performance metrics and thresholds governing the PSUs, and the compensation paid to McGonegal for the senior advisor engagement ending 2023-02-07. Was any accelerated vesting granted on retirement?

The company disclosed on 2022-08-15 and again on 2022-10-24 and 2022-10-26 an expected miner delivery schedule and future hash rate growth (claims #13799, #13525, #13519, #13521, #13528); what has not been said is the named supplier, the unit count and model, the remaining purchase-price commitment and deposits outstanding, and the specific EH/s target with dates. Were any shipments delayed or deferred?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-14

The company disclosed on 2023-03-01 that its Corsicana facility would reach 1.0 GW upon completion (claims #13243, #13248, #13253, #13258, #13263, #13269), repeating a figure first stated on 2022-08-14 and 2022-10-18 (claims #13802, #13529), and separately cited a 400 MW immersion-cooled development there (claims #13264, #13274). What has not been said is how the 400 MW relates to the 1 GW: is it a first phase or a separate build? The record also gives no energization dates for the remaining 600 MW, no interconnection agreement or utility counterparty, and no capital cost or financing source for either tranche. The 'Navarro site' expansion with scheduled construction (claims #13524, #13518) is never tied to a physical address, and nothing confirms whether it is the same parcel as Corsicana.

The company disclosed on 2023-03-01 that Rockdale had 700 MW of current developed capacity (claims #13242, #13247, #13262). It also stated that a 400 MW expansion and a fourth building would be completed by 2023-03-31 (claims #13268, #13266, #13255), and both of those are now marked delayed. What has not been said is how much of the 700 MW was energized and hashing rather than merely 'developed,' what caused the delay, and what the revised completion date is. The earlier Whinstone capacity claim (claim #13801) and the 'expanded megawatt capacity under development' claims (claims #13796, #13526, #13520) never attach a number, so the baseline the 700 MW grew from is unstated.

The company disclosed on 2023-03-01 a target of 111,216 miners by 2023-12-31 (claims #13244, #13270, #13273, #13276), and that target is now marked delayed. It also disclosed a Bitmain ASIC purchase order (claim #13261). What has not been said is the order's unit count, model mix, price per terahash, deposit and payment schedule, or delivery dates. The repeated 'scheduled miner deliveries' and 'future hash rate growth' statements (claims #13799, #13525, #13519, #13528, #13521) never give an EH/s figure or quarter-by-quarter schedule. Without those, a reader cannot tell whether the miss came from supply or from site readiness.

The company disclosed on 2022-10-02 CFO Colin Yee's compensation: a $350,000 base salary, 100,565 RSUs, 242,000 PSUs measured through 2023-12-31, and 74,294 RSAs (claims #13588, #13589, #13590, #13591). On the same date it disclosed CAO Ryan Werner's awards: 120,000 PSUs, 85,998 PSAs, and 148,588 RSAs (claims #13595, #13597, #13596). What has not been said is the performance metrics and thresholds governing the PSUs and PSAs, how many of Yee's 242,000 PSUs actually vested after the 2023 measurement date, and the grant-date fair value of these awards. The record also leaves open whether Werner's employment term ending 2023-03-15 (claim #13598) was renewed and on what terms.

The company disclosed on 2022-10-02 that retiring CFO McGonegal would stay on as a senior advisor through 2023-02-07 (claims #13585, #13586). What has not been said is the fee, any accelerated vesting or severance, and the scope of the advisory duties.

The company disclosed on 2022-10-02 and 2022-09-22 a proposal to increase authorized common stock by 340,000,000 shares (claims #13582, #13620). What has not been said is whether 340,000,000 is the increment or the new total, how many shares were outstanding and reserved at the time, and whether an at-the-market program or specific issuance was planned. A reader would also want to know how the proceeds relate to the Corsicana build and the Bitmain order.

The company disclosed on 2022-08-15 that acquired businesses were being integrated (claim #13797), and on 2022-10-26 referenced switchgear operations alongside mining (claim #13517). What has not been said is which businesses were acquired, the purchase price, whether the switchgear unit supplies Riot's own sites as a related-party arrangement, and whether any goodwill from these deals has since been impaired.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-14

The company guided on 2023-03-01 to 111,216 Bitcoin miners in operation by December 31, 2023, cited as claims #13249, #13254, #13259, #13265 and #13270, all now marked delayed; what has not been said is how many miners were actually running at year-end 2023, what revised date replaced the original target, and whether the shortfall came from delivery, site readiness or deliberate deferral. The related Bitmain ASIC purchase order, cited as claim #13261, is on record without a unit count, total price, deposit schedule or delivery cadence. Without those figures, can a reader tell whether the order alone was ever sized to reach 111,216 units?

The company stated on 2023-03-01 that Rockdale had 700 MW of developed capacity, cited as claims #13247, #13271 and #13279, and that the fourth Rockdale building would be finished by March 31, 2023, cited as claims #13245 and #13251, both marked delayed. What has not been said is how much of the 700 MW was energized and hashing rather than merely developed, what held up the fourth building, and when it was actually completed. Claim #13255 repeats the completion item with no date at all.

The company disclosed a 1 GW Corsicana (Navarro County) facility on 2022-10-18, cited as claim #13529, restated on 2023-03-01 as claims #13248, #13253, #13258, #13263 and #13269, with a 400 MW immersion-cooled first phase in claims #13246, #13250, #13256, #13264, #13274 and #13280. What has not been said is the energization schedule for the 400 MW phase, the phasing and timing of the remaining 600 MW, and the ERCOT interconnection or utility agreement that secures 1 GW of load. The total capex and funding source for the build are also absent. The October 2022 Navarro expansion disclosures promised "scheduled construction," cited as claims #13518 and #13524, but gave no milestone dates. What were those dates?

In its 2022-10-24 and 2022-10-26 disclosures, the company referred to megawatt capacity under development, cited as claims #13520 and #13526, and to future hash rate growth, cited as claims #13521 and #13528. It attached no MW figure, EH/s target or date to either. What specific capacity and hash rate numbers sat behind those statements, and have they since been met or revised?

The company disclosed on 2022-10-02 a 242,000-unit PSU award to CFO Colin Yee measured through December 31, 2023, cited as claim #13590, and 120,000 PSUs plus 85,998 PSAs to CAO Ryan Werner, cited as claims #13595 and #13597. What has not been said is which performance metrics and thresholds govern those awards and how many units actually vested. Werner's employment term was dated only through March 15, 2023, cited as claim #13598, with no renewal on record. Retiring CFO McGonegal's senior advisor engagement through February 7, 2023, cited as claim #13586, carries no disclosed fee or equity treatment. Were those terms ever disclosed?

The company proposed an increase of 340,000,000 authorized common shares on 2022-09-22 and 2022-10-02, cited as claims #13620 and #13582, around the same time Jason Les and Benjamin Yi were confirmed as CEO and Executive Chairman, cited as claims #13583, #13584, #13621 and #13622. What has not been said is the intended use of the new authorization, including any at-the-market program size or the share count needed to fund Corsicana and the Bitmain order. The record also contains no compensation terms for the CEO or the Executive Chairman, even though it itemizes pay for the CFO and CAO.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-14

The company disclosed that Corsicana (Navarro County), Texas would host a 1.0 GW Bitcoin mining facility on 2022-10-18 and repeated the figure across at least eight 2023-03-01 claims (#13529, #13243, #13248, #13253, #13258, #13263, #13269, #13272, #13278). What has not been said is whether that 1.0 GW is contracted interconnection capacity approved by ERCOT and the transmission provider, what substation or interconnection agreement it rests on, and on what schedule the capacity beyond the initial 400 MW immersion-cooled phase (#13246, #13250, #13256, #13264, #13274, #13280) is expected to be energized.

The company disclosed a Rockdale 400 MW expansion and fourth-building completion targeted for 2023-03-31, cited as claims #13268, #13260, #13266, #13275 and #13277, all now marked delayed. It also stated 700 MW of developed capacity at Rockdale (#13242, #13247, #13262, #13271, #13279). What has not been said is how much of that 700 MW was actually energized and hashing on the target date, what caused the slip, and what revised completion date replaced 2023-03-31.

The company disclosed on 2023-03-01 that it expected about 111,216 miners in operation by 2023-12-31, cited as claims #13244 and #13249, both now delayed. It also referenced a Bitmain ASIC purchase order (#13261) and scheduled miner deliveries (#13525, #13519). What has not been said is the unit count, model mix, total dollar value and payment or deposit schedule of the Bitmain order, how many miners were actually operating at year-end 2023, and whether the shortfall came from delivery timing, site energization, or curtailment.

The company disclosed 'megawatt capacity under development' and 'future hash rate growth' on 2022-10-24 and 2022-10-26, cited as claims #13526, #13520, #13528 and #13521. None of these claims carries a number, an EH/s target, or a date. What has not been said is the specific megawatt and exahash figures behind these statements and the quarter in which they were expected to be reached.

The company disclosed CFO Colin Yee's and CAO Ryan Werner's 2022-10-02 compensation, cited as claims #13588-#13591 and #13594-#13597. That includes PSU grants of 242,000 and 120,000 units, with Yee's PSUs tied to 2023-12-31 (#13590). What has not been said is the performance metrics, thresholds and payout curves governing those PSUs, and what share vested given the delayed Rockdale and miner-count targets. Nor has the company said how the 340 million share authorization increase proposed in the same period (#13582) relates to its planned equity issuance and the dilution from these awards.

The company disclosed that former CFO McGonegal would retire and serve as a Senior Advisor through 2023-02-07, cited as claims #13585 and #13586. What has not been said is the compensation, retainer, or accelerated vesting paid under that advisory arrangement, and what specific duties justified it.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-13

The company disclosed on 2023-04-30 a Corsicana Facility of 1,000 MW total capacity with an initial 400 MW of immersion-cooled mining capacity, cited as claims #12674, #12675, #12679 and #12680, and repeated the one-gigawatt figure on 2023-05-09, 2023-08-08 and 2023-11-07 (claims #12648, #12278, #12003). What has not been said is the physical site address, the utility and ERCOT interconnection agreement behind the 1 GW, how much of that load is actually contracted today, and the energization date for the first 400 MW. The related development claims (#12206, #12286, #12001) carry no promised-by date at all. When does Corsicana draw its first megawatt, and under what interconnection terms?

The company guided on 2023-04-30 and again on 2023-08-08 to 12.5 EH/s of self-mining hash rate and roughly 111,216 deployed miners by 2023-12-31, cited as claims #12677, #12681, #12280 and #12676, from a stated 10.7 EH/s operating base (claim #12279). It then guided to 20.1 EH/s by 2024-06-30 (claim #12281). What has not been said on record is whether either target was met. The record also does not reconcile the 20.1 EH/s figure with the 7.6 EH/s expected from the initial MicroBT order by 2024-04-15 (claim #12383). What was the actual deployed hash rate and miner count at year-end 2023 and at mid-2024, and how much of the gap was delivery timing versus power availability at Rockdale's 700 MW (claim #12277)? Claim #12678 records Rockdale's 'developed capacity' with no number at all.

The company disclosed on 2023-06-29 a $162.9 million order for 33,280 MicroBT miners, cited as claims #12381 and #12382. It also disclosed an option for 66,560 more M56S++ units worth 15.3 EH/s (claims #12384, #12385) under a supply agreement running to 2025 (claim #12380). On 2023-12-05 it described MicroBT purchase options of 265,000 units (claim #11999). What has not been said is the per-unit or per-terahash price for the option tranches and the deposits paid or non-refundable. The record also leaves unclear whether the 265,000 figure is a per-year or aggregate count. Has any option been exercised, and at what committed dollar amount?

The company disclosed the acquisition of ESS Metron, LLC on 2023-05-31 and 2023-06-01, including the issuance of 70,165 shares, cited as claims #12564, #12498 and #12499. What has not been said is the total purchase price, any cash or earn-out component, and ESS Metron's revenue contribution. The record also does not show whether ESS Metron was already a supplier of electrical equipment to Riot's own facilities before the deal. If it was, how much of its pre-acquisition revenue came from Riot?

The company disclosed a $750 million at-the-market equity program at a 3.0% commission on 2023-08-08 and 2023-08-09, cited as claims #12275, #12283, #12273, #12276 and #12284. It raised its equity incentive plan reserve by 4,000,000 shares in June 2023 (claims #12497, #12543, #12386) and by a further 13,000,000 shares in October 2023 (claims #12134, #12135, #12004). What has not been said is how much of the ATM has been sold, at what average price, with what resulting share count and use of proceeds. The record also does not explain what burn rate justified a 17 million share plan expansion within four months.

The company disclosed LTIP service and performance awards to its CEO, Executive Chairman, CFO, General Counsel and Chief Accounting Officer on 2023-07-18, cited as claims #12355 through #12364. What has not been said is the performance metrics, hurdles and vesting schedule that govern the performance tranches due by 2026-07-31. The record also shows unexplained mismatches: the CFO and General Counsel service awards are recorded as 123,231 shares (claims #12357, #12361) against 123,321-share performance awards (claims #12358, #12362), while the CEO and Executive Chairman awards are symmetric. Is that a real difference or a filing error, and how many performance shares will actually vest in 2026?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-13

The company disclosed a MicroBT mining server purchase order on 2023-12-05, cited as claim #11997, recorded at 290.5 USD with delivery promised by 2025-04-30. What has not been said is the unit of that figure (presumably $290.5 million), how many machines it covers, or the price per terahash. It is also unclear whether this order is the exercise of the 66,560-unit purchase option (claim #12384) or a separate order under the 265,000-unit option framework (claims #11999, #11994). The initial order of 33,280 units for $162.9 million (claims #12381, #12382) gives a benchmark. Did pricing per unit or per EH/s change between the two orders?

The company has described the Corsicana site as a 1.0 GW development in at least three filings (claims #12648, #12278, #12003). It later guided to 400 MW of Phase 1 operations commencing by 2024-03-31 (claims #11995, #11987) and to 38.0 EH/s of capacity there (claim #11998). What has not been said is the site's ERCOT interconnection status, the substation and energization schedule for the remaining 600 MW, the total construction budget, or any power purchase terms. Has Phase 1 actually been energized on the stated date, and how many MW are drawing load today?

The company disclosed the acquisition of ESS Metron, LLC on 2023-05-31 and 2023-06-01, cited as claims #12564 and #12498, with an equity component of 70,165 shares (claim #12499). What has not been said is the total purchase price in dollars, the cash-versus-stock split, ESS Metron's revenue or backlog, and how much of its output is captive to Riot's own Rockdale and Corsicana buildouts versus third-party customers. Were there any earnout or retention arrangements with ESS Metron's sellers?

The company disclosed paired service and performance LTIP awards on 2023-07-18 for the CEO, Executive Chairman, CFO, General Counsel and Chief Accounting Officer (claims #12355 through #12364), vesting in 2026. What has not been said is the performance metrics, hurdles, or peer group governing the performance tranches. The CFO and General Counsel service awards are recorded as 123,231 shares (claims #12357, #12361) while their performance awards are 123,321 shares (claims #12358, #12362). Is that a typo or a real difference? Separately, the plan pool was raised by 4,000,000 shares (claims #12543, #12497, #12386) and then by a further 13,000,000 shares within months (claims #12135, #12134, #12004, #11996). What annual burn rate and remaining unallocated pool justify that second increase?

The company disclosed a $750 million at-the-market equity program on 2023-08-08 and 2023-08-09, cited as claims #12275, #12283 and #12273, with a 3.0 percent sales commission (claims #12276, #12284). What has not been said is the sales agent's identity, how much of the $750 million has been sold and at what average price, and how much of the proceeds funded the MicroBT orders (claims #12382, #11997). Is the program now exhausted, and has a successor ATM been filed?

The company guided on 2023-08-08 to 12.5 EH/s by year-end 2023 (claim #12280) and 20.1 EH/s by mid-2024 (claim #12281), starting from 10.7 EH/s operational (claim #12279). It later guided to 38.0 EH/s by 2025-06-30 (claim #11993) on delivery of 99,840 MicroBT units (claim #11992). What has not been said, in the records available here, is whether any of those hash rate milestones were actually hit on time. Also absent is how much of Rockdale's 700 MW (claim #12277) is used for self-mining versus hosting, and how many MW of the repeatedly cited immersion-cooled hardware (claims #12647, #12285, #12282, #12205, #12000, #12002) are actually deployed and at what fleet efficiency in J/TH.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-13

The company disclosed MicroBT purchase orders valued at "290.5 USD" on 2023-12-05, cited as claim #11997, and cumulative orders of "453400.0 USD" on 2024-02-22, cited as claim #11964. Those figures add up with the $162.9 million initial order in claim #12382 only if they mean $290.5 million and $453.4 million, so the units need to be confirmed. What has not been said is the per-terahash price of each tranche, the deposit and payment schedule, and the price and funding plan for the 265,000-unit annual purchase options in claims #11999 and #11967. What are the actual dollar amounts, when do payments fall due, and what would exercising the options cost?

The company disclosed a sequence of hash rate targets: 12.5 EH/s by year-end 2023 (claim #12280), 20.1 EH/s by mid-2024 (claim #12281), 28 EH/s by year-end 2024 (claims #11961 and #11969), and 38 EH/s by 2025-06-30 (claims #11962 and #11998). The only operational figure on record is 10.7 EH/s as of 2023-08-08 (claim #12279). What has not been said is what hash rate was actually energized at each of those deadlines. It is also unclear whether the 99,840-unit MicroBT deployment (claims #11968 and #11972) was completed on time, and how many delivered miners are sitting undeployed.

The company disclosed a 1.0 GW Corsicana facility with a 400 MW immersion-cooled first phase and operations starting by 2024-03-31, cited as claims #12278, #12003, #11966 and #11965. What has not been said is the status of the ERCOT interconnection, including the transmission provider, signed interconnection agreement dates, substation energization milestones, and the timeline and capex for the remaining 600 MW. When did first power actually flow, and how much of the 1 GW is contracted versus merely planned?

The company disclosed a 700 MW Rockdale facility on 2023-08-08, cited as claim #12277, and described its "competitive position" on 2024-02-22, cited as claim #11960, without quantifying it. What has not been said is the counterparty, term and fixed price of the power supply contract, the all-in cost per MWh, or how much revenue came from power sales and demand-response credits versus mining. What is Rockdale's realized power cost, and when does the current contract reset?

The company disclosed a $750 million at-the-market offering with a 3% sales commission on 2023-08-08 and 2023-08-09, cited as claims #12275, #12283, #12273, #12276 and #12284. What has not been said, in the claims on record, is the name of the sales agent, how much of the program has been sold, the average sale price, or how the proceeds were split between the MicroBT orders and Corsicana construction. How many shares were issued under the ATM, and how much capacity remains?

The company disclosed LTIP service and performance awards on 2023-07-18, cited as claims #12355 through #12364. The CEO and Executive Chairman received identical 184,820-share grants, and the CFO and General Counsel service awards (123,231 shares) differ from their performance awards (123,321 shares) by exactly 90 shares, which looks like a transposition. The company then expanded the equity plan by 4 million shares (claim #12386) and by another 13 million shares within six months (claims #12134, #12135, #12004 and #11996). What has not been said is which performance metrics and thresholds govern the performance awards, why the Executive Chairman is paid on par with the CEO, whether the 123,231 versus 123,321 difference is a real figure or an error, and what annual burn rate the 13 million-share increase was sized to cover.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-13

The company disclosed a MicroBT purchase of 99,840 miners for $453.4 million on 2024-02-22, cited as claims #11991, #11982 and #11972, and a separate MicroBT purchase order recorded as 290.5 on 2023-12-05 with delivery by 2025-04-30, cited as claim #11997. What has not been said is how the two orders relate. Is the $453.4 million inclusive of the December order, or additive? The record also leaves the units unclear: #11997 reads as 290.5 USD and #11964 as 453,400 USD, where millions are presumably meant. Nor has the company given the per-unit price, the hash rate per machine, or the deposits already paid versus balances still due.

The company disclosed options to buy up to 265,000 additional MicroBT miners through 2027 on 2023-12-05 and again on 2024-02-22, cited as claims #11999, #11994, #11967 and #11974. What has not been said is the pricing mechanism for those options. Is the price fixed, indexed to hash price, or renegotiated annually? The company also has not said whether exercising them requires upfront deposits, or what happens if the options go unexercised. At current fleet economics, those options could imply a multi-billion-dollar commitment.

The company disclosed a 1.0 GW Corsicana, Texas facility with a 400 MW initial phase due to begin operations by 2024-03-31, cited as claims #12003, #11989, #11995, #11966 and #11987, and a 700 MW Rockdale facility, cited as claim #12277. What has not been said is the site's physical address and its interconnection arrangement: the ERCOT interconnection status, the transmission provider, and whether a power purchase agreement or fixed-price contract backs the capacity. The record shows no confirmation that the 400 MW phase was actually energized on schedule, and no timeline or capital budget for the remaining 600 MW.

The company guided to 12.5 EH/s by end of 2023, 20.1 EH/s by mid-2024, 28 EH/s by end of 2024 and 38 EH/s by mid-2025, cited as claims #12280, #12281, #11988/#11969/#11980 and #11993/#11970. What has not been said, anywhere on the record, is the actual hash rate achieved at each deadline. The company also has not clarified whether 'capacity' means installed hardware or hash rate actually online after curtailment and power-credit sales. That distinction is material at Rockdale, whose 'competitive position' is asserted without a stated all-in power cost per MWh (claims #11960, #11975).

The company disclosed a $750 million at-the-market offering with Cantor at a 3.0% commission on 2023-08-08 and 2023-08-09, cited as claims #12275, #12283, #12273, #12276 and #12284. What has not been said is how much of the program has been sold, at what average price and share count, and whether the proceeds funded the $453.4 million MicroBT commitment. The company has also not said whether it has filed or planned a follow-on ATM program.

The company disclosed a 13,000,000-share increase to its equity incentive plan, first on 2023-10-16 and approved by 2023-12-19, cited as claims #12135, #12134, #12004 and #11996. What has not been said is who received grants from the expanded pool, in what amounts, and against what performance metrics (hash rate, cost per coin, or share price). The company also has not disclosed the resulting annual burn rate or overhang as a percentage of outstanding shares, which matters given the concurrent ATM dilution.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-13

The company disclosed a MicroBT mining server purchase order on 2023-12-05, cited as claim #11997, and then on 2024-02-22 a purchase of 99,840 MicroBT miners for $453.4 million, cited as claims #11991 and #11982 and recorded as 453,400 USD in claim #11964. On 2024-02-25 it disclosed a follow-on order of 66,560 units, cited as claim #11954. What has not been said is whether the $290.5 figure is millions and part of the $453.4 million, or a separate commitment. The company also has not given the unit split between the initial and follow-on orders, the per-miner price, or the deposit and payment schedule, including how much cash was still owed against the mid-2025 delivery date.

The company disclosed on 2024-02-22 that the Corsicana Facility would start a 400 MW immersion-cooled initial phase by the end of Q1 2024, cited as claims #11995, #11987 and #11986, within a planned 1 GW total, cited as claims #11989 and #12003. What has not been said is the site's physical parcel or address, the transmission provider, and whether an ERCOT interconnection or large-load approval covers the full 1 GW or only phase one. Nor has it confirmed that phase one was actually energized by 2024-03-31, or given any schedule for the remaining 600 MW.

The company disclosed self-mining hash rate capacity of 38.0 EH/s on 2023-12-05 and 2024-02-22, cited as claims #11993, #11970 and #11962, but 38.3 EH/s on 2024-02-25, cited as claim #11956. Claim #11998 attributes 38.0 EH/s to the Corsicana data center alone. That compares with 12.4 EH/s operational at 2023-12-31, cited as claim #11951, and a 28.0 EH/s year-end 2024 target, cited as claims #11961 and #11988. What has not been said is which figure is correct, and how capacity divides between Rockdale's 700 MW, cited as claim #11949, and Corsicana. The company also has not disclosed the fleet efficiency (J/TH) behind those numbers, or whether the 28 EH/s target was reached by 2024-12-31.

2026-09-06

The company disclosed multiple Bitfarms stake purchases at different dates and percentages—11.3% ($90M) on June 3, 14% on June 12, 14.9% on June 23, and 19.9% ($202M total investment) by September 4, 2024—yet failed to explain the sequence, timing, or per-share pricing of these successive tranches, citing claims 6052, 6011, 5927, and 5801; a first-year analyst would ask: what was purchased between each announcement, at what price per share, and why did the total investment jump from $111M (claimed 6015) to $202M? The settlement agreement with Bitfarms announced September 22, 2024 (claim 5695) is described through governance rights (director nomination, standstill provisions, voting commitments) but claim 5704 disclosing the settlement itself is marked withdrawn, and the actual negotiated terms—whether cash was paid, what Riot conceded, or what Bitfarms agreed to—remain undisclosed. Riot disclosed that it obtained conditional share purchase rights in Bitfarms (claim 5706) with a condition tied to "15.0 percent" (claim 5702), but did not specify the mechanics: at what price, under what timing, and what happens if ownership drops below or rises above 15%? A $525 million convertible notes offering closed in December 2024 (claims 5251, 5261) at 0.75% interest maturing January 2030, but the conversion price—essential to modeling dilution—is absent from all disclosures. Riot applied to Ontario's Capital Markets Tribunal to cease-trade Bitfarms' poison pill in June 2024 (claims 5922, 5929), but the outcome of that application—approved, denied, or pending—was never disclosed. Five executive employment agreements were amended with "revised severance provisions" on June 17, 2024 (claim 5965), but the company named neither the executives nor disclosed whether severance increased, decreased, or under what triggering events, preventing assessment of potential exit costs.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-06

The company disclosed a COO appointment on 2024-06-05 (claims 6039-6042) with specific compensation: $400,000 base salary, 100% annual incentive target, and 373,927 shares in long-term incentive awards—but the COO's name is absent from the disclosure. By late November 2024, when the company names Jason Les (CEO), Benjamin Yi (Executive Chairman), William Jackman (EVP General Counsel), and Jason Chung (EVP Head of Corporate Development & Strategy), no COO appears in the officer roster; what has not been said is whether the COO departed, was reassigned, or the role was eliminated, and if so, what severance or transition costs were incurred.

Riot disclosed a Bitfarms settlement agreement on 2024-09-22 (claims 5695-5706) with conditional share purchase rights triggered at a 15 percent ownership threshold and standstill provisions, promising agreement term expiration by 2026-06-01 (claim 5701, status delayed). What has not been said is the specific mechanics of the standstill—whether Riot can acquire additional Bitfarms shares if the company's ownership falls below 15 percent, or whether the restriction survives the June 2026 expiration, and what governance rights Riot retains after that date.

The company disclosed a $500 million convertible notes offering on 2024-12-08 (claim 5261), then a $525 million offering price on 2024-12-09 (claim 5259), with a $75 overallotment option (claim 5260)—leaving ambiguity about whether the final amount raised was $500M, $525M, or $525M + overallotment. What has not been said is the conversion price relative to Riot's stock price on the pricing date, the interest rate accrual mechanics, and the reconciliation between the $500M and $525M figures.

Riot disclosed that on 2024-12-10 it acquired Bitcoin using convertible notes proceeds (claim 5252), but disclosed no quantity of Bitcoin acquired, execution price, settlement date, or timing of the purchase relative to the note issuance. What has not been said is the size of this treasury Bitcoin position and its carrying value as of the quarterly close.

On 2024-06-17, the company amended five executive employment agreements with revised severance provisions (claim 5965) and adopted new indemnification agreements with directors and officers (claim 5966), but disclosed neither the severance amounts, the triggers for payment (termination for convenience, change of control, death/disability), the aggregate liability assumed, nor the scope of indemnified liabilities. What has not been said is the contingent cash obligation associated with severance and the operational or litigation risks covered by the new indemnification.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-06

The company disclosed Riot's Bitfarms stake grew from 11.3% for approximately $90M (June 3, 2024, claim 6052) to 19.9% for $202.2M (September 4, 2024, claim 5802). While it disclosed total investment amounts and resulting equity percentages, it did not disclose per-share purchase prices on each date, leaving the pricing progression opaque; the implied second-tranche pricing (~$2.51/share on Sept 4) is materially higher than the first tranche (~$2.06/share on June 11, claim 6015), yet no explanation for this 22% price escalation has been provided. What was the per-share price Riot paid in each Bitfarms acquisition tranche, and on what specific dates did these purchases occur?

The company established a Chief Operating Officer position on June 5, 2024, disclosing $400,000 annual base salary, 373,927 long-term incentive shares, and 100% annual incentive target (claims 6040-6042). However, the company has not disclosed the identity of the Chief Operating Officer, despite naming other senior executives including CEO Jason Les, Executive Chairman Benjamin Yi, EVP General Counsel William Jackman, and CFO Colin Yee (claims 5366-5369, 6054, 6055). Who is the Chief Operating Officer, and why was this executive's identity excluded from the compensation disclosure?

The company announced "Corsicana Facility land holdings" on June 12, 2024 (claim 6013) but provided no capacity metrics—neither acreage, megawatts of power capacity, mining hash rate (TH/s), nor operational timeline. For a Bitcoin mining company, a facility disclosure without capacity specifications is fundamentally incomplete. What is the acreage, electrical power capacity in megawatts, mining capacity in TH/s, and current operational status of the Corsicana facility?

The company disclosed a settlement agreement with Bitfarms Ltd. on September 22, 2024, which established "standstill provisions," "voting commitment," "director nomination rights," conditional share purchase rights, and a 7.5% beneficial ownership threshold (claims 5695-5706). However, the company did not define what transactions the standstill prohibits, which shareholder votes Riot's commitment covers, what actions activate the director nomination right, or what events trigger conditional purchase obligations. What are the detailed standstill terms, which specific votes does Riot's commitment apply to, under what conditions can Riot nominate directors, and what events trigger the conditional share purchase rights?

The company financed a $202.2M Bitfarms acquisition from "working capital" in September 2024 (claim 5802) but did not disclose the source of this capital or quantify available liquidity, despite no material financing event prior to September. The company's primary subsequent financing event—a $525M convertible notes offering (claim 5251)—was promised by December 11, 2024 but showed delayed status (claim 5259), suggesting the Sept. acquisition was funded from existing reserves not separately disclosed. Where did the $202M working capital come from in September 2024, and what cash position or prior financing arrangements enabled this outlay three months before closing the convertible notes offering?

The company disclosed a $525M convertible senior notes offering and separately disclosed an "overallotment option for convertible notes 75.0 USD" (claims 5251, 5260), but the unit denomination of the overallotment is ambiguous—"75.0 USD" could represent $75M in additional principal, 75M shares, or another unit entirely. Is the total convertible notes offering $525M or $600M (if the overallotment is $75M), and what is the precise dollar amount and denomination of the overallotment option?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-05

Riot disclosed multiple Bitfarms stake acquisitions between June and September 2024 with conflicting unit counts (44.9 million units on June 3 per claim 6053, then 53.8 million units total by June 11 per claim 6014, then 90.1 million shares by September 4 per claim 5801), yet never reconciled these figures or explained whether earlier purchases were rolled into later tranches or represented discrete acquisitions at different prices—a first-year analyst would immediately ask: what is the fully consolidated cost basis, share count, and acquisition timeline for the 19.9% final stake (claim 5703)?

Riot disclosed the Corsicana Facility as a land holding (claim 6013) but provided zero capacity metrics—no megawatt rating, no planned power draw, no hashrate contribution—despite being a cryptocurrency mining company for which facility capacity is the core operational metric and would be announced on any earnings call.

The $525M convertible senior notes offering (claim 5251) specifies a 0.75% coupon and a conversion-related price of "525.0 USD" (claim 5259), yet the units of that price figure are undefined—neither the prospectus-standard conversion price per share nor the price per $1,000 face value is stated, making the conversion economics opaque (claims 5259-5260).

Riot disclosed $525M in convertible notes proceeds available and stated it would acquire Bitcoin with those proceeds (claim 5252), but never disclosed the quantity purchased, the price paid, or the timing of purchase relative to note closing—despite this being the company's primary intended use of capital.

The settlement agreement with Bitfarms (claims 5695-5706) specifies a 7.5% beneficial ownership threshold (claim 5700), a 15% purchase rights condition (claim 5702), director nomination rights (claim 5705), and a June 1, 2026 termination date (claim 5701), yet does not disclose whether Riot faces a standstill restriction above 19.9%, what triggers the purchase rights, or what restrictions lapse at agreement expiration—mechanics that determine Riot's optionality post-June 2026.

Riot disclosed that five executive employment agreements were amended with "revised severance provisions" (claim 5965) but did not identify which five executives or specify whether severance multipliers increased, decreased, or changed in other respects, creating an unexplained gap relative to named executive disclosures (claims 6039, 6054-6055).

Riot disclosed the new Chief Operating Officer's compensation as $400k base, 100% annual incentive target, and 373,927 long-term shares (claims 6040-6042) but omitted the vesting schedule and the grant-date price per share, making the equity package's value and incentive alignment unquantifiable.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-05

The company disclosed appointment of a Chief Operating Officer in June 2024 with specific compensation details including $400,000 annual base salary and 373,927 share long-term incentive award (claims 6040-6042), yet the identity of the executive holding this position was never disclosed. Who is serving as Riot's COO?

Riot announced three materially different total investment amounts in Bitfarms over six months: $90 million in early June (claim 6052), $111 million by June 11 (claim 6015), and $202 million by September 4 (claim 5802). Given that these figures span multiple acquisition tranches, a reader would expect disclosure of what was purchased at each stage and at what per-share prices. What intermediate transactions occurred between June 11 and September 4, 2024, and what was the cost basis for each?

The settlement agreement between Riot and Bitfarms announced September 22, 2024 (claim 5695) granted Riot director nomination and replacement rights (claims 5697, 5705), yet the company did not disclose which Riot executives or board members were actually appointed to Bitfarms' board. Given Riot's resulting 19.9% ownership stake (claim 5703), the absence of named director appointments obscures related-party governance. Which Riot executives occupy board seats at Bitfarms as a result of this settlement?

2026-09-05

The company disclosed the appointment of a Chief Operating Officer on 2024-06-05 with a $400,000 annual base salary (claim 6040), 100% annual incentive plan target (claim 6041), and 373,927 shares in long-term incentive awards (claim 6042), as cited in claims 6039-6042; what has not been disclosed is the name of the individual appointed to this position. The company disclosed multiple incremental investments in Bitfarms between June and September 2024, progressing from 11.3% ownership at approximately $90 million (claims 6052-6053), to 14% ownership with total investment of $111.1 million (claims 6011-6015), to 14.9% ownership (claim 5927), and finally 19.9% ownership with $202.2 million in investment (claims 5801-5802), as cited in claims 6052-6053, 6011-6015, 5927, 5801-5802; what has not been provided is the specific per-share acquisition price for each tranche, the precise closing dates for each transaction, and a reconciliation explaining how the ownership percentages and investment amounts progress logically across the four disclosed acquisitions. The company disclosed requisitioning a special shareholders meeting to reconstitute the Bitfarms board (claim 5928), applying to the Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal to cease-trade Bitfarms' poison pill (claims 5922 and 5929), and obtaining director nomination rights (claim 5705), as cited in claims 5928, 5922, 5929, 5705; what remains unexplained is whether the board reconstitution effort ultimately succeeded, the number of director seats Riot is entitled to nominate, and the names of the individuals designated by Riot to serve on Bitfarms' board. The company disclosed a settlement agreement with Bitfarms on 2024-09-22 (claim 5695) that includes standstill provisions (claim 5699) and conditional share purchase rights (claim 5706) with a 15.0 percent condition (claim 5702), as cited in claims 5695, 5699, 5702, 5706; what has not been specified is the detailed scope of the standstill restrictions (what activities are prohibited, the duration, and any permitted carve-outs) and the precise meaning of the "15.0 percent" metric (whether it represents an ownership threshold, a share price level, or another condition). The company disclosed financing the September 2024 Bitfarms acquisition of $202.2 million (claim 5802) with working capital (claim 6012), yet subsequently completed a $525 million convertible notes offering in December 2024 (claims 5261, 5251), as cited in claims 5802, 6012, 5261, 5251; what has not been explained is the source and composition of the working capital used in September 2024, specifically the cash position available as of that date and whether interim debt financing was obtained before the December convertible notes offering. The company disclosed convertible senior notes offerings of $500-525 million (claims 5261, 5251) with pricing components of $525 and an overallotment option of $75 (claims 5259, 5260), as stated in claims 5259-5261, 5251; what remains ambiguous is the pricing convention used (whether $525 represents price per $1,000 face value, per note unit, or some other basis), the conversion price per share, and the mechanics of the conversion feature (though the 0.75% coupon and January 15, 2030 maturity are disclosed in claim 5251).

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

The company disclosed three successive Bitfarms acquisitions: $90 million for 11.3% on June 3, 2024 (claim 6052); $111 million cumulative by June 11, 2024 (claim 6015); and $202.2 million for 19.9% by September 4, 2024 (claim 5802). The per-share prices of each tranche, whether intervening tranches occurred between June and September, and whether the final figure represents total invested or only the incremental purchase remain undisclosed—a first-year analyst would ask whether Riot paid escalating per-share prices as its stake grew from 11.3% to 19.9%.

The company disclosed a settlement agreement with Bitfarms dated September 22, 2024 (claim 5695) accompanied by voting commitments (claim 5696), standstill provisions (claim 5699), a 7.5% beneficial ownership threshold (claim 5700), and a 15% purchase rights condition (claim 5702). What has not been disclosed is what dispute or hostile posture required settlement, the specific duration and termination triggers of the standstill, whether Riot paid consideration beyond share acquisition, or the conditions under which the 15% purchase right would be exercisable.

The company disclosed a $500 million convertible senior notes offering in December 2024 (claim 5261) with proceeds designated for Bitcoin acquisition (claim 5252). The quantity of bitcoins acquired, the per-unit cost basis, the timing of acquisitions relative to the funding close, and whether capital remains undeployed have not been disclosed—critical metrics for assessing capital efficiency and market timing of the deployment.

The company disclosed convertible notes offerings of $500–525 million in December 2024 (claims 5261, 5259, 5260) but omitted the conversion price, coupon percentage, and maturity date. Claim 5260 cryptically references an overallotment option of "75.0 USD" without clarifying whether this is a dollar amount, a share count, or a price per share, preventing investors from calculating the dilutive impact or refinancing risk inherent in the instrument.

The company stated that five executive employment agreements were amended with revised severance provisions on June 17, 2024 (claim 5965) but did not identify which executives, whether severance multiples increased or decreased, or the quantitative impact on contingent liabilities. A subsequent analyst inquiry would inevitably focus on whether severance cost materialized as a result of these amendments.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-05

The company disclosed approximately $202 million invested in Bitfarms from "working capital" (claims 5802, 6012) but did not specify which balance sheet line items were reduced or accessed to fund this acquisition. For a capital deployment exceeding $200 million, a sophisticated reader would expect to see whether cash was generated from operations, drawn from credit facilities, or released from investments, and what impact this had on liquidity.

The company disclosed a "Corsicana Facility" with "land holdings" (claim 6013) without providing acreage, megawatt capacity, or hash rate in standard industry metrics. Given the regulatory scrutiny on mining capacity referenced in claims 6235-6237, the company's own facility capacity remains unquantified despite operating in a sector where production metrics are material.

The company announced a Chief Operating Officer appointment with a $400,000 base salary, 100% annual incentive target, and 373,927 share long-term incentive award (claims 6040, 6041, 6042) but never disclosed the officer's name or the vesting schedule and performance conditions governing the equity award. A first-year analyst would ask: who holds this position and under what specific milestones do those shares vest?

The company announced $500 million in 0.75% convertible senior notes (claim 5261) with proceeds earmarked for Bitcoin acquisition (claim 5252) but disclosed neither the conversion price of the notes nor the quantity or custody arrangements for Bitcoin purchased. How many Bitcoin were acquired, at what price per coin, and where are they custodied—critical details given custody risk in the industry?

The company disclosed a settlement agreement with Bitfarms granting director nomination rights (claim 5705) and board voting commitments (claim 5698) but did not specify when these rights terminate or under what conditions they lapse. When does the nomination right expire, and does it disappear if Riot's stake falls below the 15% threshold referenced in claim 5702, leaving the stake value unanchored to governance influence?

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-09-05

The company disclosed a phased accumulation of Bitfarms equity stakes on claims 6052–6053 (11.3% for ~$90M on 2024-06-03), claim 6011 (14% on 2024-06-12), claim 5927 (14.9% on 2024-06-23), and claims 5801–5802 (19.9% for ~$202M on 2024-09-04), yet did not disclose why the stake was accumulated in tranches, whether the tranches were separately negotiated or part of a single arrangement, or the cost basis per share for each purchase relative to the Bitfarms share price at purchase—a quantitative follow-up any analyst would ask on an earnings call.

On claim 6039, the company announced a Chief Operating Officer appointment but did not name the appointee; claims 6040–6042 then disclose a $400,000 annual base salary, a 100% incentive plan target, and a 373,927 share long-term incentive award, yet omit the share vesting schedule, grant date fair value, whether the 100% figure represents the threshold, target, or maximum payout level, and the promotion/hiring context—all material to the proxy statement's executive compensation disclosure.

The company disclosed a $525 million convertible notes offering (claim 5261) priced at what claim 5259 reports as "525.0 USD" per unit and offered with an overallotment option valued at claim 5260's "75.0 USD"—neither unit aligns with how convertible notes are typically priced; the actual conversion price, interest rate, maturity date (beyond the stated 2030 maturity on claim 5251), and any conversion premium are not disclosed, leaving the terms of the capital raise opaque.

The company disclosed a settlement agreement with Bitfarms (claim 5695) that includes director nomination rights (claim 5705), voting commitments (claims 5696–5698), and conditional share purchase rights (claim 5706) triggered at a 15% ownership threshold (claim 5702), yet did not disclose the price per share at which the purchase rights may be exercised, whether the rights are call options exercisable at Riot's election or obligations, the term of the agreement (claim 5701 shows a promised expiration of 2026-06-01, now missed), or exclusivity provisions—details that would affect both the financial statement valuation of the investment and Riot's voting power.

On claim 6013, the company identified "Corsicana Facility land holdings" as a facility asset but disclosed no acreage, expected mining capacity in exahashes or megawatts, phase of development, or expected date of operational status—quantitative disclosures that would substantiate capacity claims and allow investors to assess hash rate per dollar of deployed capital.

On claim 5965, the company announced that severance provisions in five executive employment agreements were "amended with revised severance provisions," yet disclosed neither which executives were covered, the specific changes made (whether severance multiples increased, decreased, or were restructured), nor the resulting payment amounts or triggers—contextual detail essential to understanding executive retention risk and cash flow obligations.

SUPERSEDED

What we aren't being told

2026-08-30

2026-10-18

The reverse stock split authorization is the clearest open thread. In October 2010 the company disclosed board authority to effect a reverse split at ratios from 1-for-2 up to 1-for-6, to be completed before February 4, 2011 (claims 20721 and 20715). The last mention was the October 21, 2010 filing. In the record supplied, no later disclosure says whether the split was carried out, at what ratio, or whether the authority was allowed to lapse. The ledger auto-transitioned both claims to delayed on 2026-09-28 and then to not_yet_verifiable on 2026-10-09. That reflects only the absence of a confirming statement, not any company explanation. No revision announcement appears.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, and the stated pursuit of FDA clearance for it (claims 21047 and 21050) were last mentioned on October 14, 2012. Both remain in stated status, but neither the product nor the clearance effort appears in any subsequent claim on record. The later filings in this record concern auditor ratifications and share reserve increases. Nothing on record says whether a clearance submission was made, what came of it, or whether the program was discontinued.

The original bovine franchise has also gone quiet. In September 2004 the company described the SurBred 15 early pregnancy test, the StayBred luteinizing hormone product with its stated FDA approval or ANDA requirement, exclusive marketing and distribution rights granted to Merial, and license arrangements with three universities (claims 21096, 21097, 21101, 21094 and 21095). None of these is mentioned again by name. The 2005 disclosures record the termination of Roger Hurst, whose exclusive employment agreement had been tied to that period (claims 21087 and 21099). The next animal health reference is a 2012 exclusive license agreement for animal health intellectual property (claim 21049), which does not name the counterparty or the products. It also does not say whether the Merial arrangement or the StayBred regulatory path was concluded, transferred or abandoned.

Two smaller dated items carry no follow-up. Stephen A. Williams was disclosed as joining the board effective May 1, 2013 (claim 21038), and the Stock Incentive Plan term was extended to July 8, 2021 (claim 20709). Both passed their dates without a confirming disclosure in this record and now sit at not_yet_verifiable after an automated delayed status. The supplied claim list ends partway through a 2016 auditor ratification (claim 20982), so any later disclosure that resolves these items falls outside what was reviewed here.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-16

The reverse stock split is the clearest unresolved commitment on the record. In October 2010 the board sought and described authorization for a reverse split at ratios from 1-for-2 up to 1-for-6, to be effected by February 4, 2011 (claims 20721 and 20715). The last mention is the October 21, 2010 disclosure. After the deadline passed, the ledger moved both claims to 'delayed' and then 'not_yet_verifiable'. No subsequent disclosure on record says whether the split was carried out, at what ratio, or whether the authority was allowed to lapse unused.

The SurBred 15 bovine pregnancy test and its distribution arrangement disappear after a single appearance. The September 13, 2004 disclosure presented SurBred 15 as an early-detection product (claim 21096), said it was not subject to FDA regulation (claim 21100), and said Merial held exclusive marketing and distribution rights (claim 21094). None of these is mentioned again. By October 2012 the animal health side surfaces only as an exclusive license of animal health intellectual property to an unnamed party (claim 21049). The record does not say whether the Merial arrangement was terminated or folded into that license, or whether SurBred 15 reached meaningful sales.

StayBred, the recombinant luteinizing hormone for cattle pregnancy maintenance, was described in the same 2004 filing (claim 21097) as requiring FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claim 21101). It is never mentioned again. No disclosure on record reports a filing, an approval, a discontinuation, or a transfer of the program.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was the central product in October 2012. Management said it was pursuing FDA clearance (claims 21047 and 21050), alongside a 2012 stock offering (claim 21048) and the resignation of four directors on September 26, 2012 (claim 21051). The next substantive corporate disclosure on record is the October 2016 name change from Venaxis to Bioptix (claim 20981), which implies a change of direction. The claims available here contain no statement on the outcome of the FDA effort or on whether AppyScore was shelved.

A smaller item: the April 28, 2013 disclosure said Stephen A. Williams would join the board by May 1, 2013 (claim 21038). The ledger now carries this as 'not_yet_verifiable' after an interim 'delayed' state. No later filing on record confirms the appointment or mentions him in any board role.

Two caveats apply to all of the above. The status transitions are generated by automated extraction rather than by any company revision notice. The claims list supplied for this review is cut off partway through the 2016 entries, so later disclosures may address some of these gaps.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-16

The reverse stock split that the board was authorized to carry out by February 4, 2011 is the clearest open date on the record. It appears in claim 20721 (2010-10-11) as authority for a split of up to 1-for-6, and again in claim 20715 (2010-10-21) as a range of 1-for-2 to 1-for-6. Both claims were last mentioned on 2010-10-21. Neither has been followed by any disclosure that the split was carried out, what ratio was chosen, or that the authority was allowed to lapse. The ledger moved both claims to delayed on 2026-09-28 and then to not_yet_verifiable on 2026-10-09. Those changes came from the automated pipeline, not from anything the company said, and the deadline passed with no statement from the company.

The early cattle-reproduction franchise has dropped out of the record. On 2004-09-13 the company described SurBred 15, an early bovine pregnancy test (claim 21096), with exclusive marketing and distribution rights granted to Merial (claim 21094). It also described StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone for cattle (claim 21097), which it said required FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claim 21101). That date is the last mention of all four. No later disclosure reports SurBred 15 sales under the Merial arrangement, says whether that arrangement continued or ended, or states whether a StayBred filing was ever made. The next animal-health item is claim 21049 (2012-10-14), an exclusive license of animal health intellectual property. It is described as a partnership, but the record does not say which assets were licensed or whether this was how the earlier programs were disposed of.

Two other items from the same 2004-09-13 disclosure have no follow-up. Claim 21095 describes license arrangements with three universities, and claim 21098 refers to pipeline products in development. Neither is mentioned again. The record does not say whether the licenses remain in force, which products were in the pipeline, or whether any of them advanced or were abandoned.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was the company's stated focus in claim 21047 (2012-10-14), and claim 21050 says it was pursuing FDA clearance. That date is the last mention of the product and of the regulatory effort. The next substantive item on file is the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition in claim 20980 (2016-10-06). Nothing on the record explains whether clearance was obtained, refused, or withdrawn, or how the change in direction relates to the AppyScore program.

A smaller open item is claim 21038 (2013-04-28), which says Stephen A. Williams would join the board by 2013-05-01. The automated pipeline has since moved it to not_yet_verifiable. No later filing on the record confirms that he took the seat or mentions him in any other capacity. The ledger supplied for this company is cut off at the 2016 BiOptix entry, so more recent disclosures may resolve some of these questions and were not reviewed here.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-16

The reverse stock split is the clearest open thread. On 2010-10-11 and again on 2010-10-21 the board described authority to effect a reverse split at ratios from 1-for-2 up to 1-for-6, to be used before February 4, 2011 (claims 20721 and 20715). That deadline passed more than fifteen years ago. Both claims were moved to delayed on 2026-09-28 and then to not_yet_verifiable on 2026-10-09, and nothing in the record says whether the split was carried out, at what ratio, or whether the authority simply lapsed. The company has not issued a follow-up statement tying the outcome back to the authorization.

The animal-health franchise that defined the company in 2004 drops out of the record without an explanation. The 2004-09-13 disclosures described SurBred 15 as an early bovine pregnancy test with exclusive marketing and distribution rights granted to Merial (claims 21096 and 21094). They also described StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone that would need FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097 and 21101), as well as a broader pipeline and license arrangements with three universities (claims 21098 and 21095). None of these is mentioned again after 2004. The next animal-health reference comes on 2012-10-14, when the company describes an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property to another party (claim 21049). The record does not say what happened to the Merial arrangement, whether StayBred ever reached a regulatory filing, or why the business moved from building products to licensing them out.

AppyScore stops being discussed after a single statement of intent. On 2012-10-14 management said it was pursuing FDA clearance for the AppyScore blood test for appendicitis (claims 21047 and 21050). The next disclosure on file is the 2016-10-06 corporate name change from Venaxis to Bioptix (claim 20981), and it contains no reference to AppyScore. The record never states whether clearance was obtained, denied, or abandoned, or whether the renaming reflects a move away from the product.

The auditor relationship goes from repeated naming to silence. GHP Horwath was named as the independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal 2011 in both October 2010 filings (claims 20720 and 20713) and was ratified again on 2013-04-28 (claim 21039). By the 2014-04-29 ratification (claim 21012), the firm is no longer named in the extracted claim, and that claim's fiscal 2014 term has since been marked not_yet_verifiable. No later disclosure on file says whether GHP Horwath continued or was replaced, and no change-of-auditor statement appears.

A smaller loose end is Stephen A. Williams, whose board appointment was described on 2013-04-28 as effective May 1, 2013 (claim 21038). He does not appear in any later personnel disclosure, and the claim now sits at not_yet_verifiable. The record does not say whether he joined, how long he served, or when he left. All of the status changes noted above come from automated reclassification on 2026-09-28 and 2026-10-09 rather than from any company statement, and the record supplied here is cut off after 2016, so some of these gaps may be closed in material not yet reviewed.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-15

The 2004 animal-health pipeline disappears from the record without any stated outcome. In September 2004 the company described SurBred 15, an early bovine pregnancy test, as not subject to FDA regulation and as distributed under exclusive marketing rights held by Merial (claims 21096, 21100, 21094). It also described StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone for cattle, as a pipeline product that would need FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097, 21101, 21098). No later disclosure on record mentions either product or the Merial arrangement. The next animal-health reference is an October 2012 exclusive license of animal health intellectual property to an unnamed party (claim 21049). That suggests the line was moved out of the company, but nothing on record says whether StayBred was ever filed with the FDA, whether SurBred 15 generated meaningful sales, or how the Merial distribution rights ended.

The board authorized a reverse stock split of up to 1-for-6, to be done before February 4, 2011 (claims 20721, 20715, last mentioned October 21, 2010). Our tracker automatically moved both claims to delayed and then to not_yet_verifiable once the deadline passed. The record contains no follow-up saying whether the split was carried out, at what ratio, or whether the authority was allowed to lapse.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was the stated focus in October 2012, and the company said it was pursuing FDA clearance (claims 21047, 21050). That was the last mention. The next entry on record, from October 2016, is a corporate name change from Venaxis to Bioptix (claim 20981). Nothing in between reports a clearance decision, a withdrawn submission, or a decision to stop developing the product. The name change is the only visible sign that the company's direction shifted.

Governance changes in this period were disclosed as facts, with no reasons given. Four directors resigned on the same day, September 26, 2012 (claim 21051), and no reason appears in the record. Stephen A. Williams was announced to join the board by May 1, 2013 (claim 21038). That claim now sits at not_yet_verifiable because nothing on record confirms he was seated. Stephen T. Lundy's 2010 appointment as CEO (claim 20711) was never followed by any disclosure of his tenure or departure.

The ledger provided ends partway through the 2016 entries. Anything disclosed after claim 20981 is not reflected here.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-15

The SurBred 15 bovine pregnancy test and its distribution arrangement with Merial are the earliest thread to go quiet. On 2004-09-13 the company described SurBred 15 as an early-detection test outside FDA jurisdiction (claims 21096, 21100) and said Merial held exclusive marketing and distribution rights (claim 21094). Its companion product StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone for cattle pregnancy maintenance that would need FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097, 21101), was presented alongside it as pipeline (claim 21098). None of the three appears again in the disclosures on record. The 2005 filings turn to the name change, holding-company restructuring and leadership changes, including the departure of Roger Hurst (claim 21087), whose exclusive employment agreement had been tied to the 2004 product story (claim 21099). The record contains nothing on whether the Merial arrangement produced sales, was amended or ended, or whether StayBred ever reached a regulatory filing.

The reverse stock split authorization is the clearest dated commitment that ends without a resolution. Filings on 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 said the board could effect a split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, with the authority expiring 2011-02-04 (claims 20721, 20715). Both claims were moved automatically to delayed and then to not_yet_verifiable once that date passed. The record holds no statement that a split was carried out, at what ratio, or that the authority lapsed unused. The next financing disclosures (claims 20710, 21040) are silent on the matter.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was the company's central product story as of 2012-10-14. That filing said the company was pursuing FDA clearance (claims 21047, 21050), during the same period that four directors resigned (claim 21051) and a common stock offering began (claim 21048). AppyScore does not appear in the 2013 or 2014 disclosures on record. The next substantive corporate event is a 2016-10-06 name change from Venaxis to Bioptix (claim 20981). Nothing on record says whether an FDA submission was made, what came of it, or whether the program was ended before the company changed its identity. The 2012 exclusive license of animal-health intellectual property (claim 21049) also has no follow-up on its economics or status.

A smaller item concerns the board appointment of Stephen A. Williams, announced on 2013-04-28 to take effect by 2013-05-01 (claim 21038). It has since moved to not_yet_verifiable, and no later disclosure on record confirms his seating, describes his committee roles, or records a departure. The auditor commitments for GHP Horwath (claims 20720, 20713, 21012) carry the same automated not_yet_verifiable status, but the 2013 ratification (claim 21039) suggests continuity rather than a walk-back. They are noted here mainly as a limit of the ledger. This record is truncated after the 2016 entries, so later disclosures may address some of these gaps.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-15

In October 2010 the board sought and described authority to effect a reverse stock split at a ratio between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be used before February 4, 2011 (claims 20721 and 20715). The disclosures on record do not mention the split again after October 21, 2010. The ledger moved both claims to delayed and then to not_yet_verifiable once the deadline passed, and these were automated transitions, not company statements. Nothing on record says whether the board used the authority, let it lapse, or decided against it, or why the authorization was sought in the first place.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was presented in October 2012 as the company's lead product, and management said it was pursuing FDA clearance (claims 21047 and 21050). That October 14, 2012 disclosure is the last mention of the product. The same filing recorded the resignation of four directors on September 26, 2012 (claim 21051), with no stated reason. By October 2016 the company was changing its name from Venaxis to Bioptix (claim 20981). No disclosure on record reports a clearance decision, a withdrawn submission, or the end of the program.

The 2004 disclosures describe an animal-health business built around SurBred 15, an early bovine pregnancy test, and StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone. They also describe an exclusive marketing and distribution arrangement with Merial for SurBred 15 and license arrangements with three universities (claims 21094, 21095, 21096, 21097 and 21101). None of these products or partners is named again after September 13, 2004. In 2012 the company disclosed an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property to a third party (claim 21049). It did not say whether the Merial arrangement was still in force, whether either product reached market, or whether StayBred's required FDA approval or ANDA filing was ever pursued.

Stephen A. Williams was to join the board effective May 1, 2013 (claim 21038). The ledger auto-transitioned this claim to delayed and then not_yet_verifiable because no later disclosure on record confirms the seat was taken or explains its absence. The 2014 auditor ratification (claim 21012) also no longer names GHP Horwath, the firm ratified in 2010 and again in 2013 (claims 20713, 20720 and 21039). It is not stated whether the auditor changed. The record as supplied ends at the 2016 Bioptix name change, so later disclosures may address some of these points.

SUPERSEDED

2026-10-10

The cattle-pregnancy franchise is the clearest disappearance in the record. On 2004-09-13 the company described SurBred 15, an early-detection bovine pregnancy test, with exclusive marketing and distribution rights granted to Merial (claims 21096, 21094). It also described StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone for maintaining cattle pregnancy, which it said required FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097, 21101). Neither product, the Merial arrangement, nor the regulatory path for StayBred appears in any later disclosure on record. The next time animal health surfaces is 2012-10-14, as an exclusive license of animal health intellectual property to an unnamed party (claim 21049). The record does not say whether SurBred 15 ever reached Merial's channel, whether StayBred was ever filed with the FDA, or whether the 2012 license is how those programs ended.

The reverse stock split authorized in October 2010 has no disclosed outcome. Filings dated 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 described board authority to effect a split at ratios from 1-for-2 to 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011 (claims 20721, 20715). The ledger moved both claims to delayed on 2026-09-28 and then to not_yet_verifiable on 2026-10-09, because no subsequent disclosure confirms that a split was executed, which ratio was chosen, or that the authority lapsed unused. The company never followed up on the deadline either way.

AppyScore, the appendicitis blood test, was positioned on 2012-10-14 as the company's lead product, with FDA clearance actively being pursued (claims 21047, 21050). That same filing records the resignation of four directors on September 26, 2012 (claim 21051). Later entries through 2016 cover auditor ratifications and share-reserve increases (claims 21039, 21011, 20982), but none returns to AppyScore or to the result of the FDA effort. The record contains no statement that clearance was obtained, denied, or withdrawn.

A smaller item concerns Stephen A. Williams, announced on 2013-04-28 as joining the board effective May 1, 2013 (claim 21038). The ledger has since marked this not_yet_verifiable, since no later disclosure confirms that the appointment took effect or mentions Williams again. The gap may be an omission rather than a reversal, but the company has not said which.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-10

In October 2010 the board sought and described authority to effect a reverse stock split at a ratio between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be used before February 4, 2011 (claims 20721 and 20715). That deadline passed more than fifteen years ago. The ledger moved both claims from stated to delayed and then to not_yet_verifiable on the strength of the date alone. No later disclosure on record says whether the split was carried out, at what ratio, or whether the authority was allowed to lapse unused. The October 2010 filings are the last mention.

The 2004 disclosures centred on the bovine reproduction line. These were the SurBred 15 early pregnancy test, which was to be marketed under an exclusive Merial distribution arrangement and was described as outside FDA regulation, and StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone that would need FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21094, 21096, 21097, 21100, 21101). The same filing cited license arrangements with three universities and a pipeline of products in development (claims 21095, 21098). None of these appear again after September 2004. The next animal-health reference comes in October 2012, and it describes only an exclusive license of the company's animal health intellectual property to another party (claim 21049). The record never explains what became of the Merial arrangement, whether SurBred 15 reached commercial sale, or whether StayBred ever went to the FDA before the line was licensed out.

The September 2004 disclosure presented Roger Hurst's exclusive employment agreement as part of the company's foundation (claim 21099). A year later the termination of his employment appears among routine personnel items (claim 21087), with no reason given. It was disclosed, but nothing on record accounts for the change.

In October 2012 the company described AppyScore, a blood-based appendicitis test, as its lead product and said it was pursuing FDA clearance (claims 21047, 21050). The disclosures that follow in 2013, 2014 and 2016 deal with auditor ratifications, share reserve increases and authorized share counts (claims 21039, 21040, 21041, 21011, 21012, 20982). None of them mention AppyScore or the progress of that clearance. October 2012 is therefore the last statement on record about the regulatory path for the product the company had placed at its centre.

The April 2013 filing stated that Stephen A. Williams would join the board by May 1, 2013 (claim 21038). That claim has also aged into not_yet_verifiable, and no later record confirms that he took the seat or explains why he did not. The record supplied for this review ends partway through the 2016 entries, so later filings may address some of these points. Within the disclosures available here, they are left unaddressed.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-10

The reverse stock split authorized in October 2010 is the clearest open thread. Claims 20721 and 20715 record shareholder authorization for a split at ratios from 1-for-2 to 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011. The last mention is the October 21, 2010 disclosure. The ledger moved both claims to delayed on 2026-09-28 and to not_yet_verifiable on 2026-10-09, because nothing later in the record says whether the board used the authority or let it lapse. No later filing gives the chosen ratio or explains why the deadline passed without comment.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was presented in October 2012 as the company's central product, with FDA clearance being pursued (claims 21047 and 21050). Both remain at stated, and October 14, 2012 is the last mention. None of the 2013, 2014 or 2016 claims on record refer to the test, a regulatory submission, a clearance decision or a change in strategy. For a program framed as the company's main regulatory goal, the record does not say how it ended or whether it continued.

The animal health business that defined the company in 2004 fades out without a stated exit. In September 2004 management described SurBred 15, an early bovine pregnancy test, with Merial holding exclusive marketing and distribution rights (claims 21096 and 21094). It also described StayBred, a recombinant hormone that would need FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097 and 21101), along with unnamed pipeline products (claim 21098). None of these is mentioned again. In October 2012 a single claim notes an exclusive license of the company's animal health intellectual property (claim 21049). It names no licensee, no terms and no outcome for the Merial arrangement or StayBred's regulatory path. The record moves from named products and a named distribution partner to a generic out-license with no transition statement in between.

The April 2013 disclosure said Stephen A. Williams would join the board effective May 1, 2013 (claim 21038). The ledger reclassified this to delayed and then not_yet_verifiable because no later claim confirms that he was seated or that he served. This may be a gap in the extracted record rather than a reversal, but the record does not close it.

Two cautions apply to this reading. First, the delayed and not_yet_verifiable statuses were assigned by automated reclassification in September and October 2026, so they reflect missing confirmation rather than any statement from the company. Second, the ledger supplied for this review breaks off partway through a 2016 auditor-ratification claim (claim 20982), so later disclosures that might resolve these items were not available.

SUPERSEDED

2026-10-09

The board's authority to effect a reverse stock split, at a ratio between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011, appears in disclosures dated 2010-10-11 and 2010-10-21 (claims 20721 and 20715). Neither claim was followed by any disclosure on record saying whether a split was carried out, at what ratio, or whether the authority was allowed to lapse. Both claims were automatically moved to delayed on 2026-09-28 because the deadline passed with nothing confirming the outcome. The next filing on record, from 2011-05-31, covers stock incentive plan housekeeping (claims 20709 and 20710) and does not mention the split.

The early livestock reproduction franchise disappears from the record after a single detailed appearance on 2004-09-13. That filing described the SurBred 15 bovine pregnancy test, exclusive marketing and distribution rights granted to Merial, the StayBred recombinant luteinizing hormone product with its FDA or ANDA pathway, license arrangements with three universities, and an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claims 21096, 21094, 21097, 21101, 21095 and 21099). By 2005-09-25, the disclosures report that Hurst's employment had been terminated and the company was renamed AspenBio Pharma (claims 21087 and 21090). None of SurBred 15, Merial, StayBred or the university licenses is mentioned again. Every one of these claims remains at stated, not verified. Nothing on record explains whether the Merial arrangement produced sales, whether StayBred ever entered the FDA process, or whether the programs were discontinued.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, and the stated pursuit of FDA clearance for it were last mentioned on 2012-10-14 (claims 21047 and 21050). The same filing referred to an exclusive license of the animal health intellectual property and the resignation of four directors on September 26, 2012 (claims 21049 and 21051). The 2013 and 2014 disclosures on record cover only board, auditor and share-reserve items. By 2016-10-06, the company was renaming itself from Venaxis to Bioptix and acquiring BiOptix Diagnostics (claims 20980, 20981 and 20979). No disclosure on record states whether AppyScore received FDA clearance, was withdrawn, or was abandoned. Nothing on record names the counterparty to the animal health license or reports any income from it.

A series of auditor ratifications naming GHP Horwath for fiscal 2011, 2014 and 2016 (claims 20720, 20713, 21012 and 20982), along with the 2011 extension of the stock incentive plan's term to July 8, 2021 (claim 20709), all shifted to delayed in the same automated pass on 2026-09-28. These are routine governance items, and the status likely reflects missing follow-up data more than any retreat by the company. Even so, the record contains no statement confirming that those engagements were completed, or what happened to the plan when its extended term ended. The ledger provided ends partway through a 2017-04-27 entry (claim 20905), so later disclosures may address some of these gaps and are not reflected here.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-08

Riot's earliest disclosures, from its time as an animal-health diagnostics company, centered on the SurBred 15 bovine pregnancy test (claim 21096). Merial held exclusive marketing and distribution rights to it (claim 21094). The same filings described a follow-on product, StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone that still needed FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097, 21101), and license arrangements with three universities (claim 21095). All of these were last mentioned on 2004-09-13 and remain at 'stated' in the ledger. No later disclosure on record says whether SurBred 15 reached meaningful sales, whether the Merial arrangement continued or ended, or whether StayBred ever went to the FDA. The next reference to the animal-health line is the 2012-10-14 note of an exclusive license of the animal-health intellectual property (claim 21049). That suggests an exit, but the record contains no statement connecting the two or explaining the outcome.

The antigen business acquired from Vitro Diagnostics (claims 21108, 21081) was described in 2004 as supplying more than 30 products to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities (claim 21102). It was last mentioned on 2005-09-25, in the filing that also renamed the company AspenBio Pharma (claim 21090). Nothing on record reports what happened to the antigen product line after that, whether it was sold, wound down, or folded into other operations.

In October 2010 the board sought authority for a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected before 2011-02-04 (claims 20721, 20715). Both claims were auto-transitioned to 'delayed' on 2026-09-28 because the deadline passed with no confirming disclosure in the ledger. The record does not say whether the split was carried out, at what ratio, or whether the authority was allowed to lapse.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, and the stated pursuit of FDA clearance for it (claims 21047, 21050) were last mentioned on 2012-10-14, alongside the resignation of four directors (claim 21051) and a new stock offering (claim 21048). Both claims are still at 'stated'. The next entries on record are the 2016 acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and the change of the corporate name from Venaxis to Bioptix (claims 20980, 20981, 20979). No disclosure in the ledger reports the result of the FDA effort or explains why the product drops out of view before the company moved in a different direction.

Several other 'delayed' entries, including the auditor ratifications (claims 20720, 20713, 21012, 20982) and the Stock Incentive Plan term extension to 2021-07-08 (claim 20709), appear to be automatic deadline lapses on routine items rather than substantive walk-backs. The ledger reviewed here ends at an entry dated 2017-04-27 (claim 20905), so later disclosures may address some of these gaps.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-08

The animal-health program that defined the company in 2004 has no visible ending. The 2004-09-13 disclosures described SurBred 15, an early bovine pregnancy test (claim 21096), with Merial holding exclusive marketing and distribution rights (claim 21094). They also described StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone product for cattle that would need FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097, 21101), along with unnamed pipeline products (claim 21098). None of these is mentioned again in the record. The next animal-health reference comes eight years later, on 2012-10-14, as an exclusive license of animal health intellectual property to an unnamed party (claim 21049). The record says nothing about whether SurBred 15 reached Merial's channels, what happened to StayBred's regulatory path, or why the business was licensed out rather than commercialized.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was last mentioned on 2012-10-14. At that point the company said it was pursuing FDA clearance (claims 21047, 21050). By 2016-10-06 the company had renamed itself from Venaxis to Bioptix and acquired BiOptix Diagnostics (claims 20980, 20981, 20979). AppyScore is absent from those disclosures. The record contains no statement on the outcome of the FDA effort, no announcement that it was abandoned, and no explanation of how the change in direction relates to the product's fate.

The board's reverse stock split authorization had a deadline of 2011-02-04, at ratios from 1-for-2 up to 1-for-6 (claims 20721, 20715). It was last disclosed on 2010-10-21. The ledger moved both claims to delayed on 2026-09-28, but that move was automatic, triggered by the passed deadline. No later disclosure on record says whether a split was carried out, at what ratio, or whether the authorization lapsed unused.

The founding antigen business had a shorter arc. On 2004-09-13 the company described an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim 21099) and said it marketed more than 30 products to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities (claim 21102). By 2005-09-25, Hurst's employment had been terminated (claim 21087). The same filing announced a holding-company restructuring (claim 21091) and a name change to AspenBio Pharma (claim 21090). After that, neither the antigen product line, the Vitro Diagnostics acquisition behind it (claims 21108, 21081), nor the holding-company structure appears again. The record gives no reason for Hurst's departure so soon after an exclusive agreement and does not describe what became of the antigen catalog.

Two caveats about the ledger. First, several of its delayed flags are mechanical artifacts, including the fiscal-year auditor ratifications (claims 20713, 20720, 21012, 20982) and the Lundy appointment (claim 20711). These reflect passed dates, not evidence of non-delivery, and are not treated here as walk-backs. Second, the record supplied ends partway through claim 20905 in 2017, so later disclosures that might address any of these items have not been reviewed.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-08

The animal-health franchise that defined the company's 2004 disclosures has no later account of what happened to it. On 2004-09-13 management described SurBred 15, an early-detection bovine pregnancy test, with exclusive marketing and distribution rights granted to Merial (claims 21096, 21094). It also described StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone for cattle that would need FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097, 21101), along with unnamed pipeline products (claim 21098). None of these appears again in the record. The next animal-health reference comes eight years later, on 2012-10-14, as an exclusive license of the company's animal-health intellectual property to another party (claim 21049). That reads as an exit rather than a continuation. The ledger contains no statement on whether SurBred 15 reached market, how the Merial arrangement ended, or whether StayBred was ever filed with the FDA.

The antigen business bought from Vitro Diagnostics followed a similar path. It was disclosed on 2004-03-23 and restated on 2005-09-25 (claims 21108, 21081). The 2004 disclosures said the company marketed more than 30 products to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities (claim 21102). After the 2005 restatement, neither the acquired business nor that product count is mentioned again, and no disposal, wind-down or revenue update is recorded.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, is the clearest open regulatory question. On 2012-10-14 management said it was pursuing FDA clearance (claims 21047, 21050), and that is the last mention. The company's subsequent disclosures turn to corporate identity instead: a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix and the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics, both disclosed in October 2016 (claims 20981, 20980, 20979). The record does not say whether clearance was obtained, denied or abandoned, or how the four-year gap relates to the pivot.

In October 2010 shareholders were asked to authorize a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected before 2011-02-04 (claims 20721, 20715). Both claims were automatically moved to delayed on 2026-09-28 because the deadline passed with no confirming disclosure. The ledger does not show whether the split was carried out, at what ratio, or whether the authority was allowed to lapse.

Several other items in the ledger carry an automatic delayed status, but that status probably reflects missing confirmation rather than any walk-back. These are the auditor ratifications (claims 20720, 20713, 21012, 20982), Stephen A. Williams' board appointment (claim 21038) and the Stock Incentive Plan term extension to 2021 (claim 20709), all routine actions that are usually completed. Claim 20711 gives a promised-by date of 2010-03-24, which is earlier than its 2010-10-21 disclosure and looks like an extraction error rather than a slipped commitment. The ledger as supplied breaks off at claim 20904 (2017-04-27), so disclosures after that date were not reviewed.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-07

The earliest product story on record has no visible ending. In September 2004 the company described SurBred 15, an early bovine pregnancy test, with Merial holding exclusive marketing and distribution rights (claims 21094, 21096). It also described StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone for cattle pregnancy maintenance that would need FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097, 21101). Neither product, the Merial arrangement, nor the regulatory path appears in any later claim on record. The next animal-health reference comes in October 2012, when the company mentions an exclusive license agreement for its animal health intellectual property (claim 21049). That claim does not say whether SurBred 15 reached market, whether the Merial rights were exercised or ended, or whether StayBred was ever submitted. The licensing of the animal health portfolio suggests the business was set aside, but no disclosure on record says so.

A related thread concerns Roger Hurst. In September 2004 the company highlighted Hurst's exclusive employment agreement as part of the same cattle-diagnostics story (claim 21099). By September 2005 that employment had been terminated (claim 21087). The record gives no reason and no account of what the departure meant for the programs the agreement was presented as supporting.

The antigen business acquired from Vitro Diagnostics (claims 21108, 21081) was last described in September 2005, alongside a claim of more than 30 products sold to diagnostic manufacturers and research facilities (claim 21102). Neither the business nor that product count is mentioned again. No sale, wind-down or change in revenue contribution is recorded.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was presented in October 2012 as the subject of a pursuit of FDA clearance (claims 21047, 21050). No later claim reports a submission, clearance, rejection or abandonment. The next substantive disclosures, in October 2016, describe the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix (claims 20980, 20981, 20979). That sequence implies a change of direction, but none of the claims on record connects it to the outcome of the AppyScore effort.

The October 2010 authorization for a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011 (claims 20721, 20715), was auto-transitioned to delayed on 2026-09-28. Nothing on record confirms that a split was carried out within the window or that the authority was allowed to lapse.

Several other items carry the same automatic delayed status but probably reflect how the ledger was processed rather than any walk-back. These include the annual auditor ratifications (claims 20720, 20713, 21012, 20982), the plan-term extension (claim 20709), and the Lundy and board-restructuring appointments (claims 20711, 20712), whose target dates fall at or before the date of the claim itself. All transitions on record were applied in a single backfill on 2026-09-27 and 2026-09-28, not as events occurred. The record supplied ends partway through claim 20906, dated April 2017, so later disclosures may address some of these gaps.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-07

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was the company's central product in the 2012-10-14 disclosures (claims 21047 and 21050). Management described it as pursuing FDA regulatory clearance. It does not appear in any later claim on record. By 2016-10-06 the company had acquired BiOptix Diagnostics and renamed itself from Venaxis to Bioptix (claims 20979, 20980, 20981). Nothing in the record says whether clearance was obtained, denied or withdrawn, or whether the program was sold, licensed or shelved. Both AppyScore claims still sit at stated, with no resolving disclosure.

The bovine reproduction franchise has also gone quiet. The 2004-09-13 disclosures described SurBred 15, an early-detection cattle pregnancy test, with exclusive marketing and distribution rights granted to Merial (claims 21094, 21096, 21100). They also described StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone that required FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097, 21101). Neither product nor the Merial arrangement is mentioned after that date. The record has no commercial results for SurBred 15, no regulatory filing for StayBred, and no end to the Merial rights. The only later echo is a 2012-10-14 reference to an exclusive license of animal health intellectual property (claim 21049), which names neither product nor the licensee.

Roger Hurst's exclusive employment agreement was presented on 2004-09-13 as part of the company's capabilities (claim 21099). One year later, on 2005-09-25, the record shows his employment terminated (claim 21087). No reason is given, and no successor or effect on the programs he was tied to is disclosed. Around the same time, the license arrangements with three universities and the unnamed pipeline products (claims 21095, 21098) last appear on 2004-09-13 and are not revisited.

The reverse stock split, authorized at ratios from 1-for-2 to 1-for-6 for completion by 2011-02-04, was disclosed on 2010-10-11 and again on 2010-10-21 (claims 20721, 20715). Both claims have auto-transitioned to delayed. The record contains no statement that a split was effected, at what ratio, or that the authority was allowed to lapse.

Several other claims carry delayed flags that likely do not reflect a walk-back. These include the annual auditor ratifications (claims 20713, 20720, 20982, 21012), the 2021 plan-term extension (claim 20709), and personnel items whose deadline is at or before the disclosure date (claims 20711, 20712, 21038). They are better read as artifacts of the automated deadline check than as missed commitments. The ledger supplied here also breaks off at a 2017-04-27 entry (claim 20906), so this review does not cover the later pivot into the current business.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-06

The SurBred 15 bovine pregnancy test is the earliest product thread that drops out of the record. On 2004-09-13 the company described SurBred 15 as an early-detection blood test outside FDA regulation, with Merial holding exclusive marketing and distribution rights (claims 21096, 21100, 21094). The related employment agreement with Roger Hurst (21099) appears again only as a termination on 2005-09-25 (21087). After that date the disclosures we hold do not mention SurBred 15, its sales, or the Merial arrangement. All three claims remain at 'stated' and none has been updated. Nothing on record says whether the Merial rights were exercised, renegotiated, or allowed to lapse, or whether Hurst's departure affected the program.

StayBred, the recombinant luteinizing hormone for cattle pregnancy maintenance, follows a similar pattern. It was presented on 2004-09-13 as requiring FDA approval or an ANDA filing (21097, 21101), alongside unspecified pipeline products (21098) and licenses with three universities (21095). None of these is mentioned again in later filings. The next reference to animal health is an exclusive license of animal health intellectual property on 2012-10-14 (21049), which suggests the line was licensed out. However, no disclosure connects that license to StayBred or explains what happened to the regulatory path that had been described as necessary.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was the central product claim on 2012-10-14. Management said it was pursuing FDA clearance (21047, 21050). That disclosure also recorded the resignation of four directors on 2012-09-26 (21051) and a common stock offering (21048). Within the claims captured here, AppyScore does not appear again. The next substantive disclosures, on 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16, concern the BiOptix Diagnostics acquisition and a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix (20980, 20979, 20981). Neither the FDA clearance effort nor any decision to stop it is addressed in the material we hold, and claim 21050 still reads 'stated' with no outcome attached.

The reverse stock split authorization of up to 1-for-6, to be effected by 2011-02-04, appears twice in October 2010 (20721, 20715). On 2026-09-28 the ledger automatically moved both claims to 'delayed' because the deadline passed without a recorded follow-up. The record does not show whether the board used the authority, let it expire, or chose a different ratio. Several auditor ratifications carrying fiscal-year deadlines (20720, 20713, 21012, 20982) were auto-transitioned in the same way. Those most likely reflect routine completion that was never confirmed, not slippage. The split is different: it was a discretionary action with a hard deadline, and no statement on record says it was carried out.

The claims list we received ends partway through an entry dated 2017-04-27 (20906). Items from later disclosures, including anything that may close out the topics above, could not be assessed.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-06

The record supplied for Riot ends mid-entry at claim 20906 (2017-04-27), so the observations below cover only the AspenBio, Venaxis and Bioptix years. Several items the ledger marks as delayed, including the annual GHP Horwath auditor ratifications (claims 20720, 20713, 21012, 20982) and the appointments of Stephen T. Lundy and Stephen A. Williams (claims 20711, 21038), carry promise dates that are simply the end of a fiscal year or an effective date already passed. The automated pass on 2026-09-28 appears to have flagged them mechanically. They are not treated here as walk-backs.

StayBred, the recombinant luteinizing hormone product for maintaining cattle pregnancy, was described on 2004-09-13 as a product requiring FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097, 21101). It does not appear in any later claim on record, including the extensive 2005-09-25 disclosures. The ledger contains no filing, approval, abandonment or licensing-out of StayBred. The regulatory path that was flagged as a precondition was never reported as started.

SurBred 15, the early-detection bovine pregnancy test, and the exclusive marketing and distribution rights granted to Merial were last mentioned on 2004-09-13 (claims 21094, 21096, 21100). That same disclosure also cited license arrangements with three universities (claim 21095). None of these reappear afterward. The 2005 record notes that Roger Hurst's employment was terminated (claim 21087), the same person whose exclusive employment agreement was listed alongside these products in 2004 (claim 21099). The company did not state what became of the Merial arrangement, whether it produced sales, or whether it was ended. The next animal-health reference is an exclusive license of animal health intellectual property on 2012-10-14 (claim 21049), which names no counterparty and makes no link to the earlier products.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was presented on 2012-10-14 alongside a statement that the company was pursuing FDA clearance (claims 21047, 21050). It is absent from every later claim. That includes the 2016 acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and the renaming from Venaxis to Bioptix (claims 20980, 20981, 20979), which marked a change of business direction. The record contains no announcement that clearance was obtained, denied or withdrawn. It also does not say why the product the company had been built around stopped being discussed.

The board authorization for a reverse stock split of up to 1-for-6, to be effected before 2011-02-04 (claims 20721, 20715), is now marked delayed. No later claim reports whether the split was carried out, at what ratio, or whether the authorization was allowed to lapse. The 2011-05-31 disclosures (claims 20709, 20710) deal only with the stock incentive plan and do not resolve the question.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-06

The reverse stock split is the clearest open thread. In October 2010 the company said shareholders had authorized the board to effect a split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be completed before February 4, 2011 (claims 20721 and 20715). The last mention is October 21, 2010, and both claims have since been auto-transitioned to delayed. Nothing in the record says whether the board used the authority, let it lapse, or decided against it, and no ratio was ever announced.

The early animal-health franchise disappears without explanation. In September 2004 management described SurBred 15, an early bovine pregnancy test distributed exclusively through Merial (claims 21096 and 21094), and StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone product that it acknowledged would need FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097 and 21101). Neither product, the Merial arrangement, nor the three university licenses (claim 21095) appears again. The September 2005 disclosures record the termination of Roger Hurst (claim 21087), whose exclusive employment agreement had been cited a year earlier as supporting this work (claim 21099), but they do not connect his departure to the product line. All of these claims remain in stated status with no update. Nothing on record says whether SurBred 15 sold, whether StayBred was ever filed, or how the Merial exclusivity ended.

AppyScore follows the same pattern. In October 2012 the company presented its blood-based appendicitis test as its lead product and said it was pursuing FDA clearance (claims 21047 and 21050). The same filing described an exclusive out-license of animal-health intellectual property (claim 21049) and the resignation of four directors (claim 21051). AppyScore is absent from the 2013 and 2014 records, which cover only share authorizations, auditor ratification and a board appointment. By October 2016 the company was renaming itself from Venaxis to Bioptix and acquiring BiOptix Diagnostics (claims 20981, 20980 and 20979). No disclosure on record states the outcome of the FDA process or explains why the company moved away from the product it had built itself around.

One board appointment was never confirmed. Stephen A. Williams was announced in April 2013 as joining the board effective May 1, 2013 (claim 21038), and the claim is now marked delayed. No later record confirms that he was seated or explains why he was not.

A caution on reading the ledger. Most of the delayed transitions, including the auditor ratifications (claims 20720, 20713, 21012 and 20982) and the Lundy appointment (claim 20711), were applied automatically on September 28, 2026, against dates that are long past. They reflect missing follow-up in the extracted record, not anything the company announced. The ledger supplied here also breaks off mid-entry at an April 2017 claim (claim 20909), so later disclosures, including those around the company's eventual transformation into Riot, may address some of these gaps.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-05

The SurBred 15 bovine pregnancy test and the exclusive marketing and distribution arrangement with Merial were presented in the September 13, 2004 disclosures as the company's lead commercial product and its anchor partnership (claims 21094, 21096, 21100). Neither appears in any later disclosure on record. The next reference to animal health comes eight years later, on October 14, 2012, as an exclusive license agreement for animal health intellectual property (claim 21049). That suggests the business was licensed out rather than built. The record contains no statement on whether the Merial arrangement produced meaningful sales, whether it was terminated or allowed to lapse, or why the company moved from marketing its own animal health products to licensing them away.

StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone for cattle pregnancy maintenance, was last mentioned on September 13, 2004. At that time management said it required FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097, 21101). The "pipeline products in development" described the same day (claim 21098) were never itemized again. No later disclosure on record says whether a filing was made, whether development continued, or whether the program was abandoned. The product simply stops appearing.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was described on October 14, 2012 as the company's lead product, with FDA clearance being actively pursued (claims 21047, 21050). By October 6, 2016 the company was announcing the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix (claims 20980, 20979, 20981), and AppyScore was no longer mentioned. The ledger records no outcome of the FDA process: no clearance, no rejection, no withdrawal. It also records no explanation for the pivot away from the product the company had been renamed around. The change from AspenBio to Venaxis is itself absent from the claims on record.

The board's authorization for a reverse stock split of up to 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011, appears twice in October 2010 (claims 20721, 20715). Both entries were auto-transitioned to delayed on September 28, 2026. The record contains no disclosure on whether the split was carried out, at what ratio, or whether the authorization expired unused. The same 60,000,000-share authorized-share figure appears in both 2005 (claim 21089) and 2013 (claim 21040), and nothing on record reconciles the two.

A caution on reading the ledger: many of the other entries auto-transitioned to delayed on September 28, 2026 describe events that were reported as already completed, such as auditor ratifications and executive appointments (claims 20711, 20712, 20713, 20720, 21012, 20982). In at least one case the promised-by date precedes the disclosure date. Those flags look like extraction artifacts rather than real slippage, and they are not treated here as walk-backs. The record supplied ends partway through an April 27, 2017 entry (claim 20909), so silence after that date cannot be assessed.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-05

The cattle-reproduction franchise disclosed in September 2004 does not appear again. Claims 21096, 21094 and 21100 describe SurBred 15 as an early-detection bovine pregnancy test, outside FDA regulation, with exclusive marketing and distribution rights granted to Merial. That is the last mention on record. No later claim reports SurBred 15 sales, a renewal or termination of the Merial arrangement, or the product's withdrawal. The status remains 'stated' only because no date was attached. The record does not say whether the exclusive relationship was ever commercially meaningful or how it ended.

StayBred, the recombinant luteinizing hormone for cattle pregnancy maintenance (claim 21097), was disclosed on the same date as requiring FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claim 21101). The same 2004 disclosure referred to unspecified pipeline products (claim 21098) and license arrangements with three universities (claim 21095). None of these is mentioned again. Roger Hurst's exclusive employment agreement (claim 21099) was followed a year later, on 2005-09-25, by a bare notice that his employment had been terminated (claim 21087). That notice gives no account of what happened to the programs he was associated with. No filing, approval or abandonment of the StayBred regulatory path is recorded.

The reverse stock split authority disclosed in October 2010 is open on the ledger. Claims 20721 and 20715 describe board authorization for a split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected before 2011-02-04. Both were auto-transitioned to 'delayed' on 2026-09-28 because the date passed with no follow-up claim. The record contains no statement that the split was carried out, at what ratio, or that the authority was allowed to lapse.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was the stated focus in October 2012. Claim 21047 describes the product, and claim 21050 says the company was pursuing FDA regulatory clearance. The same disclosure noted an exclusive out-license of the animal health intellectual property (claim 21049), which effectively closed the earlier cattle line without naming it. AppyScore is not mentioned in any later claim. By 2016-10-06 the company was renaming itself from Venaxis to Bioptix (claim 20981) and acquiring BiOptix Diagnostics (claims 20980 and 20979). Nothing on record reports a clearance decision, a withdrawn submission, or a decision to stop development.

Some caution applies to the remaining 'delayed' entries. The auditor ratifications (claims 20720, 20713, 21012, 20982), the 2010 board changes (claim 20712), Stephen Lundy's appointment (claim 20711), with a promise date that precedes its own disclosure, and Stephen Williams' board seat (claim 21038) appear to be routine events. These were moved to 'delayed' on 2026-09-28 only because their dates have passed. They should not be read as broken commitments. The ledger as provided ends with an incomplete entry, claim 20909 dated 2017-04-27, so later disclosures that might address any of the items above were not reviewed.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-03

The earliest commitments on record concern the bovine reproduction franchise. On 2004-09-13 the company described SurBred 15, an early-detection bovine pregnancy test, as carrying exclusive marketing and distribution rights granted to Merial (claims 21096, 21094). It also described StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone for cattle pregnancy maintenance that would require FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097, 21101), along with an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim 21099). None of these products, nor the Merial arrangement, appears again in the disclosed record. The 2005-09-25 filings instead record Hurst's employment as terminated (claim 21087) and a name change to AspenBio Pharma (claim 21090). The next reference to this area comes on 2012-10-14, when the company records an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property to an unnamed party (claim 21049). The record does not say whether SurBred 15 reached commercial sale under Merial, whether a StayBred filing was ever made, or whether the 2012 license covered these programs.

On 2010-10-11 and again on 2010-10-21, the board disclosed authority to effect a reverse stock split at a ratio of up to 1-for-6, to be exercised before February 4, 2011 (claims 20721, 20715). Both claims moved to delayed status on 2026-09-28. That transition was automated: the deadline passed and the ledger holds no confirmation. It does not reflect any announced postponement. Nothing on record states whether the split was carried out, at what ratio, or whether the authority was allowed to lapse.

AppyScore, a blood-based diagnostic test for appendicitis, was the stated focus as of 2012-10-14, with the company pursuing FDA regulatory clearance (claims 21047, 21050). That same disclosure noted that four directors had resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim 21051). AppyScore is not mentioned in any later claim. The next disclosures, dated 2016-10-06 and 2016-10-16, describe a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix and the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics (claims 20981, 20980, 20979). The record contains no clearance decision, no withdrawal of a submission, and no statement that the appendicitis program was discontinued or written down.

Several routine governance items also carry auto-assigned delayed status because their target dates passed without a confirming record. These include Stephen A. Williams joining the board by 2013-05-01 (claim 21038) and the auditor engagements for fiscal 2011, 2014 and 2016 (claims 20720, 20713, 21012, 20982). Claim 20711 records Stephen T. Lundy's appointment as CEO with a promised-by date of 2010-03-24, seven months before the disclosure that reports it. This looks more like an extraction artifact than a missed commitment. These items are listed for completeness rather than as evidence of anything withdrawn.

The claims ledger supplied for this review ends partway through claim 20906, dated 2017-04-27. Later disclosures, including the company's move into cryptocurrency mining under the Riot name, are therefore not covered here.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-03

The cattle reproduction franchise that defined the company's 2004 disclosures has no further mention anywhere in the record. On 2004-09-13 management described SurBred 15, an early-detection bovine pregnancy test, with Merial holding exclusive marketing and distribution rights (claims 21096, 21094). The same filing described StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone product that it said required FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097, 21101). Neither product, the Merial arrangement, nor the regulatory path for StayBred appears again. All four claims still carry the status 'stated'. There is no disclosure that the Merial agreement ended, that StayBred was ever filed, or that the program was dropped. The nearest later reference is a 2012-10-14 claim of an exclusive license of animal health intellectual property to an unnamed party (claim 21049), which may be where these products went. The record never makes that connection.

The broader research base described in 2004, licensing arrangements with three universities and an unspecified set of pipeline products in development (claims 21095, 21098), also stops at 2004-09-13. No later filing on record names the universities, reports that the licenses were kept or terminated, or says what became of the pipeline.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was the company's lead product as of 2012-10-14, with management stating it was pursuing FDA clearance (claims 21047, 21050). The 2013 and 2014 disclosures on record cover only board seats, auditor ratification and share authorizations. By 2016-10-06 the company was acquiring BiOptix Diagnostics and renaming itself from Venaxis to Bioptix (claims 20980, 20981). That filing does not mention AppyScore. The record contains no outcome of the FDA effort, whether clearance, rejection or withdrawal, and no statement that the program was abandoned. The earlier rename from AspenBio to Venaxis is also not captured as a claim.

Shareholders authorized a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected before 2011-02-04 (claims 20721, 20715). Both claims were moved automatically to 'delayed' on 2026-09-28 because that deadline has passed. Nothing on record says whether the board carried out the split, at what ratio, or whether the authority was allowed to lapse.

Several other claims were also moved to 'delayed' on 2026-09-28, including the auditor ratifications and the Lundy and Schoettler appointments (claims 20711, 20712, 20713, 20982). Those moves appear to reflect only that a stated date has passed, not a missed commitment, so they are not treated here as walk-backs. This ledger was cut off at claim 20905 (2017-04-27). Later filings, including the company's shift to its current business, may address some of these silences and were not reviewed.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-03

The ledger provided ends partway through a 2017-04-27 entry (claim 20905), so this reading covers the record through late 2016. Several items marked delayed on 2026-09-28 are mechanical rather than substantive. These include the auditor ratifications (20720, 20713, 21012, 20982) and the stock plan term extension (20709). They were flagged because their target dates passed, not because anything was walked back. The items below are the ones where the record goes quiet on something management once presented as material.

The Merial arrangement for SurBred 15 (21094, 21096) was described on 2004-09-13 as an exclusive marketing and distribution agreement for the company's early-detection bovine pregnancy test. That was its only appearance. It sits at stated, with no later disclosure of launch, sales, renewal or termination. The partnership that anchored the animal health story does not reappear. When the company next speaks about animal health, in 2012 (21049), it is out-licensing the related intellectual property. No account connects the two.

StayBred, the recombinant luteinizing hormone for cattle (21097), was disclosed on the same date with an acknowledgment that it required FDA approval or an ANDA filing (21101). No later claim reports a filing, a regulatory outcome or a decision to stop development. The 'pipeline products in development' (21098) and the license arrangements with three universities (21095) are also last mentioned on 2004-09-13. The 2005 rename to AspenBio Pharma (21090) and the 2012 animal health license (21049) suggest these programs were set aside. The record contains no statement saying so.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test (21047), was last disclosed on 2012-10-14 alongside the statement that the company was pursuing FDA clearance (21050). That same disclosure noted four directors resigning on 2012-09-26 (21051) without a stated reason. The next substantive corporate disclosures, in October 2016, concern the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics (20980, 20979) and a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix (20981). Nothing on record says whether the FDA clearance effort concluded, failed or was abandoned before the company changed direction.

The reverse stock split authority of up to 1-for-6, to be used before 2011-02-04 (20721, 20715), was disclosed twice in October 2010. It is now flagged delayed because the deadline passed. No subsequent claim reports whether the board effected a split within that window or let the authority lapse. The 2013 request to increase authorized common shares (21040) arrived without reference to it.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-03

The SurBred 15 and StayBred cattle-reproduction programs, along with the Merial distribution arrangement behind them, appear only in the 2004-09-13 disclosures (claims 21094, 21096, 21097, 21098, 21101). Merial was described as holding exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15. StayBred was described as requiring FDA approval or an ANDA filing. An unspecified pipeline was also referenced. None of these items recurs in any later claim on record. The ledger still carries each as merely stated. The record contains no commercial launch, no regulatory filing outcome for StayBred, no amendment or termination of the Merial rights, and no explanation of why the animal-health pipeline dropped out of view. The license arrangements with three universities (claim 21095) and the exclusive animal-health IP license noted in 2012 (claim 21049) show the same pattern: each is mentioned once and never followed up.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was the stated focus in the 2012-10-14 disclosures, with the company described as pursuing FDA clearance (claims 21047, 21050). That same disclosure noted four directors resigning on 2012-09-26 (claim 21051). The next substantive change on record is the 2016 acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and a corporate name change from Venaxis to Bioptix (claims 20979, 20980, 20981). Across those four years the record contains no statement that clearance was obtained, denied, or abandoned, and nothing describing what became of the AppyScore program when the company redirected itself.

Shareholders authorized a reverse stock split of between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected by 2011-02-04 (claims 20721, 20715, last mentioned 2010-10-21). The ledger auto-transitioned both claims to delayed on 2026-09-28 because the deadline passed with no confirming disclosure. The record does not say whether the split was carried out, at what ratio, or whether the authorization was allowed to lapse.

Many other delayed statuses appear to be artifacts of automated date handling rather than genuine slips. These include the auditor ratifications (claims 20713, 20720, 20982, 21012), the Lundy appointment, whose promised-by date precedes its own disclosure (claim 20711), and the plan-term extension to 2021 (claim 20709). They should not be read as walk-backs without a closer look at the source filings.

The record supplied here ends partway through 2017 (claim 20905). Nothing after the BiOptix acquisition can be assessed. That includes whether the BiOptix technology itself was carried forward or quietly set aside as the company later became Riot.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-02

The reverse stock split is the clearest promised action with no recorded outcome. In October 2010 the company said shareholders had authorized the board to effect a reverse split at a ratio between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be exercised before February 4, 2011 (claims 20721 and 20715). The last mention is October 21, 2010. Both claims were automatically moved to delayed on September 28, 2026 because the deadline passed with nothing further on record. No later disclosure says whether the board used the authority, at what ratio, or whether it let the authority lapse. Related items do not fill the gap: the next financing-related claims are the 2011 stock plan amendments and the 2013 increase in authorized shares (claim 21040).

The early animal-health franchise drops out of the record without a stated exit. In September 2004 management described SurBred 15, an early-detection bovine pregnancy test, with exclusive marketing and distribution rights granted to Merial (claims 21096 and 21094). It also described StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone for cattle that would need FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097 and 21101), and license arrangements with three universities (claim 21095). None of these is mentioned after September 13, 2004, and all remain at stated. The next animal-health reference comes eight years later, on October 14, 2012, and is an exclusive license of the company's animal health intellectual property to an unnamed party (claim 21049). The record does not say whether the Merial arrangement was terminated or folded into that license, whether StayBred ever reached an FDA filing, or what happened to the university licenses.

AppyScore, the appendicitis blood test, is the second program that falls silent. On October 14, 2012 the company described AppyScore as its product and said it was pursuing FDA regulatory clearance (claims 21047 and 21050). That is the last mention. By October 2016 the record shows the company changing its name from Venaxis to Bioptix and acquiring BiOptix Diagnostics (claims 20981, 20980 and 20979), with no intervening claim on the FDA submission, a clearance decision, or a discontinuation. The clearance claim remains at stated. Nothing on record explains whether the program was abandoned, sold, or still pending when the company changed direction.

Several other items show as delayed but do not appear to be real walk-backs. The auditor ratifications for fiscal years 2011, 2014 and 2016 (claims 20720, 20713, 21012 and 20982) were moved to delayed only because their fiscal-year-end dates passed, and the 2013 ratification (claim 21039) suggests the engagement continued. Claims 20711 and 20712 carry promise dates earlier than the disclosures that contain them, which points to an extraction artifact rather than a slipped commitment. Both these and the 2021 plan-term extension (claim 20709) should be reviewed before anyone treats them as undisclosed reversals.

The ledger supplied here ends at a truncated 2017 financing entry (claim 20904). Any later pivot, including the company's eventual move under the Riot name, falls outside what can be assessed from this record.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-02

In its September 13, 2004 disclosures the company described Merial as holding exclusive marketing and distribution rights to the SurBred 15 early-detection bovine pregnancy test (claims 21094, 21096). In the same filing it described StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone for cattle pregnancy maintenance, as requiring FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097, 21101), and it cited license arrangements with three universities (claim 21095). None of these is mentioned again in the record. The September 2005 disclosures turn to the AspenBio name change and holding-company restructuring (claims 21090, 21091). By October 2012 the only animal-health reference is a general exclusive license of animal health intellectual property (claim 21049). All of these claims remain at 'stated'. Nothing on record says whether the Merial arrangement produced sales, was terminated or was folded into the later license, or whether StayBred was ever submitted to the FDA.

Roger Hurst's exclusive employment agreement was disclosed on September 13, 2004 (claim 21099). About a year later, on September 25, 2005, the record notes only that his employment was terminated (claim 21087). Both claims sit at 'stated'. No reason for the departure is given, and nothing says whether it affected the product programs he was tied to.

In October 2010 shareholders were asked to authorize a reverse stock split at ratios from 1-for-2 to 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011 (claims 20721, 20715). October 21, 2010 is the last mention. Both claims moved automatically to 'delayed' on 2026-09-28 because the deadline passed with no confirming disclosure in this record. Nothing on record says whether the board carried out a split, at what ratio, or let the authority lapse.

On October 14, 2012 the company said it was pursuing FDA clearance for AppyScore, its blood-based appendicitis test (claims 21047, 21050). The next disclosures in the record, from October 2016, cover the change of name from Venaxis to Bioptix and the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics (claims 20981, 20980, 20979). AppyScore is not mentioned in them. Both AppyScore claims remain 'stated'. The record does not say whether clearance was obtained, denied or abandoned, or how the program ended before the company changed direction.

Several other items carry an automatic 'delayed' status for a similar mechanical reason. These are the yearly auditor ratifications (claims 20720, 20713, 21012, 20982) and the Stock Incentive Plan term running to July 8, 2021 (claim 20709). They likely reflect the absence of follow-up filings in this dataset rather than an actual walk-back. The ledger supplied here also ends partway through 2017, so later disclosures may address some of these gaps.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-01

The 2010 reverse stock split authorization is the clearest open item. Claims 20721 and 20715, last mentioned on 2010-10-21, describe board authority to effect a split at ratios between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6 before February 4, 2011. The ledger moved both to delayed on 2026-09-28 because the deadline passed. No later claim on record says whether the board used the authority, let it lapse, or sought a new mandate. That is a discretionary deadline that has gone unaddressed.

The SurBred 15 bovine pregnancy test and its Merial distribution arrangement have not been mentioned since 2004-09-13. Claim 21096 introduced the product, and claim 21094 described Merial's exclusive marketing and distribution rights. Neither the product nor Merial appears again. By 2012-10-14 the company describes only an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property (claim 21049), without naming the licensee, the products covered, or what happened to the Merial rights. Both claims still carry stated status. Nothing on record says how the distribution relationship ended or whether SurBred 15 reached commercial sales.

StayBred, the recombinant luteinizing hormone for cattle pregnancy maintenance, was also last mentioned on 2004-09-13 (claims 21097 and 21101). The company said then that it would need FDA approval or an ANDA filing. No later claim reports a filing, an approval, or abandonment of the program. It most plausibly went into the 2012 animal health license, but the disclosures never say so. The three university license arrangements in claim 21095, from the same date, have likewise not been mentioned since, and their status remains stated.

The AppyScore blood test for appendicitis was the company's central program in the 2012-10-14 disclosures. Claim 21047 described the test, and claim 21050 said the company was pursuing FDA clearance. On record, the next corporate events are the 2016 acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and the renaming of Venaxis to Bioptix (claims 20980, 20979 and 20981), with no reference to AppyScore. Nothing in this record reports a clearance decision, a withdrawn submission, or a decision to stop the program. The ledger supplied here ends at an incomplete entry, claim 20905 of 2017-04-27, so later filings may address the gap. Within this record, it stands unexplained.

Other delayed flags appear to be mechanical, not substantive. Examples are the GHP Horwath auditor engagements in claims 20720, 20713, 20982 and 21012, the 2010 executive changes in claims 20711 and 20712, and the plan term in claim 20709. Each was triggered only by a past promised-by date, and later ratifications of the same auditor in claims 21039 and 20982 suggest those engagements went ahead.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-10-01

The reverse stock split is the clearest open item. In October 2010 the board sought and disclosed shareholder authorization for a reverse split at ratios between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be effected before February 4, 2011 (claims 20721 and 20715). Both were last mentioned on 2010-10-21 and now carry an automated status of delayed, because the deadline passed with no later disclosure on record. Nothing in the subsequent filings says whether the split was carried out, at what ratio, or whether the authorization was allowed to lapse.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was presented in October 2012 as the company's lead product, with FDA clearance actively being pursued (claims 21047 and 21050). That was the last time it appeared. The next substantive disclosures, in October 2016, describe the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix (claims 20980, 20979 and 20981). Both statuses remain stated, but the record contains no word on whether clearance was obtained, denied or abandoned, or what became of the product before the company changed direction.

The original animal-health franchise also fades without explanation. In September 2004 management described SurBred 15, an early bovine pregnancy test with exclusive marketing and distribution rights granted to Merial, and StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone the company said would need FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21094, 21096, 21097 and 21101). None of these names appear again. In October 2012 the company disclosed an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property (claim 21049), which may be where these products went, but no filing on record makes that link. Nothing explains the fate of the Merial arrangement or whether StayBred ever reached a regulatory filing.

The broader 2004 pipeline follows the same pattern. Management cited pipeline products in development and license arrangements with three universities (claims 21098 and 21095), both last mentioned on 2004-09-13. Neither the products nor the university licenses come up again, and no disclosure on record says whether they were terminated, lapsed or folded into later programs.

Several other items carry a delayed status for mechanical reasons rather than because anything went unexplained. The auditor ratifications for fiscal 2011, 2014 and 2016 (claims 20720, 20713, 21012 and 20982) were flagged when their fiscal year-end dates passed. The 2010 CEO appointment (claim 20711) has a promised-by date earlier than the disclosure itself. These look like artifacts of the automated transitions, not silent walk-backs. The ledger supplied also ends partway through an April 2017 entry, so this review does not cover any later disclosures.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-30

The reverse stock split is the clearest open item in the ledger. In October 2010 the board sought and described authority to effect a reverse split at ratios between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6, to be used before February 4, 2011 (claims 20721 and 20715). The last mention on record is the 2010-10-21 filing. Both claims were auto-transitioned to delayed on 2026-09-28 because the deadline passed with nothing further on record. No disclosure says whether the split was effected, at what ratio, or whether the authority was allowed to lapse. The status reflects an elapsed date rather than a confirmed failure, but the outcome has not been stated.

StayBred, the recombinant luteinizing hormone product for maintaining cattle pregnancy, was presented in September 2004 as a pipeline product (claim 21097). The same filing acknowledged that it required FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claim 21101). Both claims remain at stated, and neither the product nor its regulatory path appears in any later disclosure on record. There is no statement that an application was filed, approved, or withdrawn, and no statement that development stopped. The broader reference to pipeline products in development (claim 21098) likewise has no follow-up.

The animal health franchise built around SurBred 15 has a similar gap. In 2004 the company described the early-detection bovine pregnancy test (claim 21096), Merial's exclusive marketing and distribution rights for it (claim 21094), and license arrangements with three universities (claim 21095). None of these is mentioned again. The next animal health reference is October 2012, when the company disclosed an exclusive license of its animal health intellectual property to another party (claim 21049). The record does not connect the two. Nothing on file explains what became of the Merial arrangement, whether SurBred 15 reached commercial sales, or why the company moved from marketing these products to licensing the underlying IP out.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was the company's stated focus in October 2012, with FDA clearance described as being pursued (claims 21047 and 21050). That is the last mention of either the product or the clearance effort. The disclosures that follow cover auditor ratifications, share authorizations, a board appointment, and then, in October 2016, a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix alongside the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics (claims 20981, 20980 and 20979). No disclosure on record reports a clearance decision, a withdrawal of the submission, or a decision to discontinue the test before the strategic change.

Personnel changes around the original animal health business also went unexplained. In September 2004 the company described an exclusive employment agreement with Roger Hurst (claim 21099). One year later it recorded that his employment had been terminated (claim 21087), with no stated reason and no description of how his responsibilities were reassigned. The September 2012 resignation of four directors on a single day (claim 21051) is recorded as a fact without an accompanying rationale. Neither is a walked-back promise, but in both cases a material change was disclosed without context.

The ledger supplied for this review ends partway through claim 20907, dated 2017-04-27. Any later disclosures that address these items could not be checked.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-30

StayBred, the recombinant luteinizing hormone for maintaining cattle pregnancy, appears once, in the September 13, 2004 disclosures (claims 21097 and 21101). There the company said the product would need FDA approval or an ANDA filing. No later claim in the record mentions StayBred, a regulatory filing, an approval, or a decision to stop development. The product's status is still simply 'stated'. The record never says whether it reached the FDA or was abandoned.

SurBred 15 and the Merial distribution arrangement were also last described on September 13, 2004 (claims 21094 and 21096). SurBred 15 was an early-detection bovine pregnancy test, and Merial held exclusive marketing and distribution rights. That filing also cited license arrangements with three universities (21095) and more than 30 products sold to diagnostic manufacturers (21102). None of these names comes up again. The next animal-health reference is on October 14, 2012 (claim 21049), which describes an exclusive license of the company's animal health intellectual property to another party. The record never explains how an exclusive distribution partnership turned into an out-licensed asset, or what happened to the Merial relationship along the way.

The AppyScore appendicitis test, and the FDA clearance the company was seeking for it, were last described on October 14, 2012 (claims 21047 and 21050). Neither is mentioned again. The next substantive disclosures, dated October 2016, report the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix (claims 20979, 20980 and 20981). The record contains no statement that FDA clearance was obtained, denied or withdrawn, and nothing explains why the company's stated regulatory priority gave way to an unrelated acquisition.

The reverse stock split was authorized in October 2010 at ratios of 1-for-2 up to 1-for-6, to be carried out before February 4, 2011 (claims 20721 and 20715). The ledger moved both claims to 'delayed' on September 28, 2026 because no later disclosure confirms the split was carried out or that the authority lapsed. That label comes from the missing follow-up, not from any announced postponement. Still, the question remains unanswered in the record. On April 28, 2013 the company asked to raise its authorized common shares by 60,000,000 (claim 21040), the same figure approved in 2005 (claim 21089), and did not connect that request to whatever became of the split.

Several personnel changes were disclosed without explanation. Roger Hurst's exclusive employment agreement was cited as an asset on September 13, 2004 (claim 21099), and his termination was recorded on September 25, 2005 (claim 21087), with no reason given in either filing. On October 14, 2012, the same disclosure that last mentioned AppyScore reported that four directors had resigned on September 26, 2012 (claim 21051). No stated reason, and no connection to the company's strategy at the time, appears in the record reviewed here, which runs through April 2017.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-28

The earliest silence concerns the cattle-reproduction franchise the company described in September 2004. It presented SurBred 15, an early bovine pregnancy test, as a product with exclusive marketing and distribution rights granted to Merial (claims 21094, 21096). It presented StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone for maintaining cattle pregnancies, as a pipeline product that would need FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097, 21101). Both were last mentioned on 2004-09-13 and remain recorded only as stated. By the September 2005 disclosures the company had adopted the AspenBio Pharma name (claim 21090) and terminated Roger Hurst, whose exclusive employment agreement had been listed alongside these products (claims 21099, 21087). The record contains no commercial result for SurBred 15 under the Merial arrangement, no regulatory filing for StayBred, and no statement that either was discontinued.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, followed a similar path. On 2012-10-14 the company described it as the subject of an active pursuit of FDA regulatory clearance (claims 21047, 21050). In the same filing it disclosed an exclusive license agreement covering its animal health intellectual property (claim 21049) and the resignation of four directors on 2012-09-26 (claim 21051). None of these items appears again in the record. The next substantive disclosures, in October 2016, concern the acquisition of BiOptix Diagnostics and a name change from Venaxis to Bioptix (claims 20979, 20980, 20981). The record contains no clearance decision, no withdrawal of the FDA submission, and no account of the revenue or counterparty performance under the animal health license. The only trace of what happened to the company's lead diagnostic is its disappearance from the disclosures and the change of corporate identity.

The reverse stock split authorization from October 2010 permitted the board to effect a split at ratios between 1-for-2 and 1-for-6 before 2011-02-04 (claims 20715, 20721). The ledger automatically moved these claims to delayed on 2026-09-28 because the deadline passed with no recorded outcome. No disclosure in the record says whether the board used the authority, let it lapse, or sought a new one. Share authorizations that followed, including the 60,000,000-share increase in April 2013 (claim 21040), do not refer back to it.

Several other claims were moved to delayed by the same automated pass on 2026-09-28 and should be read with caution. These include the auditor ratifications for fiscal 2011, 2014 and 2016 (claims 20713, 20720, 21012, 20982), the Stock Incentive Plan term extension to 2021 (claim 20709), and the Lundy appointment and board restructuring, whose target dates fall before their own disclosure dates (claims 20711, 20712). They look like routine governance items whose completion was never separately restated, not substantive walk-backs. The ledger supplied here also breaks off at a 2017-04-27 regulatory entry (claim 20906). Any later disclosures that may address the items above were not available for this review.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-27

Every claim on record for Riot sits at status 'stated', and every transition was logged by automated extraction on the same day, 2026-09-27. No claim has moved to 'delayed' or 'not_yet_verifiable', so the silences below come from the disclosures themselves rather than from any status change management announced. The claims list supplied here ends mid-entry at 2017-04-27 (claim 20904), so an item that seems to vanish may have been addressed in filings outside this window.

The bovine reproduction franchise is the clearest disappearance. On 2004-09-13 the company described SurBred 15, an early-detection bovine pregnancy test, with Merial holding exclusive marketing and distribution rights (claims 21096, 21094). It also described StayBred, a recombinant luteinizing hormone product that it said required FDA approval or an ANDA filing (claims 21097, 21101). Neither product nor the Merial arrangement appears again in any later claim. The record contains no termination of the Merial rights, no sales figures, no FDA or ANDA filing for StayBred, and no statement that either program was dropped. The nearest echo is a 2012-10-14 reference to an exclusive license of animal health intellectual property (claim 21049), which does not name the products, the licensee, or whether Merial was involved.

The same 2004-09-13 disclosure cited license arrangements with three universities and unnamed pipeline products in development (claims 21095, 21098). Neither the universities nor the pipeline is mentioned again. It was also the last disclosure to describe Roger Hurst as working under an exclusive employment agreement (claim 21099). About a year later, on 2005-09-25, that employment was recorded as terminated (claim 21087), with no stated reason and no word on what happened to the programs tied to that role.

AppyScore, the blood-based appendicitis test, was last described on 2012-10-14, when the company said it was pursuing FDA clearance (claims 21047, 21050). That same disclosure recorded four director resignations on 2012-09-26 (claim 21051). By 2016-10-06 the company was changing its name from Venaxis to Bioptix and acquiring BiOptix Diagnostics (claims 20981, 20980, 20979). The record never states whether an FDA submission was made, what the outcome was, or that AppyScore was abandoned. The earlier rename from AspenBio Pharma to Venaxis is also absent from the claims.

In October 2010 shareholders authorized a reverse stock split at ratios from 1-for-2 to 1-for-6, to be effected before 2011-02-04 (claims 20721, 20715). That deadline passed more than fifteen years ago. No later claim records whether the board executed the split, chose a ratio, or let the authorization lapse, and the ledger still carries both claims as 'stated' rather than resolved.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-26

The Oklahoma City build-out is the clearest example. On 2018-06-28 Riot set out a complete deployment picture: 8,000 miners at full deployment (claims 15506, 15537, 15551), a 12 MW power envelope (15507, 15526, 15538), and an expected hash rate of 110 PH/s (15508, 15527, 15539, 15552). At that date 3,500 miners were described as installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (15505, 15520). Claim 15543, which ties that 3,500 figure to a 2018-03-31 date, now carries a delayed status, but the ledger shows the transition was automated on 2026-09-15 rather than prompted by anything the company said. The next disclosure, on 2018-07-09, refers only to mining operations in Oklahoma City in general terms (15469). It does not restate the 8,000-miner, 12 MW or 110 PH/s figures and does not report progress from 3,500 units toward them. Nothing on record says whether full deployment was reached, revised or abandoned. The same 2018-06-28 filing also gives two different per-unit hardware figures, 13.75 TH/s (15530) and 13.5 TH/s (15550). The 110 PH/s target only works at the higher figure, and that discrepancy has not been reconciled.

The Logical Brokerage acquisition was described on 2018-06-28 as a $600,000 transaction (15509, 15521, 15534). It came with a regulatory package: CFTC and NFA registration (15510, 15535, 15548), FinCEN money-service registration (15528), and a Florida money transmitter licence (15511, 15529, 15536, 15549). It was also tied to exchange offerings (15516). One version of the claim, 15544, carries a promised-by date of 2018-03-27, three months before the disclosure date, and is marked delayed by the same automated pass. By 2018-07-09 the company speaks instead of investigating a cryptocurrency exchange launch in the US (15470), without naming Logical Brokerage or its licences. The record does not explain whether that investigation builds on the brokerage or replaces it, or why closing language became exploratory language.

Several holdings that appeared in the 2018-06-28 disclosures are absent from the next one. These are the 52 percent ownership of Tess Inc (15514, 15524, 15547), the $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (15513, 15523, 15546), and the newly formed Digital Green Energy Corp subsidiary (15515, 15525). None of the three appears in the 2018-07-09 disclosures. The Coinsquare position narrows in a similar way. It was described in June as a specific 12.9 percent stake (15512, 15522, 15545), but by July it is only an investment in Coinsquare (15473), with no percentage. There has been no statement on whether the stake was diluted, sold or simply described differently. Nothing has been said about the status of the Tess, Verady or Digital Green positions either.

MNP LLP was appointed as auditor for the 2018 fiscal year on 2018-06-14 (15555), with an implied completion point of 2018-12-31. The claim is now marked delayed, again by automated transition on 2026-09-15. Nothing on record confirms that MNP completed the 2018 audit, was reappointed, or was replaced. The disclosures available here end in July 2018, so some of these silences may reflect gaps in coverage rather than deliberate omission. Even so, no disclosure on record closes out any of these items.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-26

The Oklahoma City buildout is the clearest example of guidance that was never updated. On 2018-06-28, Riot said 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims 15505, 15520, 15543). It set a full-deployment target of 8,000 miners (15506, 15537, 15551), 12 MW of power (15507, 15526, 15538) and roughly 110 PH/s of hashing rate (15508, 15527, 15539, 15552), all inside a 107,000 square foot leased facility (15504, 15519, 15533, 15542). Claim 15543 now carries a delayed status. The next disclosure on record, 2018-07-09, refers only in general terms to cryptocurrency mining operations in Oklahoma City (15469) and gives no miner count, megawatt figure or hash rate. The record does not show that full deployment was reached, revised or abandoned, and there is no explanation of the gap between 3,500 and 8,000 machines. The same filing also describes the hardware as 13.75 TH/s in one place (15530) and 13.5 TH/s in another (15550), and that difference was never reconciled.

The framing of the regulated brokerage business changed in the space of eleven days. On 2018-06-28, Riot described the completed $600,000 acquisition of Logical Brokerage Corp (15509, 15521, 15534) along with its CFTC and NFA registration and its FinCEN and Florida money transmitter licensing (15510, 15511, 15528, 15529, 15535, 15536, 15548, 15549). Claim 15544, tied to a 2018-03-27 date, is flagged delayed, although that flag may reflect a closing date that predates the disclosure rather than a missed milestone. By 2018-07-09, the language had become an investigation of a cryptocurrency exchange launch in the US (15470). The record does not say what separated an acquired, licensed entity from a launch still under investigation. It gives no target date for an exchange, and Logical Brokerage is not named again.

Several holdings that were quantified on 2018-06-28 later appeared without figures or disappeared from the record. These are the 12.9 percent Coinsquare stake (15512, 15522, 15545), the 52 percent ownership of Tess Inc (15514, 15524, 15547), the $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (15513, 15523, 15546) and the newly formed Digital Green Energy Corp subsidiary (15515, 15525). Coinsquare reappears on 2018-07-09 only as an investment in Coinsquare (15473), with no percentage attached. Tess, Verady and Digital Green Energy are last mentioned on 2018-06-28. Nothing on record describes a sale, write-down, conversion or wind-down for any of them.

The appointment of MNP LLP as auditor for fiscal 2018 was disclosed on 2018-06-14 with a 2018-12-31 horizon (15555). Its status is delayed. The ledger logged both a delayed and a stated transition on the same date, so the record itself is inconsistent. No later claim confirms that MNP completed the 2018 audit, and no change of auditor is disclosed. The status cannot be resolved from what the company has said.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-25

The Logical Brokerage purchase and the U.S. exchange ambition built on it are the clearest case of a thread that thins out. The $600,000 acquisition appears repeatedly in the June 28, 2018 disclosures (claims 15521, 15534, 15509), alongside detailed CFTC, NFA, FinCEN and Florida licensing language (15510, 15511, 15528, 15529, 15535, 15536, 15548, 15549). One version carries a March 27, 2018 target date and has been auto-transitioned to delayed (15544). By July 9, 2018 the language has shifted to an "investigation" of a U.S. cryptocurrency exchange launch (15470), which is also the last mention in the record. No later claim in this record states whether an exchange was launched, shelved or abandoned, and nothing explains what became of the registrations that were presented as its foundation.

The full-deployment mining profile is stated many times and never confirmed. The June 28, 2018 filings describe 8,000 miners, 12 MW and 110 PH/s at full deployment (15506, 15507, 15508, 15526, 15527, 15537, 15539, 15551, 15552), against 3,500 miners operating as of March 31, 2018 (15505, 15520). The version of that installed count tied to a date has been auto-marked delayed (15543). The per-unit hardware figure is also given inconsistently within the same filing date, at 13.75 TH/s in one claim (15530) and 13.5 TH/s in another (15550). No claim sets a date for full deployment, and none reports that the Oklahoma City facility (15504, 15519, 15533, 15542) reached the 8,000-unit or 110 PH/s level. Nor has the spec discrepancy been reconciled.

The portfolio holdings lose precision between June and July 2018. On June 28 the Coinsquare position is given as 12.9 percent (15512, 15522, 15545). By July 9 it is an unquantified "investment in Coinsquare" (15473), and no stake size is restated. The Tess Inc. holding moves the other way, from a 52 percent ownership stake (15514, 15524, 15547) to a "completed acquisition" (15472), with no statement of what, if anything, was paid for the remainder. The Digital Green Energy Corp subsidiary (15515, 15525) and the $200,000 Verady convertible note (15513, 15523, 15546) each surface only on June 28, 2018. Neither has a stated purpose, outcome or later valuation in the record.

The appointment of MNP LLP as auditor for 2018 (15555, June 14, 2018) carried a December 31, 2018 horizon and now sits at delayed. The ledger logged both a delayed and a stated transition for it on the same day. No claim on record confirms that MNP completed the 2018 audit or explains a change of auditor.

This reading covers only the claims supplied, which run through July 2018 and appear incomplete. Several of the delayed statuses come from automated date checks rather than from any company statement, so they indicate gaps in disclosure, not confirmed failures.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-23

The Oklahoma City build-out is the clearest thread that goes quiet. On 2018-06-28 Riot described a full deployment of 8,000 miners drawing 12 MW and producing an expected 110 PH/s (claims 15506, 15507, 15508, 15527, 15539, 15552). The same filing gave 3,500 miners installed as of March 31, 2018 (claims 15505, 15520). That checkpoint is recorded as delayed against its 2018-03-31 date (claim 15543), although the ledger also logs a same-day transition to stated. None of the claims on record show the 8,000-miner, 12 MW or 110 PH/s figures being reached, restated or withdrawn after June 2018. The only later related remark is a general statement on 2018-07-09 that mining might be established in other locations (claim 15474). No disclosure on record explains how far the Oklahoma deployment got or whether the full-deployment targets still apply.

The Logical Brokerage acquisition and the exchange plans built on it follow a similar pattern. The $600,000 purchase was repeated several times in the 2018-06-28 filing (claims 15509, 15521, 15534), along with its CFTC, NFA, FinCEN and Florida money-transmitter credentials (claims 15510, 15511, 15528, 15529). One version carries a 2018-03-27 date and has moved to delayed (claim 15544). On 2018-07-09 the language changed from an operating brokerage with exchange offerings (claim 15516) to an 'investigation' of launching a US cryptocurrency exchange (claim 15470). No later claim on record reports whether that exchange launched, was postponed or was dropped. Nothing explains why the acquisition date is flagged as missed.

The equity positions are described in 'ownership' language in June 2018 and then disappear from the record. These are the 12.9% Coinsquare stake (claims 15512, 15522, 15545), the 52% Tess Inc. holding (claims 15514, 15524, 15547) and the $200,000 Verady convertible note (claims 15513, 15523, 15546). Tess is described as a completed acquisition on 2018-07-09 (claim 15472), which would take it from majority stake to full ownership, but no claim on record states terms or a revised percentage. Coinsquare and Verady are not mentioned again. No disclosure addresses whether those positions were held, marked down or sold.

The auditor engagement is a smaller gap. MNP LLP was appointed as auditor for fiscal 2018 on 2018-06-14 (claim 15555). The claim is now delayed against its 2018-12-31 horizon, again with a same-day stated entry in the ledger. No later claim on record confirms MNP completed the 2018 audit or names a successor, and no explanation of any change appears.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-21

The 110 PH/s full-deployment hash rate is the most conspicuous silence. It appears four separate times in the 2018-06-28 disclosure set (claims 15527, 15552, 15539, 15508), paired with an 8,000-miner fleet (15506, 15537, 15551) drawing 12 MW (15538, 15507, 15526). Against that, the company reported 3,500 miners installed and operating as of 2018-03-31 (15505, 15520, 15543). Claim 15543 carries the 2018-03-31 date and auto-transitioned to delayed on 2026-09-15; nothing in the ledger records a management revision. The last mention of the 110 PH/s target is 2018-06-28 and its status remains merely stated. What has not been said is when the remaining roughly 4,500 miners were expected to be energized, whether the target was ever reaffirmed, or what the intervening hash rate actually was.

The per-unit hardware specification was quietly restated downward inside the same disclosure window. Claim 15530 puts miner performance at 13.75 TH/s; claim 15550, same date, puts it at 13.5 TH/s. The arithmetic matters: 8,000 units at 13.75 TH/s yields exactly the 110 PH/s headline, while 13.5 TH/s yields 108. The lower figure was introduced without any accompanying statement reconciling it to the deployment target, and the 110 PH/s number was carried forward unchanged. No update explains which specification governs.

The Logical Brokerage Corp acquisition and the exchange ambition attached to it have gone quiet. The $600,000 purchase is recorded four times (15521, 15534, 15509, 15544), and 15544 carries a promised-by date of 2018-03-27 that auto-transitioned to delayed without a management revision. Around it sits an unusually dense regulatory scaffold — FinCEN MSB registration (15528), a Florida Money Transmitter License (15529), CFTC and NFA registration (15548, 15535, 15510), and repeated licensing restatements (15549, 15536, 15511) — plus a product claim for exchange offerings (15516). Eleven days later, on 2018-07-09, the disclosure confirms completion of Kairos (15471) and Tess (15472) but does not mention Logical Brokerage at all, and the US exchange is reduced to an investigation of a possible launch (15470). That is a retreat from licensed-and-registered language to exploratory language, and no statement accompanies it.

Two equity stakes lost their numbers between 2018-06-28 and 2018-07-09. Coinsquare was disclosed three times as a 12.9 percent holding (15512, 15522, 15545); by 15473 it is simply an investment in Coinsquare, with no percentage. Tess Inc. was disclosed three times as 52 percent (15514, 15524, 15547); by 15472 it is a completed acquisition with no stake restated. Neither change is explained. Nothing on the record says whether the positions were diluted, increased, partially sold, or merely described more loosely.

Two items surface once and then disappear entirely. Digital Green Energy Corp, formed as a wholly owned subsidiary (15515, 15525), and the $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (15523, 15546, 15513) are both last mentioned 2018-06-28 and absent from the subsequent disclosure. Separately, the appointment of MNP LLP as auditor for 2018 (15555) carried a 2018-12-31 date, auto-transitioned to delayed, and was last mentioned 2018-06-14 with no confirmation that the engagement was completed or that an auditor changed. It is worth noting that every transition in this ledger originates from automated extraction rather than a company statement: each delayed status here arrived on its own, with no revision announcement behind it.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-21

The Logical Brokerage Corp acquisition is the clearest instance of language softening without an accompanying revision. The $600,000 purchase was carried with a completion date of 2018-03-27 in claim 15544, which now sits at delayed, while parallel restatements of the same transaction (claims 15534, 15509, 15521) remain merely stated. Around it sits a dense cluster of regulatory assertions — CFTC and NFA registration (15510, 15535, 15548), FinCEN money service business registration (15528, 15536), and the Florida money transmitter license (15511, 15529, 15549) — plus a product claim describing Logical Brokerage exchange offerings (15516). All of these carry a last-mention date of 2018-06-28. Eleven days later, on 2018-07-09, the same subject reappears as claim 15470, an investigation of a cryptocurrency exchange launch in the US. A completed acquisition with registrations in hand and an exchange product described has become an investigation, and nothing on the record explains the step backward, names a revised launch window, or states whether the registrations remain active.

The full-deployment mining target has never been retired or reaffirmed. The 110 PH/s figure appears at least four times (15552, 15527, 15508, 15539), paired with 8,000 miners (15551, 15537, 15506) and 12 MW of power (15538, 15507, 15526), all last mentioned 2018-06-28 and all still resting at stated. The only measured progress point against that target is 3,500 miners installed as of 2018-03-31 (15543, 15520, 15505), and 15543 carries a promised-by date of 2018-03-31 that has auto-transitioned to delayed. That leaves roughly 4,500 miners, the 1,200 Kairos units (15531, 15517, 15502, 15540) and the 6,800 February units (15532, 15518, 15503, 15541) notwithstanding, unaccounted for in any later disclosure. There has been no statement giving a revised deployment schedule, a revised hash rate, or an explanation of why the March installed count stalled below half of capacity.

A quiet downward revision sits inside the per-miner specification. Claim 15530 states 13.75 TH/s; claim 15550, bearing the identical 2018-06-28 date, states 13.5 TH/s. Applied across the 8,000-unit full-deployment figure, the difference is the gap between roughly 110 PH/s and roughly 108 PH/s, which is to say the headline guidance number was preserved while the underlying input was trimmed. No update statement accompanies the change, no hardware model or vendor substitution is named, and the 110 PH/s guidance claims were never correspondingly adjusted.

The Coinsquare stake moved from a quantified holding to an unquantified one. A 12.9 percent ownership position is stated three times on 2018-06-28 (15512, 15522, 15545). On 2018-07-09, claim 15473 refers only to an investment in Coinsquare, with no percentage attached. The record does not say whether the position was diluted, partially sold, or simply described more loosely, and no revised ownership figure has been offered.

Three adjacent holdings disclosed on 2018-06-28 do not appear in the 2018-07-09 set at all: the 52 percent ownership of Tess Inc (15514, 15524, 15547), the $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (15513, 15523, 15546), and the formation of the wholly owned Digital Green Energy Corp subsidiary (15515, 15525). Each remains at stated, none has been withdrawn, and none has been repeated. The 107,000 square foot Oklahoma City data center lease (15504, 15542, 15519, 15533) follows the same pattern — last quantified on 2018-06-28, and on 2018-07-09 reduced to an unsized reference to mining operations in Oklahoma City (15469), alongside hedged guidance about possible operations in other locations (15474). Separately, the MNP LLP audit engagement for fiscal 2018 (15555) carried a 2018-12-31 date and is now delayed. It bears noting that every delayed and unverified designation in this ledger was generated by automated extraction on 2026-09-15, not by any company statement; the silence around these items is the finding, not a disputed characterization of one.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-21

The 110 PH/s full-deployment hashing rate is the clearest example. It was asserted four separate times in the June 28, 2018 disclosure (claims 15508, 15527, 15539, 15552), paired with an 8,000-miner deployment (15506, 15537, 15551) drawing 12 MW (15507, 15526, 15538). The supporting arithmetic came from 1,200 miners acquired through Kairos Global Technology (15502, 15517, 15531) plus 6,800 acquired in February 2018 (15503, 15518, 15532). Against that, only 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (15505, 15520), and claim 15543 carried a commitment date of 2018-03-31 that the ledger auto-transitioned to delayed on 2026-09-15. The 4,500-unit gap between what was deployed and what the 110 PH/s figure requires has never been addressed. The July 9, 2018 disclosure returns to the Oklahoma City operation (15469) but drops the hash rate, the miner count, and the megawatt figure entirely. No revised target was issued; the number simply stopped appearing.

The hardware specification was quietly restated downward within a single day's filings. Claim 15530 puts per-unit performance at 13.75 TH/s; claim 15550, same date, puts it at 13.5 TH/s. Both remain in stated status with no reconciliation. A 0.25 TH/s difference across 8,000 units is roughly 2 PH/s against the headline figure, and neither version has been reaffirmed since 2018-06-28.

Logical Brokerage Corp has disappeared as a named business line. The $600,000 acquisition was disclosed at least four times (15509, 15521, 15534, 15544), alongside CFTC and NFA registration (15510, 15535, 15548), FinCEN money service business registration (15528, 15536, 15549), a Florida money transmitter license (15511, 15529), and planned exchange offerings (15516). Claim 15544 carried a 2018-03-27 completion date and auto-transitioned to delayed on 2026-09-15. Twelve days later, on July 9, the language had softened to an "investigation of cryptocurrency exchange launch in the US" (15470) — investigation rather than a licensed, registered, acquired brokerage. That is a retreat from completed-transaction language to exploratory language, and nothing on the record explains whether the acquisition closed, the registrations transferred, or the exchange plan survived.

The minority stakes and the subsidiary have gone silent in different ways. The 12.9% Coinsquare position was stated three times on June 28 with the percentage attached (15512, 15522, 15545); on July 9 it reappears as claim 15473, "Investment in Coinsquare," with the figure removed. Dropping a quantified ownership percentage from a restatement one week later is not itself a disclosure of dilution, but no statement accompanies the change. The 52% Tess Inc. holding (15514, 15524, 15547), the $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (15513, 15523, 15546), and the formation of the wholly owned Digital Green Energy Corp subsidiary (15515, 15525) all have a last-mention date of 2018-06-28 and do not appear in the following disclosure at all.

The Oklahoma City facility and the auditor appointment round this out. The 107,000 square foot lease was described as executed in four claims (15504, 15519, 15533, 15542), last mentioned 2018-06-28; the July 9 disclosure references mining operations in Oklahoma City (15469) without the square footage or any buildout milestone, and pairs it with guidance about the "potential establishment of mining operations in other locations" (15474) — a broadening of the footprint story at the same moment the specific site commitment stopped being quantified. Separately, the MNP LLP audit engagement for 2018 (15555) carried a 2018-12-31 date and auto-transitioned to delayed on 2026-09-15. In every one of these cases the transition ledger records only automated extraction; there is no company-issued revision, withdrawal, or explanatory statement anywhere on the record.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-21

The Oklahoma City data center is the clearest case. A 107,000 square foot lease was described as executed in the June 28, 2018 disclosures, and the extraction record captures it four separate times (claims 15542, 15504, 15519, 15533), which is itself a measure of how prominently it was presented. Eleven days later, on July 9, the language shifts to investigating the potential establishment of mining operations in other locations (claim 15474), and the Oklahoma facility does not reappear in the record after that date. Nothing on file states whether the lease was terminated, sublet, deferred, or simply deprioritized, and no claim carries a revision transition. The entire site went from a named, measured, repeatedly disclosed asset to an unmentioned one without an intervening statement.

The full-deployment capacity framework built on top of that facility has gone equally quiet. Management quantified the end state three ways: 8,000 miners (claims 15551, 15506, 15537), 12 MW of power (claims 15538, 15507, 15526), and 110 PH/s of hash rate (claims 15527, 15552, 15539, 15508). Against that, the only measured progress point on record is 3,500 miners deployed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims 15543, 15505, 15520). Claim 15543 carries a promised-by date of March 31, 2018 and now sits at delayed, but that status arrived through automated extraction on September 15, 2026 rather than through any company revision. The gap between 3,500 installed and 8,000 targeted has never been addressed in a subsequent disclosure, and the 110 PH/s figure has not been reaffirmed, revised, or withdrawn since June 28, 2018.

The brokerage and exchange leg of the strategy has disappeared as a unit. The Logical Brokerage Corp acquisition at $600,000 appears four times (claims 15544, 15521, 15534, 15509), with claim 15544 carrying a promised-by date of March 27, 2018 and now flagged delayed by automation, again with no accompanying management explanation. Around it sits an unusually dense regulatory scaffold: FinCEN money service business registration (claim 15528), a Florida money transmitter license (claim 15529), and CFTC and NFA registration described repeatedly (claims 15510, 15535, 15548, 15549, 15511, 15536), plus the exchange offerings themselves (claim 15516). The July 9 disclosure softens this to investigation of a cryptocurrency exchange launch in the US (claim 15470), and after that the whole cluster stops. What has not been said is whether the licenses were maintained, whether the CFTC and NFA registrations remain active, and whether the exchange ambition was abandoned or merely postponed.

The minority holdings have been treated inconsistently, and the inconsistency is instructive. Tess Inc. was disclosed as a 52 percent ownership stake three times on June 28 (claims 15547, 15514, 15524) and then upgraded to a completed acquisition on July 9 (claim 15472), so that thread was at least followed through. The 12.9 percent stake in Coinsquare (claims 15545, 15522, 15512) and the $200,000 convertible note in Verady LLC (claims 15546, 15523, 15513) received the same repeated emphasis on the same date and then received no follow-up at all. No subsequent valuation, no disposition, no impairment, no carrying-value commentary appears anywhere in the record. Two positions were followed to a conclusion and two were not, without any stated reason for the difference in treatment.

Two smaller items round this out. Digital Green Energy Corp, a wholly owned subsidiary, was disclosed as formed on June 28 (claims 15515, 15525) and is never mentioned again; a named subsidiary that generates no further disclosure is a question the record does not answer. Separately, the appointment of MNP LLP as auditor for 2018 (claim 15555) carried a promised-by date of December 31, 2018 and now reads delayed, a status assigned by automated extraction on September 15, 2026 rather than by any announcement of an auditor change or engagement issue. In every one of these cases the pattern is the same: the transition ledger shows only automated status changes, never a management-initiated revision, which means each of these walk-backs happened through silence rather than through statement. It should be noted that the disclosure record on file thins sharply after July 2018, so some of this silence may reflect the boundaries of the available record rather than the boundaries of what was said.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-20

The Logical Brokerage Corp acquisition is the clearest example. Claim 15544 carries a promised-by date of 2018-03-27 and now sits at 'delayed,' a status the ledger reached only through automated extraction on 2026-09-15 rather than through any revision from the company. The same transaction appears three further times at the same $600,000 figure — claims 15534, 15509 and 15521 — all dated 2018-06-28 and all still recorded as merely 'stated,' along with the associated registration claims for CFTC and NFA (15510, 15535, 15548), FinCEN money service business status (15528, 15511, 15549) and the Florida money transmitter license (15529, 15536). What is missing is any statement acknowledging that the March closing date passed, any restatement of the purchase price, or any confirmation that the broker-dealer registrations were actually carried across. The last substantive mention is 2018-06-28; nothing since has said whether the deal closed on the original terms, closed late, or was renegotiated.

The deployment ramp has quietly stalled between two numbers that were once presented as a single trajectory. Claim 15543 put 3,500 miners deployed and operating against a promised-by date of 2018-03-31 and is now 'delayed'; claims 15551, 15506 and 15537 hold the full-deployment target of 8,000 miners with no promised-by date attached at all, and claims 15552, 15539, 15508 and 15527 hold the 110 PH/s figure expected at that full deployment, likewise undated. The effect is that the near-term milestone has slipped while the headline capacity number floats free of any schedule. Management has not said when the remaining 4,500 miners are expected to be energized, has not revised the 110 PH/s estimate downward, and has not explained what the March shortfall implies for the 12 MW power draw cited in claims 15538, 15507 and 15526. The last date on any of it remains 2018-06-28.

The hardware specification was revised downward inside the same disclosure window without comment. Claim 15550 states 13.5 TH/s and claim 15530 states 13.75 TH/s, both dated 2018-06-28. The difference is small in isolation but material when multiplied across 8,000 units against a 110 PH/s target, and no update statement reconciles the two figures or identifies which describes the machines actually installed.

The minority and strategic positions have simply dropped out of the record. The 12.9 percent stake in Coinsquare (claims 15545, 15522, 15512), the $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (15546, 15523, 15513) and the formation of the wholly owned subsidiary Digital Green Energy Corp (15515, 15525) were all disclosed on 2018-06-28 and none appears in any later filing on record. The Tess Inc. position, at 52 percent in claims 15547, 15524 and 15514, is the only one of the group that survives into the 2018-07-09 disclosures, where claim 15472 records the acquisition as completed. For Coinsquare, Verady and Digital Green Energy there has been no disposal notice, no impairment statement, and no confirmation that the positions are still held — they were mentioned once and then not again.

Two smaller items sit in the same unexplained category. The appointment of MNP LLP as auditor for 2018, claim 15555, carried a promised-by date of 2018-12-31 and is now 'delayed' by automated transition on 2026-09-15, with nothing on record confirming the engagement was completed for the full year. And the US cryptocurrency exchange described in claim 15470 on 2018-07-09 was framed as under investigation, language that was never upgraded to a commitment and never withdrawn; the related note in claim 15474 about establishing mining operations in other locations has the same open-ended character. It is worth noting that every status change in this ledger originates from automated extraction on 2026-09-15 or 2026-09-20. Not one of these positions was moved by the company itself.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-20

The Oklahoma City buildout is the clearest case of a target that stopped being discussed. Across a dense cluster of June 28, 2018 disclosures — the 107,000 square foot lease (claims 15504, 15519, 15533, 15542), the 12 MW power supply (15507, 15526, 15538), the 8,000-miner full-deployment figure (15506, 15537, 15551) and the 110 PH/s hash rate target (15508, 15527, 15539, 15552) — management described a facility scaling toward a specific end state. The interim marker, 3,500 miners deployed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims 15505, 15520, 15543), carried a promised-by date of 2018-03-31 and has since been auto-transitioned to delayed. The last mention of any of this is 2018-06-28. There has been no revised deployment schedule, no restated hash rate, no statement that 110 PH/s remains the target, and no explanation of why the March interim figure was not met on its stated date.

The Logical Brokerage Corp acquisition shows the same pattern with a harder date attached. Claim 15544 carries a promised-by of 2018-03-27 and now reads delayed, while parallel claims describing the same $600,000 transaction (15509, 15521, 15534) remain merely stated. The associated regulatory scaffolding — CFTC and NFA registration (15510, 15535, 15548), FinCEN money service business registration (15528), and the Florida money transmitter license (15511, 15529, 15536, 15549) — was disclosed in the same June 2018 batch and has not been revisited since. Nothing on record says whether the licenses were ultimately obtained, retained, or allowed to lapse, and no closing confirmation or termination notice explains the missed March date.

A quiet downward revision sits inside the June 28, 2018 disclosures themselves. Claim 15530 specifies mining hardware performance at 13.75 TH/s; claim 15550, bearing the same date, specifies 13.5 TH/s. The record contains no update statement reconciling the two figures, no indication which supersedes the other, and no note that per-unit performance assumptions underlying the 110 PH/s aggregate had been adjusted. The aggregate target was not restated to match.

The portfolio of minority positions and affiliates announced in mid-2018 has since gone silent. The 12.9 percent Coinsquare stake (15512, 15522, 15545), the $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (15513, 15523, 15546), the 52 percent interest in Tess Inc. (15514, 15524, 15547, with completion confirmed on 2018-07-09 at 15472), and the formation of the wholly owned Digital Green Energy Corp subsidiary (15515, 15525) were all described in ownership terms. None appears in any disclosure after 2018-07-09. There is no subsequent statement on whether the stakes were held, diluted, written down, converted, or disposed of, and Digital Green Energy Corp has not been mentioned again since its formation was announced.

Two forward-looking items from the July 9, 2018 disclosures were framed as active work and then dropped. Claim 15470 describes an investigation of launching a cryptocurrency exchange in the United States, and claim 15474 describes potential establishment of mining operations in other locations. Both remain at stated, both were last mentioned 2018-07-09, and neither has been followed by a decision, a timeline, or a withdrawal. Separately, the appointment of MNP LLP as auditor for 2018 (claim 15555) carried a promised-by of 2018-12-31 and now reads delayed; the record does not say whether the engagement was completed by that date, and no change-of-auditor or ratification disclosure follows the June 14, 2018 annual meeting items (15554). In every instance above, the status change is an automated consequence of a date passing rather than anything management chose to announce.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-20

The 110 PH/s full-deployment target is the clearest example. Riot put the figure on record repeatedly in the June 28, 2018 disclosures — claims 15508, 15527, 15539 and 15552 all carry it, alongside the supporting arithmetic of 8,000 miners (15506, 15537, 15551) drawing 12 MW (15507, 15526, 15538) in the 107,000 square foot Oklahoma City facility (15504, 15519, 15533, 15542). Against that, the same filing conceded only 3,500 miners installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (15505, 15520, 15543), which is under half the deployment the hash rate assumes. Claim 15543 carries a promised-by date of 2018-03-31 and now sits at delayed. The last mention of the 110 PH/s number is June 28, 2018; the July 9, 2018 disclosure describes the Oklahoma City operation only in general terms (15469), with no miner count, no megawatt figure and no hash rate. No revised deployment schedule, no restated target and no explanation for the shortfall appears anywhere later in the record.

The hardware specification was quietly marked down within a single day's filings. Claim 15530 states 13.75 TH/s per unit; claim 15550, same date, states 13.5 TH/s. Both remain at stated. The difference is small but it flows directly into the 110 PH/s figure, and nothing on record acknowledges that two different per-unit specifications were published, nor which one the deployment target was built on.

Logical Brokerage has disappeared entirely. The June 28, 2018 disclosures devote unusual attention to it: the $600,000 acquisition (15509, 15521, 15534, 15544), CFTC and NFA registration (15510, 15535, 15548), FinCEN money service business registration and Florida money transmitter licensing (15511, 15528, 15529, 15536, 15549), and the exchange offerings the entity was meant to carry (15516). Claim 15544 carries a promised-by date of 2018-03-27 and now sits at delayed. Eleven days later, on July 9, 2018, the company describes itself as investigating a cryptocurrency exchange launch in the United States (15470) — language appropriate to a project at inception, not one whose licensed vehicle had reportedly already been bought. Logical Brokerage is not named in the July 9 disclosure at all, and no statement explains what became of the acquisition or the registrations attached to it.

The Coinsquare position lost its number. Three June 28 claims specify a 12.9 percent ownership stake (15512, 15522, 15545). The July 9 disclosure refers only to an investment in Coinsquare (15473), with no percentage attached. The same flattening applies to Kairos: the June 28 claims describe the acquisition as bringing 1,200 miners (15502, 15517, 15531, 15540), while the July 9 restatement (15471) notes only that the acquisition completed. Neither the stake nor the miner count has been restated, revised or withdrawn — they simply stopped being quantified.

Two other holdings have gone unmentioned since June 28, 2018. The 52 percent position in Tess Inc. (15514, 15524, 15547) and the formation of the wholly owned Digital Green Energy Corp subsidiary (15515, 15525) both appear four and two times respectively in that filing and then not again. The $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (15513, 15523, 15546) has the same profile. None has been reported as sold, written down, dissolved or impaired; they are absent rather than closed out.

On housekeeping, claim 15555 records MNP LLP's appointment as auditor for 2018 with a promised-by date of 2018-12-31 and now sits at delayed. Every status change in this ledger — 15543, 15544 and 15555 alike — was applied by automated reconciliation in September 2026, not prompted by any company revision. That is the common thread across all of the above: the record contains no management statement issued after July 9, 2018 that revisits any of these commitments, and the movement from stated to delayed reflects the passage of the dates rather than anything the company has said about them.

A structural caveat worth stating plainly: everything on record for this company ends at July 9, 2018. The silences described here are silences within that window and in the absence of anything after it, and they should not be read as claims about what Riot may have disclosed through channels this ledger does not capture.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-19

The Oklahoma City build-out is the clearest unfinished thread. On 2018-06-28 Riot said 3,500 miners were installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims 15505, 15520, 15543), against a full-deployment target of 8,000 miners (15506, 15537, 15551), 12 MW of power (15507, 15526, 15538) and about 110 PH/s of hash rate (15508, 15527, 15539, 15552). Claim 15543 now sits at delayed after an automated transition on 2026-09-15, with no revision issued by the company. The record contains no later statement that the 8,000-miner, 12 MW, 110 PH/s configuration was reached, revised or abandoned. The July 9, 2018 disclosures captured here refer only generally to mining operations in Oklahoma City (15469) and to possible operations elsewhere (15474). The per-unit hardware figure also shifted within the same filing date, from 13.75 TH/s (15530) to 13.5 TH/s (15550). That difference was never reconciled, and at 13.5 TH/s the 8,000-miner fleet would fall slightly short of 110 PH/s.

The $600,000 Logical Brokerage acquisition received detailed treatment on 2018-06-28 (15509, 15521, 15534, 15544). That coverage included its CFTC and NFA registration (15510, 15535, 15548), its FinCEN and Florida money transmitter licensing (15511, 15528, 15529, 15536, 15549), and a planned exchange offering (15516). Claim 15544 carries a promised-by date of 2018-03-27 and was auto-transitioned to delayed. The July 9, 2018 claims on record list completed acquisitions of Kairos and Tess but do not mention Logical Brokerage or the exchange product. The record does not say whether the licenses were maintained or whether the exchange launched.

MNP LLP was appointed auditor for fiscal 2018 at the June 14, 2018 annual meeting (15555), with an implied completion date of 2018-12-31. The claim is now marked delayed by automated extraction, alongside a simultaneous stated transition on the same date. No disclosure on record confirms that MNP completed the 2018 audit, and none explains a change of auditor.

The descriptions of two holdings changed without comment. Tess Inc. was described on 2018-06-28 as a 52 percent ownership stake (15514, 15524, 15547) and eleven days later as a completed acquisition (15472). The record does not explain whether the remaining 48 percent was purchased or whether the wording simply loosened. Coinsquare went from a precise 12.9 percent stake (15512, 15522, 15545) to an unquantified investment (15473), with no updated percentage or valuation.

Two smaller items appear once and then disappear from the captured record. These are the $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (15513, 15523, 15546) and the formation of the wholly owned Digital Green Energy Corp subsidiary (15515, 15525). Both were last mentioned on 2018-06-28. Nothing has been said since about conversion or repayment of the note, or about what the subsidiary was formed to do.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-19

The ledger supplied for Riot runs from June 14 to July 9, 2018, and the listing is cut off partway through the July 9 claims, beginning at claim 15471. Every status transition shown was applied by automated extraction on 2026-09-15. None reflects a management revision. What follows is therefore a set of silences in the visible record rather than confirmed walk-backs, and each item should be checked against any later filings not shown here.

The most concrete build-out figures are the full-deployment targets for the Oklahoma City facility: 8,000 miners, 12 MW of power and roughly 110 PH/s of hashing capacity (claims 15506, 15507, 15508, 15526, 15527, 15537, 15538, 15539, 15551, 15552). They were repeated many times in the June 28, 2018 disclosures, alongside a reported 3,500 miners installed as of March 31, 2018 (claims 15505, 15520, 15543). None of these targets carried a completion date. The July 9, 2018 claims visible here mention mining operations in Oklahoma City only in general terms (claim 15469) and restate none of the numbers. No subsequent disclosure in this record reports progress from 3,500 toward 8,000 units, confirms that the 12 MW supply was fully energized, or explains the gap. The same filing also gives two different per-unit hashing specifications, 13.5 TH/s and 13.75 TH/s (claims 15550, 15530), and that difference is never reconciled.

The cluster of strategic stakes has no follow-up after the same dates. The 12.9 percent Coinsquare holding (claims 15512, 15522, 15545) last appears as an investment on July 9, 2018 (claim 15473). The 52 percent stake in Tess Inc (claims 15514, 15524, 15547), the $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (claims 15513, 15523, 15546) and the formation of Digital Green Energy Corp (claims 15515, 15525) all last appear on June 28, 2018. The record says nothing about valuation, conversion, divestiture or wind-down for any of them. Digital Green Energy in particular was described as a newly formed subsidiary, but no purpose or activity is ever attributed to it.

The Logical Brokerage acquisition, for $600,000 (claims 15509, 15521, 15534, 15544), was presented with its CFTC and NFA registrations, FinCEN registration and Florida money-transmitter license (claims 15510, 15511, 15528, 15529, 15535, 15536, 15548, 15549), plus a line of exchange offerings (claim 15516). On July 9, 2018 the language shifts to an investigation of launching a cryptocurrency exchange in the US (claim 15470). That is softer and more tentative than the June framing. The visible record contains no statement on whether the licensed brokerage was ever used as that platform, or whether the exchange plan went ahead or was dropped. Claim 15544 is flagged delayed against a 2018-03-27 date. That appears to be a completion date that had already passed when it was reported, not a missed deadline.

The appointment of MNP LLP as auditor for fiscal 2018 (claim 15555, June 14, 2018) carries a 2018-12-31 horizon and is marked delayed only because that date passed without a confirming disclosure in this record. Nothing shown here states whether MNP completed the 2018 audit, was replaced, or issued an opinion. Given how often the claims above were repeated, that is a notable omission.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-18

The Oklahoma City build-out is the clearest case of a number that stopped being repeated. The 2018-06-28 disclosures set out a full-deployment target of 8,000 miners (claims 15506, 15537, 15551), drawing 12 MW (15507, 15526, 15538) and producing an estimated 110 PH/s (15508, 15527, 15539, 15552). The same filings put actual installation at 3,500 miners as of March 31, 2018 (15505, 15520). Claim 15543, which ties that 3,500 figure to a 2018-03-31 date, has been auto-transitioned to 'delayed', although the ledger also records a same-day 'stated' transition for it. By 2018-07-09 the company described 'cryptocurrency mining operations in Oklahoma City' only in general terms (15469) and floated possible operations elsewhere (15474). None of the 8,000-miner, 12 MW or 110 PH/s figures appears after 2018-06-28. The record contains no statement that full deployment was reached, no revised timetable, and nothing on how the gap between 3,500 installed and 8,000 targeted units was closed. The per-unit hardware figure is also given inconsistently within that same filing date, as 13.5 TH/s (15550) and 13.75 TH/s (15530), and the difference is not reconciled.

The Logical Brokerage exchange plan has softened in its language. On 2018-06-28 the $600,000 acquisition was presented as done (15509, 15521, 15534), with CFTC and NFA registration (15510, 15535, 15548) and FinCEN and Florida money-transmitter licensing (15511, 15528, 15529, 15536, 15549) listed as assets supporting 'exchange offerings' (15516). One version of the acquisition claim carries a 2018-03-27 date and has been auto-marked 'delayed' (15544). Eleven days later, on 2018-07-09, the stated position was an 'investigation' of a US exchange launch (15470). That shift from a licensed vehicle with described offerings back to an exploratory posture was not accompanied by any explanation of timing, regulatory status or a decision not to proceed.

Several investments are described with less precision or have dropped out of later disclosures. The Coinsquare stake was stated as 12.9 percent on 2018-06-28 (15512, 15522, 15545), but the 2018-07-09 reference is simply an 'investment in Coinsquare' (15473), with no percentage and no note of dilution, sale or revaluation. The $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (15513, 15523, 15546) and the formation of the Digital Green Energy Corp subsidiary (15515, 15525) were last mentioned on 2018-06-28 and do not appear in the later disclosures on record. The record contains no conversion, repayment, impairment or operating update for either. Tess Inc. moved in the other direction, from a 52 percent holding (15514, 15524, 15547) to a 'completed acquisition' on 2018-07-09 (15472). No terms for the move to full ownership were disclosed.

The appointment of MNP LLP as auditor for fiscal 2018 (15555) was recorded on 2018-06-14 against a 2018-12-31 horizon and has since been auto-transitioned to 'delayed', again alongside a conflicting 'stated' entry. The record holds no later confirmation that MNP completed the 2018 engagement, and no disclosure of a change in auditor.

Every status change above was generated automatically on 2026-09-15, not prompted by any company statement, and the ledger available here ends in July 2018. These items therefore mark where the company's own narrative stops, not confirmed outcomes.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-18

The Oklahoma City build-out is the clearest case of numbers that stopped moving. On 2018-06-28 the company described 3,500 miners installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims 15505, 15520, 15543) against a full-deployment target of 8,000 miners (15506, 15537, 15551), 12 MW of power (15507, 15526, 15538) and roughly 110 PH/s of hash rate (15508, 15527, 15539, 15552). Claim 15543, tied to a 2018-03-31 date, was auto-transitioned to delayed on 2026-09-15. It also carries a same-day stated transition, so the ledger itself is ambiguous. The 2018-07-09 disclosure refers only to "cryptocurrency mining operations in Oklahoma City" (15469), with no miner count, megawatts or hash rate. No record gives a date for full deployment, reports progress beyond the March figure, or confirms or withdraws the 8,000-unit, 12 MW or 110 PH/s targets. The hardware specification also changed between two claims in the same filing, from 13.75 TH/s (15530) to 13.5 TH/s (15550), and no reconciliation is on record.

The Logical Brokerage acquisition and the U.S. exchange ambition narrowed without explanation. Several claims dated 2018-06-28 record a $600,000 acquisition (15509, 15521, 15534), with one version tied to a 2018-03-27 date (15544) that has been auto-transitioned to delayed. The same filing lists CFTC and NFA registration (15510, 15535, 15548), FinCEN and Florida licensing (15511, 15528, 15529, 15536, 15549), and exchange offerings (15516). By 2018-07-09, the only related item is an "investigation" of a U.S. cryptocurrency exchange launch (15470), which is weaker language than the June disclosures used. No launch date, regulatory milestone or decision to pause the exchange appears after that.

The descriptions of the company's investment holdings changed and no explanation is on record. On 2018-06-28, Coinsquare was described as a quantified 12.9% stake (15512, 15522, 15545). On 2018-07-09 it became simply an "investment in Coinsquare" (15473), with no percentage. The $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (15513, 15523, 15546) and the newly formed Digital Green Energy Corp subsidiary (15515, 15525) were both last mentioned on 2018-06-28 and do not appear in the July record. Tess Inc. went the other way. It was a 52% holding in June (15514, 15524, 15547) and a "completed acquisition" in July (15472), but nothing on record explains how the remaining interest was acquired or on what terms.

The appointment of MNP LLP as auditor for fiscal 2018 (15555) was last mentioned on 2018-06-14 and was due by 2018-12-31. It was auto-transitioned to delayed on 2026-09-15, again alongside a same-day stated transition. Nothing in the record confirms that the engagement was completed, that MNP issued an opinion for 2018, or that the auditor changed.

This ledger ends on 2018-07-09. Every "last mention" above refers to the last mention in the claims available here, not necessarily the company's last public statement. The paired delayed and stated transitions on 15543, 15544 and 15555 should be resolved before any of these items is presented as a confirmed slip.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-18

The deployment build-out in Oklahoma City is the clearest open thread. The 2018-06-28 disclosures reported 3,500 miners installed and operating as of March 31, 2018 (claims 15505, 15520, 15543). They described a full deployment of 8,000 miners (15506, 15537, 15551), 12 MW of power (15507, 15526, 15538) and roughly 110 PH/s of hash rate (15508, 15527, 15539, 15552). Claim 15543 carries a 2018-03-31 date and was auto-classified as delayed. No disclosure on record says when, or whether, the remaining 4,500 units were energized or the 110 PH/s figure was reached. The record also carries two per-unit hardware figures from the same date, 13.5 TH/s (15550) and 13.75 TH/s (15530). Only the higher figure reconciles with 8,000 units producing 110 PH/s, and the discrepancy has not been addressed.

The Logical Brokerage acquisition was presented on 2018-06-28 as a $600,000 purchase (15509, 15521, 15534). One version tied it to a 2018-03-27 date (15544), which was auto-classified as delayed. It came with CFTC/NFA registration and FinCEN and Florida money-transmitter licensing (15510, 15511, 15528, 15529, 15535, 15536, 15548, 15549) and brokerage product offerings (15516). On 2018-07-09 the language had already softened to an investigation of a US exchange launch (15470). The record shows no later statement on whether the exchange launched, whether the licenses were used or kept, or what became of the brokerage.

The minority and venture positions show a similar drift. Coinsquare was described on 2018-06-28 as a specific 12.9 percent stake (15512, 15522, 15545). By 2018-07-09 it appeared only as an investment in Coinsquare, with no percentage (15473). The $200,000 Verady convertible note (15513, 15523, 15546) and the formation of Digital Green Energy Corp (15515, 15525) do not appear after 2018-06-28. Nothing on record says the note converted, was repaid or was written down, or what the subsidiary was for. Tess Inc. was also described inconsistently: a 52 percent ownership position (15514, 15524, 15547) and, eleven days later, a completed acquisition (15472). The change has not been reconciled.

The appointment of MNP LLP as auditor for 2018 (15555) was last mentioned on 2018-06-14 against a 2018-12-31 horizon and is now marked delayed. The record contains no confirmation that MNP completed the 2018 engagement and no notice of a change of auditor.

Some caveats apply. Every status transition above was generated by automated extraction on 2026-09-15, not by any company statement. The claims list supplied here ends partway through the 2018-07-09 entries, so absence means absence from the disclosures on record rather than proof that management never returned to these topics.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-15

The Oklahoma City mining build-out is the most prominent commitment without a recorded conclusion. The June 28, 2018 filing described a 107,000 square foot leased facility (claims 15504, 15519, 15533, 15542) with a full-deployment target of 8,000 miners, 12 MW of power and roughly 110 PH/s of hash rate (15506, 15507, 15508, 15526, 15527, 15537, 15538, 15539, 15551, 15552). Against that target, 3,500 miners were reported installed as of March 31, 2018 (15505, 15520). Claim 15543 now carries a delayed status tied to that March 31 date. No later claim on record reports how many miners are installed, how much power is drawn, or what hash rate was reached. By July 9, 2018 the language had moved to the potential establishment of mining operations in other locations (15474), with no statement on whether Oklahoma City reached full deployment. The filings also give two hardware figures, 13.75 TH/s (15530) and 13.5 TH/s (15550), and never reconcile them. At 8,000 units, that gap is material to the 110 PH/s guidance.

The Logical Brokerage acquisition and the exchange business built around it followed a similar course. In June 2018 the company described a $600,000 acquisition (15509, 15521, 15534), CFTC and NFA registration (15510, 15535, 15548), FinCEN and Florida money transmitter licensing (15511, 15528, 15529, 15536, 15549), and exchange offerings (15516). Claim 15544 is marked delayed against a March 27, 2018 date. That date precedes the filing, so the status may reflect a historical closing date rather than a missed deadline. By July 9, 2018 the plan appeared only as an investigation of a US cryptocurrency exchange launch (15470). No claim on record says whether an exchange launched, whether the licenses were kept, or why a licensed brokerage became an exploratory project.

The minority investments lost their specifics over the same period. Coinsquare was a 12.9 percent ownership stake in June (15512, 15522, 15545) and an undifferentiated investment in Coinsquare by July 9 (15473), with no figure. Tess Inc. was described as 52 percent owned (15514, 15524, 15547), then as a completed acquisition (15472), and nothing explains how the stake changed. The $200,000 Verady LLC convertible note (15513, 15523, 15546) and the Digital Green Energy Corp subsidiary (15515, 15525) were last mentioned on June 28, 2018. No later claim addresses conversion, repayment, impairment, or any activity at the subsidiary.

The appointment of MNP LLP as auditor for fiscal 2018 (15555) was last mentioned June 14, 2018 and is now marked delayed against a December 31, 2018 date. The record contains no statement that MNP completed the 2018 audit, and no disclosure of a change of auditor.

Two cautions apply. Every status transition in this ledger was assigned by automated extraction on a single date, September 15, 2026, so the delayed labels reflect elapsed promise dates rather than company events. The claims list provided also ends partway through the July 9, 2018 disclosures. Some of these threads may be picked up in later filings that fall outside what was reviewed here.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-14

The Coinsquare licensing arrangement is the clearest case of quiet substitution. On 2018-09-06 Riot described an exclusive agreement to license Coinsquare's platform for its U.S. exchange (claim 15417). The deal carried specific consideration: 450,000 Riot shares (15419), 9.9% of RiotX Holdings (15420), $485,331 in integration fees (15421) and a 0.1% ongoing transaction fee (15422). Seven weeks later, on 2018-11-27, Riot announced an agreement with Shift Markets for the exchange platform (15367). The 2018-12-11 disclosure names Shift Markets as the platform partner (15347). By 2019-01-02 Coinsquare appears only as an investment (15295). The record contains no statement that the exclusive license was terminated or amended. It also does not say whether the shares, the RiotX equity or the integration fees were paid, returned or cancelled.

Synapse Financial Technologies followed a similar path from named partner to generic description. On 2018-10-28 Riot named Synapse as a partner for its digital currency exchange, with a target of 2019-01-01 (15376). The 2018-12-11 filing mentions only an unnamed "banking services partnership for RiotX" (15346). The 2019-01-02 disclosures do not mention Synapse by name. The ledger still shows the claim as stated, with no transition to delivered or delayed, even though the target date has passed. Nothing on record confirms that the partnership began operating by that date or explains why the name was dropped.

The exchange launch itself has drifted without a revised schedule. RiotX was a planned U.S. exchange in October 2018 (15377) and was described simply as an exchange in December (15345). On 2019-01-02 it was still "in development" (15307) and still "pursuing regulatory approval" (15308). That regulatory language is vaguer than what was said in September 2018. At that time Riot cited a Florida Money Transmitter License (15429), FinCEN MSB registration (15428), CFTC introducing-broker status (15427) and active pursuit of additional state money transmitter licenses (15430). No later disclosure in this record says which additional states were obtained, which are pending, or what still blocks a launch. No launch date has been given at any point.

The BMSS waiver payments have not been mentioned again. On 2018-08-23 Riot committed to a $150,000 initial payment (15431). It also committed to recurring $200,000 payments beginning by 2018-09-30 (15432), 50,000 restricted shares by 2018-08-28 (15434) and an undated final payment with accrued interest (15433). None of these obligations appear in any later disclosure in the record. There is no confirmation that the recurring payments were made, how many there were, or whether the final payment has been settled. The ledger has not moved any of these claims past stated.

The Oklahoma City facility lease also has no follow-up. It was extended through 2019-08-15 (15361, repeated in 15344 and 15304), with renewal options noted (15366). The last reference in this record is 2019-01-02. That date passed long ago, and there is no statement on whether the lease was renewed, exercised under its options, or vacated. The same applies to the stated capacity of 8,000 miners, 95 PH/s and 12 MW (15342, 15343, 15305, 15306).

Two limits on this record should be noted. First, every claim shows a single transition, from automated extraction to stated, dated 2026-09-14. None has been automatically moved to delayed or not_yet_verifiable. The gaps above come from comparing disclosures over time, not from status changes in the ledger. Second, the claims supplied end mid-entry in January 2019. Later filings may address some of these points, but they are not in the material provided.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-14

A caveat on the ledger comes first. Every Riot claim on record carries the same single transition, from automated extraction to stated, dated 2026-09-14. None has been auto-marked delayed or not yet verifiable. The claims supplied here run only from October 2019 to early May 2020. The gaps below are silences within that window, not confirmed walk-backs.

The Oklahoma City lease, held through the Kairos subsidiary, was extended in short steps. Claim 15015 (2020-01-12) extended it to 2020-05-15, and claim 14937 (2020-04-19) extended it again to 2020-06-30. Over the same months the facility was described repeatedly as a 12 MW, 107,000-square-foot site running the S17 Pro fleet (claims 14948, 14952, 14962, 14965, 14972). Days before the second extension, claim 14938 (2020-04-13) introduced a co-location agreement with Coinmint at Massena. Claim 14939 says its term runs to 2020-10-08. No claim on record says whether the Oklahoma lease was renewed past June 2020 or allowed to lapse. None says whether the fleet was moved to Massena, or what happens when the Coinmint term ends in October 2020.

RiotX shows a similar pattern. Claim 15064 (2019-11-11) described active development of the exchange platform, and claim 14998 (2020-02-25) announced its sunset. A month later, the 2020-03-24 disclosures still described the $600,000 Logical Brokerage acquisition (claims 14950, 14963, 14978) and its regulatory registrations (claims 14960, 14967). Nothing on record says whether those registrations were kept, surrendered or sold, or whether the acquired value was written down after the sunset.

Three minority equity stakes appear in a single filing and nowhere else. They are Coinsquare at 11.7 percent (claims 14957, 14975), TessPay at 8.8 percent (claims 14959, 14977) and Verady at 3.2 percent (claims 14958, 14976), all dated 2020-03-24. The same filing also named a business combination with Kairos covering 8,000 units (claims 14949, 14961). No later claim gives a valuation, sale, impairment or change in any of these holdings.

Claim 14997 (2020-02-25) recorded an engagement of XMS Capital Partners, filed the same day as the RiotX sunset and the renewed focus on bitcoin mining (claim 14999). No later claim describes what XMS was asked to do or whether the engagement produced anything. Similarly, claim 14929 (2020-05-07) said previous-generation miners were taken offline with their future use under evaluation. No follow-up on record says whether they were sold, scrapped or redeployed.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-14

A caveat applies throughout. Every claim in this ledger still carries the status it received at extraction, 'stated', and every one was assigned on the same day, 2026-09-14. No claim has moved to 'delayed', 'not_yet_verifiable' or 'fulfilled', even though nearly every promised-by date passed years ago. The disclosures on file also stop at 2021-04-06, and the extract ends partway through claim 14730. The absences described below are absences from this record. They are not established abandonments.

The Coinmint co-location arrangement at Massena is the clearest topic to fade out. It first appears on 2020-04-13 as a signed services agreement (14938) with a term running to 2020-10-08 (14939) and a stated power capacity of 9,500 (14940). On 2020-10-06 it is restated against the same 2020-10-08 date (14822), with management expecting operational improvements from the relocation (14824). By 2021-03-30 the same relationship is described only as a co-location agreement, with no term attached (14748). Nothing on file says whether the October 2020 term was renewed, extended or renegotiated, or on what economics. No later disclosure reports whether the promised operational improvements materialized. The Massena capacity figure is never updated as the fleet planned for the site grew several times over.

The Bitmain order book was restated repeatedly without a reconciliation. In August 2020 the disclosures describe 8,000 S19 Pros due by 2021-04-30 (14846), backed by a $17.7 million payment commitment due 2021-03-01 (14847). Nine days later that commitment is described as a price reduction to $17.5 million (14841), alongside a separate 5,100-unit, $11.2 million order due by 2021-06-30 (14840). By October 2020 these had been folded into a single 15,600-unit, $35.3 million agreement (14819), with 2,500 units due by year-end 2020 (14825) and 13,100 remaining (14821). The March 2021 disclosures confirm deliveries of 2,500, 2,002 and 2,201 units (14742, 14743, 14744). They then shift to 11,900 S19 Pros due through August 2021 (14745), 12,000 S19j Pros due September to November 2021 (14746) and 1,500 S19j units by October 2021 (14747). A week later a separate 42,000-unit, $138.5 million order due by 2021-11-01 appears (14726, 14728). The record never confirms the August, October or November 2021 deliveries. It also never ties the successive unit counts back to one running total, and it never says whether the $17.7 million commitment was paid as scheduled.

The hash-rate targets were reframed rather than tracked. On 2021-03-30 management projected 4.0 EH/s at full deployment of 39,146 Antminers (14753), against 0.57 EH/s at year-end 2020 (14751) and 1.3 EH/s from miners already received (14752). One week later the 42,000-unit purchase was said to add 3.7 EH/s by 2021-11-01 (14727). The earlier 22,640-unit full-fleet figure from October 2020 (14823) was never formally retired. The disclosures on file do not reconcile these figures with each other, and they never report the hash rate actually reached by the late-2021 target dates.

Several smaller loose ends from 2020 were raised once and not followed up. On 2020-05-07 management said previous-generation miners had been taken offline and their future use was under evaluation (14929). No outcome of that evaluation is recorded. The Oklahoma City facility was described as the destination for 4,000 S17 Pro miners (14927, 14928). It was then subject to a lease extension targeted for 2020-06-30 (14937), and by 2021-03-30 it was described as having a lease that expired on that same date (14749). The record does not say whether the extension was ever executed or why the plan changed. The twelve-month liquidity assurance running to 2021-03-31 (14931) was likewise never revisited once that period closed.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-14

None of Riot's claims on record has moved to 'delayed' or 'not_yet_verifiable'. Every entry sits at 'stated', and all were confirmed only in automated passes on 2026-09-13 and 2026-09-14. The ledger supplied here ends partway through the 2023-03-01 filings, so the gaps below reflect the record as provided. They mark topics that stop appearing, not confirmed reversals.

The Corsicana (Navarro County) build-out is the most heavily repeated commitment. It first appears on 2022-07-07 as a 1,000 MW immersion-cooling expansion (claim 13860), with an undated construction timeline (13867, 13859). It recurs as a 1 GW facility in August and October 2022 (13802, 13529, 13524, 13518) and at least seven more times on 2023-03-01 (13248, 13253, 13258, 13263, 13269, 13272, 13278). That last date is also when the 400 MW immersion-cooled first phase appears (13280). None of these carries a promised-by date, so the ledger cannot flag slippage. No filing on record states when the full gigawatt was expected, whether the 400 MW phase was completed, or how the remaining capacity is being phased. Management repeated the headline figure while never attaching a date to it.

Two customer and partnership statements from 2022-07-07 do not reappear. One says the Coinmint hosting relationship is ending (13864). The other names Rhodium as the largest hosting customer at Whinstone (13863). The ledger shows no later statement that the Coinmint exit was completed. Nor does it say whether Rhodium kept that position, how its hosting terms changed, or what Whinstone's hosting mix looked like afterward. By the 2023-03-01 filings, Rockdale is described only by its 700 MW developed capacity (13271, 13279), with no hosting-customer language on record.

The 2022-08-14 statement that Riot was developing immersion-cooled Bitcoin mining hardware (13803) is also not followed up. The anticipated benefits of immersion cooling recur in August and October 2022 (13800, 13527). Later entries describe immersion cooling only as a facility attribute at Corsicana (13280) and Whinstone Buildings F and G (13861). No entry records whether the in-house hardware effort continued, was folded into facility design, or was dropped.

The equity-compensation performance targets from 2022-07-07 form a separate gap. One is a 1,500 MW infrastructure target (13865). The other is an EBITDA target recorded as 500.0 USD (13866), which likely reflects a units error in extraction rather than the actual figure. Neither target appears again. The ledger holds no statement on whether either was met, measured, or amended, although later grants to the CFO and CAO (13590, 13595, 13597) include performance-based units tied to unstated criteria.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-14

The record supplied for Riot ends partway through the March 1, 2023 disclosures, so each "last mention" below means the last mention in this ledger. It does not mean management has said nothing since. Every status change shown was applied by automated extraction on September 13 and 14, 2026. None reflects a revision announced by the company.

The clearest lapse is the fleet guidance of 111,216 miners by year-end 2023. It appears in the March 1, 2023 disclosures as claims 13244, 13270, 13273 and 13276, dated December 31, 2023. It follows looser 2022 language about an "expected miner delivery schedule" and "scheduled Bitcoin miner deliveries" (13799, 13525, 13519), none of which gave a count or a date. All four 2023 claims moved automatically to delayed once the target date passed without a verifying record. The ledger holds no statement confirming the count was reached, no revised figure, and no explanation of how the Bitmain purchase order (13261), cited in the same filing without quantity or delivery terms, fed into that number.

The Rockdale expansion shows the same pattern over a shorter window. On March 1, 2023, the company described a 400 MW expansion and a fourth building, both due by March 31, 2023, one month after the disclosure (13268, 13266, 13255). The same filing gave Rockdale's current developed capacity as 700 MW (13242, 13262, 13247). Earlier references to Whinstone capacity and a Rockdale expansion in August and October 2022 (13801, 13530) gave no figures or dates. Both dated claims are now delayed by automation. The record contains no completion notice, no updated capacity figure above 700 MW, and no new date for the fourth building.

Corsicana has been restated often but never tied to a date. The 1 GW (1,000 MW) figure appears in August 2022 (13802), October 2022 (13529), and at least six times in the March 2023 filing (13243, 13248, 13253, 13258, 13263, 13269). Its wording moved from "development" to "planned capacity" to "expected capacity upon completion." In October 2022, the company spoke of a Navarro site expansion "with scheduled construction" (13524, 13518), but no schedule appears in the ledger, and the Navarro wording gives way to the Corsicana name by March 2023. The first tranche, 400 MW of immersion-cooled mining, is described in 13264 and 13274, also without an energization date. Because no completion date was ever attached, nothing has auto-transitioned. That is the more notable point: three rounds of disclosure repeat the headline capacity without saying when any of it will be online.

Immersion cooling began in 2022 as a hardware development effort with "anticipated benefits" (13803, 13800, 13527). By March 2023, it appears only as the cooling method for the Corsicana tranche. The ledger records no measured results, no quantified efficiency or uptime figures, and no statement on whether the separate hardware development continued. Similarly, the integration of acquired businesses, noted in August 2022 (13797) alongside switchgear operations in October 2022 (13517), was never followed by a completion statement or any account of how the integration turned out.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-14

The fourth building at the Rockdale Facility was described in the 2023-03-01 disclosures as due for completion by 2023-03-31 (claims 13245 and 13251), and a companion statement repeated the milestone without a date (claim 13255). That filing is the last time the building appears in the record. Both dated claims now carry a delayed status, but the change came from the ledger's own deadline check on 2026-09-14, not from anything the company filed. Nothing on record confirms the building was finished, gives a new completion date, or explains how the building relates to the 700 MW of developed capacity cited in the same filing (claims 13247, 13271, 13279).

The same 2023-03-01 filing set a target of 111,216 Bitcoin miners in operation by 2023-12-31, repeated across claims 13249, 13254, 13259, 13265 and 13270. The ledger auto-transitioned all five to delayed on 2026-09-14. The record contains no year-end 2023 fleet count against that figure, no revised unit target, and no statement tying any shortfall to delivery timing under the Bitmain purchase order that was cited as the source of the new machines (claim 13261). The purchase order itself has not been mentioned again since that filing.

Corsicana has been described as a 1.0 GW facility since 2022-10-18 (claim 13529). The figure was repeated many times on 2023-03-01 (claims 13248, 13253, 13258, 13263, 13269, 13272, 13278), along with a plan for 400 MW of immersion-cooled mining there (claims 13246, 13250, 13256, 13264, 13274, 13280). None of these claims has ever carried a completion date, so the ledger cannot mark them late. In October 2022 the company used more concrete wording, referring to the Navarro site expansion 'with scheduled construction' (claims 13524, 13518). That named schedule never appears in later disclosures, and the site is referred to only by its capacity. The company has not said when either the 1.0 GW or the 400 MW phase is expected to be energized.

The October 2022 disclosures also offered open-ended guidance on future hashrate growth (claims 13521, 13528), megawatt capacity under development (claims 13520, 13526) and the expected benefits of immersion cooling (claim 13527). None of these was quantified or given a date, and none is followed by a later statement reporting whether the growth or the cooling benefits materialized.

Several dated executive arrangements from 2022-10-02 have passed their dates with no disclosed outcome. These include Ryan Werner's initial CAO term through 2023-03-15 (claim 13598) and William McGonegal's senior advisor engagement through 2023-02-07 (claim 13586). They also include Colin Yee's performance share award measured through 2023-12-31 (claim 13590). The company has not said whether those performance conditions were met or how many units vested. These remain in stated status only because the ledger does not auto-transition personnel terms.

The ledger supplied for this review ends partway through the 2023-03-01 claims. Later filings that address some of these items may exist but were not available here.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-14

The Rockdale Facility's fourth building and its associated 400 MW expansion were described in the 2023-03-01 disclosures as due for completion by 2023-03-31 (claims 13260, 13266, 13268, 13275, 13277). The same filing also mentions the fourth building without a date (claim 13255). No later disclosure on record revisits the milestone. The ledger moved all five dated claims to delayed on 2026-09-14 because the deadline passed without a completion statement, not because the company announced a revision. The record contains no statement that the building was energized, that the 400 MW was added to the 700 MW of developed capacity cited in the same filing (claims 13242, 13247, 13262, 13271, 13279), or that the schedule was reset.

Management guided to 111,216 Bitcoin miners in operation by the end of 2023 (claims 13244, 13249, both dated 2023-03-01). That figure rested on the Bitmain ASIC purchase order referenced the same day (claim 13261) and on the scheduled deliveries mentioned in October 2022 (claims 13519, 13525). Both guidance claims are now delayed after passing 2023-12-31 without a confirming disclosure. The record has no year-end fleet count, no delivery completion statement for the Bitmain order, and no revised target. The Bitmain order remains in stated language, with no follow-up describing it as fulfilled, amended or ongoing.

The Corsicana site first appeared on 2022-10-18 as a 1.0 GW facility (claim 13529). It appears to be the same project as the Navarro site expansion with scheduled construction described on 2022-10-24 and 2022-10-26 (claims 13524, 13518). By 2023-03-01 it was restated at least eight times as 1.0 GW expected upon completion (among them claims 13243, 13248, 13253, 13258, 13263, 13269, 13272, 13278). It was paired with a 400 MW immersion-cooled mining deployment repeated across six claims (13246, 13250, 13256, 13264, 13274, 13280). None of these claims ever carried a completion date. The construction schedule referenced in October 2022 was never quantified, and the capacity under development cited then (claims 13520, 13526) was never given a figure. The last mention on record is 2023-03-01. There has been no subsequent statement of energization, a phasing plan, or whether the 400 MW immersion tranche was started, deferred or resized.

Several dated items from the 2022-10-02 executive and governance disclosures have also lapsed without a closing statement, though the ledger still marks them as stated. Ryan D. Werner's CAO employment term ran to 2023-03-15 (claim 13598). Former CFO McGonegal's senior advisor engagement ran to 2023-02-07 (claim 13586). The record shows no renewal, extension or departure notice for either. Colin M. Yee's 242,000-unit PSU award was tied to a period ending 2023-12-31 (claim 13590), and nothing on record states whether the performance conditions were met or how many units vested. The proposal to raise authorized shares to 340,000,000 (claim 13582) likewise has no recorded outcome.

The ledger available for this review stops in early March 2023, so some of these silences may reflect gaps in extraction coverage rather than in company disclosure. As the record stands, none of the lapsed dates above has an accompanying explanation, revision or confirmation of completion.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-13

The ledger provided for Riot ends partway through a December 5, 2023 entry (claim 11998), so the observations below cover only disclosures from April through early December 2023. Every claim on record carries a single transition, from automated extraction to stated, dated 2026-09-13. No claim has been marked delayed, met, revised or not_yet_verifiable. Several promised dates are now well in the past, and the record contains nothing that confirms or refutes them.

The clearest case is the year-end 2023 hash rate target of 12.5 EH/s. It was stated twice in the April 30, 2023 materials (claims 12677 and 12681) and repeated on August 8, 2023 (claim 12280), when operational capacity was given as 10.7 EH/s (claim 12279). That August filing is the last mention in the visible record. The November 7, 2023 disclosures (claims 12000 through 12003) cover immersion cooling and the Corsicana gigawatt but do not restate the 12.5 EH/s figure. The December 31, 2023 deadline passed more than two and a half years ago. The ledger holds no statement of whether it was reached, no year-end figure and no revision notice. The same applies to the follow-on target of 20.1 EH/s by June 30, 2024 (claim 12281), which also appears only once, in August 2023.

The April 30, 2023 guidance of 111,216 miners deployed by the end of 2023 (claim 12676) appears once and is not repeated in any later disclosure shown. Afterward, the unit language changes. The June 29, 2023 MicroBT agreement gives an initial order of 33,280 servers due by April 15, 2024 (claims 12381 and 12383) and an option on 66,560 more by December 31, 2024 (claims 12384 and 12385). By December 5, 2023, the arrangement is described as annual purchase options of 265,000 units (claim 11999), without the earlier dated tranches. The record does not say whether the initial order was delivered on schedule or whether the 66,560-unit option was exercised. It also does not explain how the fixed options became an open-ended annual framework, or how any of this relates to the 111,216-unit deployment figure.

At Corsicana, the April 30, 2023 materials described two tiers: an initial immersion-cooled phase of 400 MW (claims 12675 and 12680) within a total of 1,000 MW (claims 12674 and 12679). Every later mention covers only the 1 GW total. These appear on May 9 (claim 12648), August 8 (claim 12278) and November 7, 2023 (claim 12003). The phased 400 MW figure is not repeated after April. Timeline entries for the site, from August 8 (claim 12286), September 5 (claim 12206) and November 7, 2023 (claim 12001), describe development and expansion with no promised date attached. The record gives no in-service date for the first phase and no statement of how much capacity was energized. It also does not say whether the initial phase was resized or re-sequenced.

Rockdale follows a similar pattern on a smaller scale. A developed capacity entry on April 30, 2023 carries no stated value (claim 12678), and a 700 MW figure appears once, on August 8, 2023 (claim 12277). Nothing later in the visible record updates or confirms that number. Given the truncation, some of these topics may be addressed in claims after 11998 that were not included here.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-13

The one-gigawatt Corsicana, Texas data center is the most persistent unresolved commitment in the record. Riot described it as a 1.0 GW development in May 2023 (claim 12648) and repeated that figure in August and November 2023 (claims 12278, 12003, 12206, 12001). In the 2024-02-22 disclosures it narrowed to a first phase of 400 MW, with operations to begin by the end of the first quarter of 2024 (claims 11987, 11995). That date passed more than two years ago. Every one of these claims still sits at 'stated', and the ledger contains no transition confirming that Phase 1 was energized, completed or delayed. The claims shown here do not say whether the remaining roughly 600 MW is still planned, on what schedule, or whether the move from a 1 GW headline to a 400 MW first phase changed the overall build.

Industrial-scale immersion-cooled Bitcoin mining hardware was a regular theme through 2023. It appears in May (claim 12647), August (claims 12282, 12285), September (claim 12205) and November (claims 12000, 12002). It is absent from the 2024-02-22 disclosures in this record, which discuss Corsicana and MicroBT but not immersion cooling. None of these claims carries a delivery date, and none has moved past 'stated'. No capacity figure, deployment count or explanation for dropping the topic appears anywhere.

The MicroBT hardware program was re-dated without a stated revision. In June 2023 the initial order of 33,280 miners, adding 7.6 EH/s, was due by 2024-04-15 (claims 12381, 12383). The option on another 66,560 miners, worth 15.3 EH/s, was framed around 2024-12-31 (claims 12384, 12385). By 2024-02-22 the combined 99,840 units were instead to be delivered and deployed by 2025-06-30 (claim 11992), with total capacity of 38.0 EH/s by the same date (claim 11993). The December 2023 order (claim 11997) carries an interim deadline of 2025-04-30. Its amount was extracted as '290.5 USD', which appears to be a units error. None of the earlier claims was moved to 'delayed' or marked as superseded. The ledger also has no confirmation that the 2025 deadlines were met, and no disclosure explains the six-month extension of the deployment window.

The near-term hash rate guidance from August 2023 was never closed out. At that point Riot reported 10.7 EH/s of operating capacity (claim 12279) and guided to 12.5 EH/s by the end of 2023 (claim 12280) and 20.1 EH/s by 2024-06-30 (claim 12281). Later disclosures replaced these with the 38.0 EH/s mid-2025 target. The record never states whether either interim figure was reached, and both remain 'stated' long after their dates.

The MicroBT relationship itself shifted in the same way. It started as a long-term supply agreement running to 2025-12-31 (claim 12380). It was later described as annual purchase options on up to 265,000 miners (claim 11999), and then as options running through 2027 (claim 11994). The language moved from a defined supply contract toward open-ended optionality, and the horizon was extended by two years. No disclosure in the record addresses whether the original agreement was amended, or how many of the optional units, if any, have been exercised.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-13

A caveat governs everything below. Every claim on record for Riot carries the same single transition, automated extraction to stated, logged on 2026-09-13, and the ledger supplied ends partway through the 2024-02-22 disclosures. None of the dated promises has been auto-transitioned to delayed or not_yet_verifiable, and none has been verified. The gaps described here are gaps in this record, which may reflect incomplete ingestion as much as management silence.

The near-term hash rate guidance issued in August 2023 was never closed out. Claim 12280 set 12.5 EH/s by 2023-12-31, and claim 12281 set 20.1 EH/s once miners were delivered, by 2024-06-30. Both were last mentioned on 2023-08-08. By 2024-02-22 the disclosures had moved to 28 EH/s by year-end 2024 (claims 11961 and 11969) and 38 EH/s by mid-2025 (claims 11962 and 11970). Both deadlines passed long ago and both claims remain merely stated. The record contains no statement of whether 12.5 EH/s was reached at year-end 2023, and no reconciliation of the 20.1 EH/s mid-2024 milestone with the larger targets that replaced it.

The MicroBT fleet schedule lengthened without an explicit revision. The June 2023 order of 33,280 servers (claim 12381) was due by 2024-04-15, and the option for up to 66,560 more (claim 12384, worth 15.3 EH/s under claim 12385) was due by 2024-12-31. The two figures sum exactly to the 99,840 units in claim 11972, so the order itself is consistent. The completion date, however, reappears on 2024-02-22 as 2025-06-30 (claims 11968 and 11973). The agreement horizon also moved. It was 2025-12-31 in claim 12380, while the 265,000-unit option program is framed through 2027-12-31 in claim 11967, first described on 2023-12-05 in claim 11999. The later disclosures do not say whether the 2024-04-15 tranche arrived on time or why the deployment window moved roughly six months past the original option deadline. The dollar amounts cannot be compared either, because the recorded unit bases appear inconsistent: 290.5 USD in claim 11997 and 453,400 USD in claim 11964.

The Corsicana facility's attribution and timing are unresolved. Claim 11998, from 2023-12-05, tied 38 EH/s specifically to the Corsicana data center. On 2024-02-22 the same 38 EH/s figure is described as total self-mining capacity (claims 11962 and 11970), without saying how much sits at Corsicana. Claim 11965 promised Corsicana operations would begin by 2024-03-31, and claim 11966 sized the first phase at 400 MW of the planned 1.0 GW (claims 12278, 12003 and 11959). Neither has a subsequent status. The Rockdale figure of 700 MW (claim 12277) was last quantified on 2023-08-08. By the February 2024 filing it appears only as a qualitative competitive position (claim 11960), with no restated capacity.

The July 2023 long-term incentive awards reached their measurement dates with no outcome recorded. The service awards were due by 2026-07-01 (claims 12355, 12357, 12359, 12361 and 12363). The performance awards were due by 2026-07-31 (claims 12356, 12358, 12360, 12362 and 12364). Both dates have now passed, and all ten claims remain stated. The record says nothing about whether the performance conditions were met, how many shares vested, or whether any awards were forfeited or modified. The CFO and General Counsel service and performance awards are also recorded as 123,231 and 123,321 shares respectively, a discrepancy that has not been clarified.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-13

A caveat applies to everything below. Every claim on record for Riot shows only one transition, from automated extraction to stated, and all of them were logged on 2026-09-13. None has been marked delayed, not_yet_verifiable, met or missed. The most recent disclosure in the record is dated 2024-02-22, and the claim list supplied here ends partway through that filing. What follows are gaps in the record we hold, and may partly reflect incomplete ingestion rather than silence from management.

The near-term hash rate guidance has never been checked against an outcome. On 2023-08-08 the company guided to 12.5 EH/s of self-mining capacity by the end of 2023 (claim 12280) and 20.1 EH/s once miner deliveries finished, targeted for 2024-06-30 (claim 12281). Both dates have passed, and neither claim has moved beyond stated. The 12.5 EH/s year-end figure does not reappear in the February 2024 filing, which gives no reported year-end number. The 20.1 EH/s mid-2024 milestone is also absent there. It is replaced by a different frame: 28.0 EH/s by the end of 2024 (claims 11969, 11980, 11988). The record does not show the company explaining whether the 20.1 EH/s target was reached, raised or dropped.

The deadline for the MicroBT build-out moved later between two filings without any stated revision. The 2023-12-05 disclosure tied the MicroBT purchase order to a 2025-04-30 horizon (claim 11997) and 38.0 EH/s of capacity at Corsicana (claim 11998). Eleven weeks later, on 2024-02-22, the same 38.0 EH/s endpoint was attached to 2025-06-30 (claims 11992, 11993, 11968, 11973). The order had also grown from the 290.5 figure to 453.4 for 99,840 units (claims 11991, 11982). The later filing presents 2025-06-30 as the plan rather than as a two-month extension. Both the April and June 2025 dates are now more than a year past, and no completion or shortfall has been recorded.

The first phase at Corsicana had a firm start date that has no follow-up. The February 2024 filing said the 400 MW initial phase would begin operating by the end of the first quarter of 2024 (claims 11987, 11965, 11977, 11995). That quarter ended the following month. The record contains no later statement confirming energization, reporting a slip, or giving how much of the 400 MW was in service. The larger 1.0 GW total, repeated from 2023-08-08 through 2024-02-22 (claims 12278, 12003, 11959, 11978), still carries no completion date.

The Rockdale capacity figure has disappeared from later filings. On 2023-08-08 Rockdale was described as a 700 MW facility (claim 12277). In the February 2024 filing it appears only as a statement of "competitive position" and "scale" with no megawatt figure (claims 11960, 11975). Nothing in the record says whether the 700 MW figure still holds, was reduced, or was dropped for another reason. A related gap concerns the MicroBT relationship. It is described as a long-term master agreement with options on 265,000 further units through 2027 (claims 11990, 11994, 11967, 11974). However, no purchase under those options, and no update on how many options remain, has been recorded since the original announcement.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-13

A caveat applies to everything below. Every Riot claim on record was extracted on 2026-09-13 and still carries the status 'stated'. None has been moved to verified, delayed, or not_yet_verifiable. The latest disclosure in this record is dated 2024-02-25, and the ledger supplied here was cut off partway through that filing. The gaps described below are therefore gaps in this record. They may reflect missing coverage rather than company silence, and should be confirmed against later filings before being presented as walk-backs.

The Corsicana Facility's first phase is the plainest overdue commitment. In February 2024, Riot said 400 MW of immersion-cooled infrastructure would begin operating by the end of the first quarter of 2024 (claims 11987, 11995, 11977, 11965, with capacity in 11986, 11976, 11966). That date is now about two and a half years past. The last mention on record is 2024-02-22. The record contains no statement that operations began, no revised date, and no explanation of any slippage. The full 1 GW build-out has been repeated since November 2023 (claims 12003, 11989, 11979, 11978, 11959, 11950) and has never been tied to a completion date. That leaves the larger commitment without any measurable deadline.

The hash rate target of 28 EH/s by year-end 2024 was repeated at least five times in February 2024 (claims 11961, 11988, 11980, 11969, 11952). The baseline was 12.4 EH/s at the end of 2023 (claim 11951). The target date passed more than twenty months ago, and the record holds no reported year-end figure, whether hit, missed, or restated.

The MicroBT fleet has several deadlines, all past due with no follow-up on record. The December 2023 purchase order, recorded as 290.5 (claim 11997, units apparently in millions), was due by 2025-04-30. A follow-on order of 66,560 miners was due by 2024-06-30 (claim 11954). Delivery and deployment of the combined 99,840 miners, costing $453.4 million, was due by 2025-06-30 (claims 11992, 11983, 11973, 11968, 11991, 11982). The resulting self-mining capacity target also drifted from 38.0 EH/s (claims 11998, 11993, 11962, 11970, 11984) to 38.3 EH/s (claim 11956) within three days, with no explanation. Nothing on record confirms that the deliveries were completed, that the capacity was reached, or why the figure changed.

The option to buy up to 265,000 more MicroBT miners through 2027 has used the same framing from December 2023 through February 2024 (claims 11999, 11994, 11985, 11974, 11967, 11955). It is not yet due. The last mention is 2024-02-25, and the record says nothing about whether any options were exercised, or about how the 'long-term master supply agreement' (claims 11990, 11981, 11971, 11963) has worked in practice since.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-13

Bitfarms Settlement Withdrawn Without Explanation. Riot disclosed a settlement agreement with Bitfarms Ltd. on September 22, 2024 (claim 5704), including director nomination rights (claim 5705) and voting commitments (claim 5696). The settlement was promised by September 23, 2024. On September 4, 2026, claim 5704 transitioned to withdrawn—nearly two years later with no public announcement explaining why the agreement was abandoned or how the relationship evolved, despite Riot's ongoing 19.9% stake (claim 5703).

Bitfarms Term Expiration Slipped Past with No Notice. The Bitfarms settlement agreement of September 22, 2024, included a term expiration promised for June 1, 2026 (claim 5701). The date has now passed (today is September 13, 2026) and claim 5701 transitioned to delayed on September 4, 2026. Riot has not disclosed what the term end triggered, whether renewal occurred, or what the implications are for its director nomination rights and stake in Bitfarms.

Convertible Offering Stalled Over Twenty Months. Riot announced a $525 million convertible senior notes offering on December 9–10, 2024, with pricing promised by December 11, 2024 (claim 5259). On September 4, 2026, the offering remained delayed—over twenty months past the promised completion date. Riot has made no disclosure on whether the offering was cancelled, repriced, completed on revised terms, or remains pending. Companion Bitcoin acquisition plans funded by the offering (claim 5252) have disappeared from disclosures.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-13

Bitfarms Settlement Agreement (claim 5704) was positioned as concluded in September 2024 but transitioned to withdrawn status without disclosed explanation, reversing what appeared to be a resolved partnership dispute. The partnership agreement's stated expiration date of June 1, 2026 (claim 5701) has silently become delayed as of early September, with no revision announcement evident—the deadline has passed unannounced. Convertible senior notes promised to close by December 11, 2024 (claim 5259) remain in delayed status, more than a year overdue with no public restatement of the timeline. The Bitfarms acquisition narrative itself evolved from an 11.3% stake announced in June 2024 through a 19.9% position and activism campaign, culminating in a September settlement agreement that was subsequently withdrawn, suggesting management has quietly de-emphasized what it once framed as a strategic resolution.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-11

The Bitfarms settlement agreement (claim 5704), announced on 2024-09-22 with an expected closing date of 2024-09-23, shows a status transition from stated to withdrawn by 2026-09-04, yet no disclosure has explained the collapse or change in settlement terms to shareholders. The partnership term expiration with Bitfarms (claim 5701), originally promised for 2026-06-01, transitioned to delayed status on 2026-09-04; as of the current date (2026-09-11), that expiration has already passed with no update disclosing whether the term ended, was renewed, or was modified. The convertible senior notes offering pricing (claim 5259), set to complete by 2024-12-11, shows a transition to delayed as of 2026-09-04, but there is no subsequent disclosure confirming whether the $525 million offering ever closed or at what final conversion price, leaving investors without clarity on a major 2024 capital transaction.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-11

The Bitfarms settlement agreement promised for execution by September 23, 2024 (claim 5704) now shows withdrawn status as of September 4, 2026 with no public explanation from management for why this announced deal never materialized. The partnership agreement term expiration that was promised for June 1, 2026 (claim 5701), which was integral to that settlement structure, is now marked delayed well past its stated deadline with no management clarification on renewal status or termination. The $525 million convertible senior notes offering targeted for December 11, 2024 closure (claim 5259) remains in delayed status as of September 4, 2026—nearly two years past the promised date—without any management disclosure of whether the transaction completed, was repriced, or was withdrawn.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-09

The Bitfarms settlement agreement (claims 5704, 5695-5698, 5705) was last disclosed on September 22, 2024, with a promised completion by September 23, 2024. It was to formalize voting commitments, director nomination rights, and standstill provisions. As of September 4, 2026, the status transitioned from stated to delayed to withdrawn, with no public disclosure of why the transaction failed, what triggered the withdrawal, or current governance standing with Bitfarms.

The Bitfarms partnership agreement term expiration (claim 5701) was last mentioned in the September 22, 2024 disclosure with a promised date of June 1, 2026. Marked delayed as of September 4, 2026, the deadline is now over three months past. Management has not revised the expiration date, explained the extension, or disclosed whether agreement terms were materially modified.

Convertible senior notes pricing (claim 5259) was last mentioned December 9, 2024, with a promised pricing date of December 11, 2024. The claim remains delayed as of September 4, 2026—nearly two years overdue. No pricing update, revised timeline, or explanation of delay appears in subsequent disclosures.

Riot's Bitfarms investment escalated from approximately $90 million for 11.3% ownership (claim 6052, June 3, 2024) to $202 million for 19.9% ownership (claims 5801-5802, September 4, 2024) over three months. The progressive deepening was disclosed across separate filings rather than consolidated as a unified acquisition strategy, obscuring both the capital magnitude and the pace of strategic commitment to the investment.

SUPERSEDED

2026-09-05

The Bitfarms settlement agreement announced on September 22, 2024 (claims 5695, 5704) has been withdrawn from the record as of September 4, 2026, without any public explanation or revised disclosure. The agreement, which Riot had characterized as signed and binding, included specific voting commitments at a special meeting (claim 5696) and director nomination rights (claim 5705). No subsequent filing appears to address why this settlement was dissolved or under what circumstances. The partnership agreement term expiration (claim 5701) was promised for June 1, 2026, but now shows as 'delayed' as of September 4, 2026—meaning the deadline has already passed without any public announcement of a revised end date or acknowledgment that the agreement remains in force. The company has not disclosed whether the agreement has been extended, renegotiated, or terminated. The convertible senior notes offering (claim 5259) was promised to price and close by December 11, 2024, but transitioned to 'delayed' status on September 4, 2026, representing a twenty-month gap with no update to investors about completion or revised timeline. While the notes themselves are recorded as issued (claim 5251, maturity January 15, 2030), there has been no public statement reconciling the stated pricing date with the current state.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-05

Riot's most significant walk-back is the Bitfarms settlement agreement itself (claim 5704), announced 2024-09-22 with a promised close date of 2024-09-23. The agreement was marked withdrawn as of 2026-09-04, yet no public announcement explained the reversal or what became of the partnership terms Riot had just negotiated—voting commitments (5696), director nomination rights (5705), standstill provisions (5699), and conditional share purchase rights (5706) all remain stated in the record, now orphaned from the agreement that housed them. The Bitfarms partnership agreement term itself (claim 5701) was promised to expire by 2026-06-01 and transitioned from stated to delayed on 2026-09-04; we are now three months past that date with no revision announcement or explanation of the extension. A third delay, the convertible senior notes pricing (claim 5259), was promised finalized by 2024-12-11, transitioned to delayed on 2026-09-04, and remains unresolved nearly eighteen months later with no update statement filed. None of these shifts—the settlement's sudden withdrawal, the partnership term's unexplained slip, or the convertible offering's stalled finalization—were accompanied by investor communications or SEC filings revising the original claims.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-05

The settlement agreement with Bitfarms (claim 5704) was announced on September 22, 2024 with a promised closing of September 23, 2024. This settlement included governance provisions, director nomination rights, standstill restrictions, and conditional share purchase terms (claims 5695-5706). However, claim 5704 was marked as withdrawn on September 4, 2026. Management provided no disclosure explaining the withdrawal or how the stated governance arrangements were affected.

The convertible senior notes pricing (claim 5259) was promised for December 11, 2024. While the $500 million offering was announced on December 8, 2024, the pricing announcement has not occurred nearly two years later. The claim status was marked delayed on September 4, 2026 with no explanation of the delay or the offering's current status.

The Bitfarms settlement agreement's term expiration (claim 5701) was promised for June 1, 2026, but the claim status was marked delayed on September 4, 2026, after that date had passed. This agreement was extensively detailed in September 2024 filings but appears in no subsequent disclosures. Management has not announced whether the agreement remains in effect, has been extended, or expired as originally contemplated.

Riot's Bitfarms investment and governance arrangements were central to disclosures from June through September 2024, featuring a disclosed stake that increased from 14.9% to 19.9% alongside detailed board nomination rights, voting commitments, standstill provisions, and conditional purchase options (claims 5927, 5801-5703, 5695-5706). After September 22, 2024, the Bitfarms relationship entirely ceased appearing in public filings. No announcement explains changes to Riot's ownership position, governance status, or the conditional purchase rights.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-05

Riot's Bitfarms settlement agreement, announced in September 2024 with a promised close date of September 23, 2024 (claim 5704), has transitioned to 'withdrawn' status without any public statement explaining the reversal. The governance provisions that were contingent on this settlement—director nomination rights (5705), board voting commitments (5698), share purchase rights (5706), and beneficial ownership thresholds (5700)—all remain marked as 'stated' in the record despite the underlying agreement's withdrawal, creating ambiguity about whether these provisions are still operative. The partnership term expiration provision (5701) was promised by June 1, 2026, and has now been marked 'delayed' since September 4, 2026; management has disclosed no explanation for what occurred after the expiration date passed or whether the agreement was extended or terminated. Riot's convertible senior notes offering (5259), promised to be priced by December 11, 2024, remains in 'delayed' status as of today; no disclosure has addressed the $525 million offering's new timeline or cause of the nine-month postponement. Riot's ownership stake in Bitfarms escalated rapidly from 11.3% to 19.9% between June and September 2024 amid regulatory battles, board conflicts, and the now-withdrawn settlement; while individual acquisitions are documented, management has not articulated how these escalating commitments align with the collapsed settlement or what strategic value the governance rights provide without a functioning partnership.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-05

Riot's September 2024 settlement agreement with Bitfarms contained an expiration date of June 1, 2026 (claim 5701), which has now passed by over three months without any disclosure revision or management statement addressing what happens next—whether the agreement lapsed, was renegotiated, or continues under modified terms. Simultaneously, the settlement agreement announcement itself (claim 5704) was withdrawn from the record on September 4, 2026, contradicting the earlier stated partnership claims (5695, 5696, 5705) that remain on file; no explanation has been provided for why management is walking back the existence of the deal. Riot disclosed a convertible senior notes offering priced on December 9, 2024, promised to close by December 11, 2024 (claim 5259), but this claim transitioned to 'delayed' status on September 4, 2026—nearly two years past the promised date—with no revision announcement or disclosure of obstacles. A related claim (5251) shows the notes as eventually issued with a 2030 maturity, but the original closing-date commitment vanished without explanation. These three items represent material governance and financing milestones that management committed to and then either silently allowed to slip or actively redacted from the record without offering shareholders or the market formal notice of the change.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-05

The Bitfarms settlement agreement (claim 5704) promised by September 23, 2024 entered delayed status in early September 2026 and then transitioned to withdrawn, representing a complete reversal of a major partnership milestone announced in late September 2024. Management has not disclosed why the settlement was withdrawn, whether the underlying disputes were resolved through other means, or what the current status of Riot's 19.9% stake and board nomination rights actually entails. The Bitfarms agreement term expiration (claim 5701) carried a June 1, 2026 deadline that has now passed while the claim remains in delayed status; there is no public update explaining whether the agreement actually expired, what provisions remain in effect, or whether the relationship was extended or renegotiated. The convertible senior notes offering (claim 5259) was promised to be priced by December 11, 2024, but sits in delayed status as of September 4, 2026—nearly nine months past the promised date with no explanation of why the $525 million financing was stalled, whether pricing or terms were modified, or what the current trajectory is. Taken together, these represent a pattern of specific commitments with hard dates that slipped past their announced windows without corresponding management statements acknowledging the delays or providing revised timelines.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-09-05

Riot announced on September 22, 2024 a settlement agreement with Bitfarms Ltd. (claim 5704) with terms promised by September 23, 2024. This claim has since been withdrawn following evidence review as of September 4, 2026, indicating that what management disclosed as a binding settlement was not actually valid. No public statement has clarified what occurred or what arrangement, if any, replaced it.

The same September 2024 disclosures included a Bitfarms partnership agreement with an expiration date of June 1, 2026 (claim 5701). That date has now passed—we are at September 5, 2026—yet the claim remains marked as 'delayed' rather than completed or superseded. Management has released no update on whether the agreement expired as stated, was extended, renewed under new terms, or continues in some other form.

Riot announced a $525 million convertible senior notes offering on December 9, 2024, with pricing promised to be completed by December 11, 2024 (claim 5259). As of September 4, 2026, this pricing claim remains marked 'delayed'—nearly two years overdue. While the company did eventually issue convertible notes at 0.75% with a 2030 maturity (claim 5251, marked stated), the specific pricing milestone announced in December 2024 was never completed as promised, and no management communication has addressed the gap between the announced timeline and reality.

SUPERSEDED

What we haven't been told

2026-08-30

Insufficient disclosure history to identify silent walkbacks or pattern shifts. The record contains only two claims, both originated 2026-08-13 and auto-transitioned 2026-08-30 with no prior versions, revisions, or comparative statements in earlier periods. To detect what management has stopped mentioning or quietly revised, we would need multiple disclosure cycles showing prior commitments, subsequent restatements, or evidence of dropped references—none of which appear in the current ledger for Riot. No promised dates have slipped, no capacity figures have been revised downward, and no projects have vanished from mention (since mention history does not exist). Without baseline disclosures or quarterly tracking showing what was previously claimed versus current silence, no gaps can be responsibly identified.

Projects

Fleet capacity	Megawatts	Share of anticipated
Energized today	1,249 MW	48%
Contracted	1,012 MW
Anticipated at full build-out	2,612 MW	100%

Summed across 5 tracked project(s), from the capacity figures on each. Anticipated takes the firmest stage on record per project, so a site that is announced at 2 GW and contracted at 400 MW counts once, at 2 GW.

Corsicana

datacenter - 6980 FM 709, Corsicana, TX 75110

Status: partially operational

Kentucky Facility

mining

Status: partially operational

Massena

mining - Massena, New York

Status: cancelled

Oklahoma City

mining - Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Status: cancelled

Rockdale

datacenter - 2721 Charles Martin Hall Rd, Thorndale, TX 76577

Status: partially operational

Claims tracker

Subject	Statement date	Promised by	Amount	Status
US$573m interim facilityfinancing	2026-10-19	-	573000000.0 USD	stated
20-year 191 MW lease with frontier AI labcustomer	2026-10-19	-	191.0 MW	stated
Expanded 50 MW AMD agreementcustomer	2026-10-19	-	50.0 MW	stated
~US$9.8b contracted data center revenuecustomer	2026-10-19	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
Expected $180M term loan on first 25 MW of AMD capacityfinancing	2026-10-18	-	180000000.0 USD	stated
AMD data center capacity (first 25 MW)customer	2026-10-18	-	25.0 MW	stated
$573M interim facilityfinancing	2026-10-18	-	573000000.0 USD	stated
Non-recourse project debt at 80-90% loan-to-cost for data center builds, including frontier AI lab buildfinancing	2026-10-18	-	-	stated
BitGo custodial services agreementpartnership	2026-10-14	-	-	stated
BitGo custody agreementpartnership	2026-10-14	-	-	stated
NYDIG custody terminationpartnership	2026-10-14	-	-	stated
Bitcoin custody moved from NYDIG to BitGo Bank & Trustpartnership	2026-10-14	-	-	stated
Repaid $200M Coinbase credit facilityfinancing	2026-10-14	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Custody agreement with BitGo Bank & Trustpartnership	2026-10-14	-	-	stated
Custody migration from NYDIG to BitGo; NYDIG agreement to terminatepartnership	2026-10-14	-	-	stated
Riot moves digital-asset custody from NYDIG Trust to BitGopartnership	2026-10-14	-	-	stated
BitGo custody agreement terms: one-year term, auto-renewal, 14-day terminationpartnership	2026-10-14	-	-	stated
BitGo digital-asset custody agreementpartnership	2026-10-14	-	-	stated
BitGo custody terms: segregation, termination, feespartnership	2026-10-14	-	-	stated
Riot enters BitGo custody agreementpartnership	2026-10-13	-	-	stated
Custody transfer from NYDIG Trust to BitGopartnership	2026-10-13	-	-	stated
BitGo custody agreement term and termination rightspartnership	2026-10-13	-	-	stated
20-year $9.1B Rockdale colocation agreement with frontier AI labcustomer - Rockdale	2026-10-13	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Anthropic reported as Rockdale customercustomer - Rockdale	2026-10-13	-	-	stated
Rockdale phase 1: 96 IT MW by Dec 2027facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-10-13	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Rockdale phase 2: 95 IT MW by Jun 2028facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-10-13	2028-06-30	95.0 MW	stated
Non-binding LOI for full 1 GW Corsicana sitecustomer - Corsicana	2026-10-13	-	1000.0 MW	stated
AI data center leases 241 MW / $9.8Bcustomer	2026-10-12	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
Q2 2026 revenueguidance	2026-10-12	-	174200000.0 USD	stated
Q2 2026 net lossguidance	2026-10-12	-	237170000.0 USD	stated
Expected $180M term loan on first 25 MW AMD capacityfinancing	2026-10-12	-	180000000.0 USD	stated
Project debt at 80-90% loan to costfinancing	2026-10-12	-	-	stated
Non-recourse project debt at 80-90% loan-to-cost for data center buildsfinancing	2026-10-12	-	-	stated
Expected US$180m term loan on first 25 MW of AMD capacityfinancing	2026-10-10	-	180000000.0 USD	stated
AMD data center capacity (first 25 MW)customer	2026-10-10	-	25.0 MW	stated
US$573 million bridge facilityfinancing	2026-10-10	-	573000000.0 USD	stated
Anticipated project financing for frontier AI lab data center buildfinancing	2026-10-10	-	-	stated
Non-recourse project debt at 80-90% loan-to-cost for data center buildsfinancing	2026-10-10	-	-	stated
20-year 191 MW AI lab data center leasecustomer	2026-10-09	-	191.0 MW	stated
Expanded AMD data center leasecustomer	2026-10-09	-	-	stated
Contracted data center revenue of ~$9.8Bcustomer	2026-10-09	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
Project finance with 80-90% non-recourse debtfinancing	2026-10-09	-	-	stated
Riot 2 GW power portfoliofacility capacity	2026-10-08	-	2.0 GW	stated
AMD 25 MW currently deliveredcustomer	2026-10-08	-	25.0 MW	stated
216 MW contracted with AMD and Anthropiccustomer	2026-10-08	-	216.0 MW	stated
Anthropic 191 MW dealcustomer	2026-10-08	-	191.0 MW	stated
Anthropic phase 1: 96 MW by Dec 2027facility timeline	2026-10-08	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Anthropic phase 2: 95 MW by Jun 2028facility timeline	2026-10-08	2028-06-30	95.0 MW	stated
AMD additional 10 MW in Nov 2026facility timeline	2026-10-08	2026-11-30	10.0 MW	stated
AMD final 15 MW in May 2027facility timeline	2026-10-08	2027-05-31	15.0 MW	stated
Q2 revenue $174.2Mguidance	2026-10-08	-	174200000.0 USD	stated
Q2 data center revenue $23.2Mguidance	2026-10-08	-	23200000.0 USD	stated
Riot 2 GW power portfoliofacility capacity	2026-10-08	-	2000.0 MW	stated
Anthropic 191 MW dealcustomer	2026-10-08	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
AMD 25 MW compute deliverycustomer	2026-10-08	-	25.0 MW	stated
Rockdale AI lab 191 MW buildfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-10-08	-	191.0 MW	stated
Rockdale AI lab first 96 MW rent startfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-10-08	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
AMD next 10 MW delivery in Novembercustomer	2026-10-08	2026-11-30	10.0 MW	stated
AMD remaining 15 MW delivery in May 2027customer	2026-10-08	2027-05-31	15.0 MW	stated
Rockdale and Corsicana not subject to ERCOT batch processregulatory	2026-10-08	-	-	stated
Rockdale 700 MW capacity, 241 MW contractedfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-10-08	-	700.0 MW	stated
Morgan Stanley bridge facility maturityfinancing - Rockdale	2026-10-08	2026-12-31	573000000.0 USD	stated
Takeout financing of Morgan Stanley bridge facilityfinancing	2026-10-08	-	-	stated
Contractual protections securing investment-grade economicsfinancing	2026-10-08	-	-	stated
Capex ramp and peak timingguidance	2026-10-08	-	-	stated
~$180M AMD project term loanfinancing	2026-10-08	-	180000000.0 USD	stated
Rockdale capacity and contracted sharefacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-10-08	-	700.0 MW	stated
AMD additional 10 MW deliverycustomer	2026-10-08	2026-11-30	10.0 MW	stated
AMD final 15 MW deliverycustomer	2026-10-08	2027-05-31	15.0 MW	stated
Anthropic phase 1 (96 MW)customer - Rockdale	2026-10-08	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Anthropic phase 2 (95 MW)customer - Rockdale	2026-10-08	2028-06-30	95.0 MW	stated
Rockdale AI lab build sizefacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-10-08	-	191.0 MW	stated
AMD lease at Rockdalecustomer - Rockdale	2026-10-08	-	50.0 MW	stated
AMD next 10 MW deliveryfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-10-08	2026-11-30	10.0 MW	stated
AMD remaining 15 MW deliveryfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-10-08	2027-05-31	15.0 MW	stated
Rockdale and Corsicana exempt from ERCOT batch processregulatory	2026-10-08	-	-	stated
Takeout financing of bridge facilityfinancing - Rockdale	2026-10-08	-	-	stated
Capex ramp and peak timingguidance	2026-10-08	2027-09-30	-	stated
Coinbase credit facility prepaidfinancing	2026-10-08	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Payoff of Coinbase-backed credit facilityfinancing	2026-10-08	-	-	stated
Updated Code of Ethics and Business Conduct adoptedregulatory	2026-10-07	-	-	stated
No waiver of prior code of ethicsregulatory	2026-10-07	-	-	stated
Contracted data center revenue backlogcustomer	2026-10-07	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
20-year AI lab data center leasecustomer	2026-10-07	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Corsicana site capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-10-06	-	1000.0 MW	stated
191 MW data center lease with frontier AI labcustomer	2026-10-06	-	191.0 MW	stated
USD 9.8B contracted data center revenue for 2026guidance	2026-10-06	2026-12-31	9800000000.0 USD	stated
Coinbase Credit secured term loan repaid and terminatedfinancing	2026-10-06	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
$573M delayed draw term loan for Rockdale data centerfinancing - Rockdale	2026-10-06	-	573000000.0 USD	stated
Riot prepaid and terminated Coinbase Credit secured term loan facilityfinancing	2026-10-06	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Release of pledged bitcoin, USDC and cash collateral after loan payofffinancing	2026-10-06	-	-	stated
Prepayment and termination of Coinbase Credit secured term loanfinancing	2026-10-06	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Riot 20-year data center lease with frontier AI labcustomer	2026-10-05	-	20.0 years	stated
Repayment of USD 200M Coinbase secured credit facilityfinancing	2026-10-05	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Coinbase Credit secured term loan prepaid and terminatedfinancing	2026-10-05	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Pledged collateral released after Coinbase Credit loan payofffinancing	2026-10-05	-	-	stated
Riot fully prepays Coinbase Credit facilityfinancing	2026-10-02	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
1.7 GW approved Texas power capacityfacility capacity	2026-10-01	-	1.7 GW	stated
$9.8B contracted lease revenue through 2048customer	2026-10-01	2048-12-31	9800000000.0 USD	stated
AMD as data center tenantcustomer	2026-10-01	-	-	stated
Unnamed AI lab as data center tenantcustomer	2026-10-01	-	-	stated
Corsicana 1 GW sitefacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-10-01	-	1.0 GW	stated
Texas approved power capacityfacility capacity	2026-10-01	-	1700.0 MW	stated
$9.8B contracted lease revenuecustomer	2026-10-01	2048-12-31	9800000000.0 USD	stated
Corsicana site 1 GW capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-10-01	-	1000.0 MW	stated
$9.8B contracted data center lease revenue (AMD, unnamed AI lab)customer	2026-10-01	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
Corsicana site 1 GW, unleasedfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-10-01	-	1000.0 MW	stated
Corsicana 1 GW site not yet fully leasedfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-10-01	-	1000.0 MW	stated
Coinbase Credit $200M Bitcoin-backed facility repaid and terminatedfinancing	2026-09-30	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
AMD exercises option for additional 25 MW, total 50 MW contractedcustomer	2026-09-30	-	50.0 MW	stated
Repaid and terminated $200M Coinbase Credit secured facilityfinancing	2026-09-29	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Repaid $200M Coinbase BTC-backed credit facilityfinancing	2026-09-29	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Coinbase credit line interest rate 6.15%financing	2026-09-29	-	6.15 percent	stated
No early termination fee on Coinbase facilityfinancing	2026-09-29	-	-	stated
5,821 BTC pledged as collateral; lien releasedfinancing	2026-09-29	-	5821.0 BTC	stated
BTC holdings of 11,380 as of June 30financing	2026-09-29	-	11380.0 BTC	stated
Pledged collateral valued at ~$340.7Mfinancing	2026-09-29	-	340700000.0 USD	stated
Terminated Coinbase Credit facility agreementpartnership	2026-09-29	-	-	stated
April 2026 amendment: Coinbase facility maturity extended to Apr 20, 2027 at fixed 6.15%financing	2026-09-29	2027-04-20	6.15 percent	stated
AMD exercised option for additional 25 MW, total contracted 50 MWcustomer	2026-09-29	-	50.0 MW	stated
Repaid $200M Coinbase Credit facilityfinancing	2026-09-28	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Bitcoin pledged as collateral as of June 30, 2026financing	2026-09-28	-	5821.0 BTC	stated
Anthropic 191 MW data-center deal at Rockdalecustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-28	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Anthropic deal capacity at Rockdalefacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-28	-	191.0 MW	stated
2 GW approved power capacity across portfoliofacility capacity	2026-09-28	-	2000.0 MW	stated
2 GW approved capacity for AI/HPC conversionfacility capacity	2026-09-28	-	2000.0 MW	stated
Rockdale contracted AI capacity (AMD + frontier AI lab)customer - Rockdale	2026-09-28	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
Rockdale contracted critical IT capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-28	-	241.0 MW	stated
First 25 MW delivered to AMD at Rockdalefacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-09-28	-	25.0 MW	stated
Second 25 MW for AMD, full delivery by May 2027facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-09-28	2027-05-31	25.0 MW	stated
Frontier AI lab lease rent commencementfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-09-28	2027-12-31	191.0 MW	stated
Frontier AI lab lease full deploymentfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-09-28	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
Corsicana approved power and potential IT capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-09-28	-	756.0 MW	stated
Corsicana nonbinding LOIpartnership - Corsicana	2026-09-28	-	-	stated
Q2 2026 Bitcoin mining revenuefinancing	2026-09-28	-	113700000.0 USD	stated
Selling Bitcoin to fund data center equityfinancing	2026-09-28	-	-	stated
Q1 2026 revenue $167.2M incl. $33.2M data centerguidance	2026-09-28	-	167200000.0 USD	stated
Additional 1,825 BTC pledged, total 5,802 BTCfinancing	2026-09-28	-	5802.0 BTC	stated
Rockdale lease tenant reportedly Anthropiccustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-28	-	9000000000.0 USD	stated
Coinbase Credit facility prepaid and terminatedfinancing	2026-09-28	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Pledged bitcoin/USDC/cash collateral releasedfinancing	2026-09-28	-	-	stated
20-year 191 MW Rockdale lease with frontier AI customercustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-28	-	191.0 MW	stated
AI lease valued at ~$9.1B over initial termcustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-28	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Project financing arranged for Rockdale AI build-outfinancing - Rockdale	2026-09-28	-	-	stated
Rockdale data-center capacity expansionfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-28	-	-	stated
Collateral released after Coinbase facility repaymentfinancing	2026-09-28	-	-	stated
Additional BTC pledged as collateral in Feb 2026financing	2026-09-28	-	5802.0 BTC	stated
Coinbase facility upsized to $200M; proceeds for data-center capexfinancing	2026-09-28	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Coinbase facility maturity extended to April 2027financing	2026-09-28	2027-04-20	6.15 percent	stated
20-year 191 MW Rockdale data-center lease with frontier AI labcustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-28	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Riot terminates secured credit agreementfinancing	2026-09-28	-	-	stated
Rockdale 241 MW contracted to AMD and frontier AI labcustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-28	-	241.0 MW	stated
$9.8B contracted data center revenuescustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-28	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
First 25 MW delivered to AMDfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-09-28	-	25.0 MW	stated
Frontier AI lab 191 MW lease rent commencement Dec 2027facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-09-28	2027-12-31	191.0 MW	stated
Frontier AI lab 191 MW lease full deployment June 2028facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-09-28	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
Corsicana 1 GW approved power, 756 MW potential IT capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-09-28	-	756.0 MW	stated
Q2 2026 mining revenues $113.7Mfinancing	2026-09-28	-	113700000.0 USD	stated
Q2 2026 data center revenue $23.2Mguidance	2026-09-28	-	23200000.0 USD	stated
Q2 2026 total revenue $174.2Mguidance	2026-09-28	-	174200000.0 USD	stated
Initial 25 MW delivered to AMDcustomer	2026-09-28	-	25.0 MW	stated
Additional 25 MW AMD expansion under constructionfacility capacity	2026-09-28	-	25.0 MW	stated
Q2 2026 BTC holdings 11,380financing	2026-09-28	-	11380.0 BTC	stated
Q2 2026 cash $548.9Mfinancing	2026-09-28	-	548900000.0 USD	stated
Anthropic identified as Rockdale lease customercustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-28	-	-	stated
Rockdale initial 96 MW delivery December 2027facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-09-28	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Rockdale full 191 MW deployment June 2028facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-09-28	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
Rockdale lease extension options up to $16.1Bcustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-28	-	16100000000.0 USD	stated
AMD 25 MW delivered, further 25 MW under constructionfacility capacity	2026-09-28	-	25.0 MW	stated
Repaid $200M Coinbase Credit facilityfinancing	2026-09-27	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
No early termination fees on credit facility prepaymentfinancing	2026-09-27	-	-	stated
Data center revenue contract with AMD and AI labpartnership	2026-09-27	-	9.8 USD (billions)	stated
Data center projects full deployment datefacility timeline	2026-09-27	2028-06-30	-	stated
Expected average annual revenue from deployed data centersfacility capacity	2026-09-27	2028-06-30	520.0 USD (millions)	stated
AMD lease revenue Q2 2026customer	2026-09-27	-	4.9 USD (millions)	stated
Planned AMD term loanfinancing	2026-09-27	-	180.0 USD (millions)	stated
AI-lab project estimated costguidance	2026-09-27	-	-	stated
Expected debt financing percentage for AI-lab projectguidance	2026-09-27	-	-	stated
Expected net equity need for AI-lab projectfinancing	2026-09-27	-	-	stated
Bitcoin sales in H1 2026financing	2026-09-27	-	-	stated
Bitcoin mining revenue Q2 2026product	2026-09-27	-	113.7 USD (millions)	stated
Engineering segment revenue Q2 2026product	2026-09-27	-	46.2 USD (millions)	stated
External engineering revenue Q2 2026product	2026-09-27	-	37.3 USD (millions)	stated
Data center segment revenue Q2 2026product	2026-09-27	-	23.2 USD (millions)	stated
Total segment revenue Q2 2026product	2026-09-27	-	174.2 USD (millions)	stated
Total debt Q2 2026financing	2026-09-27	-	877.8 USD (millions)	stated
Cash and equivalents Q2 2026financing	2026-09-27	-	471.4 USD (millions)	stated
Bitcoin holdings Q2 2026financing	2026-09-27	-	11380.0 BTC	stated
Early repayment of Coinbase Credit facilityfinancing	2026-09-27	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Bitcoin collateral releasedfinancing	2026-09-27	-	5821.0 BTC	stated
Data-center deals with AMD and major AI labpartnership	2026-09-27	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Repaid Coinbase Credit facilityfinancing	2026-09-27	-	200.0 million USD	stated
Coinbase Credit Bitcoin-backed loanfinancing	2026-09-27	-	100.0 million USD	stated
Fixed interest rate on Coinbase Credit facilityfinancing	2026-09-27	-	6.15 percent	stated
Bitcoin treasury holdingsproduct	2026-09-27	-	11380.0 BTC	stated
Liquidity positionfinancing	2026-09-27	-	1.2 billion USD	stated
AMD data center lease in Rockdale, Texasfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-27	-	50.0 MW	stated
AI lab data center lease in Rockdale, Texasfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-27	-	191.0 MW	stated
Projected data-center revenueguidance	2026-09-27	-	9.1 billion USD	stated
Loan repayment and facility terminationfinancing	2026-09-27	-	200.0 USD	stated
No early termination penalty incurredfinancing	2026-09-27	-	-	stated
Bitcoin pledged as loan collateralfinancing	2026-09-27	-	5821.0 BTC	stated
Total bitcoin holdings as of June 30financing	2026-09-27	-	11380.0 BTC	stated
Data center computing capacity lease at Rockdale campusfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-27	-	191.0 MW	stated
Expected revenue from data center leasepartnership	2026-09-27	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Rockdale campus 20-year AI developer leasecustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-27	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
AMD data-center partnershippartnership	2026-09-27	-	-	stated
Data-center partnership with major AI labpartnership	2026-09-27	-	-	stated
Data-center revenue guidanceguidance	2026-09-27	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
20-year, 191 MW Rockdale data center leasefacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-27	-	191.0 MW	stated
50 MW Rockdale data center deal with AMDfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-27	-	50.0 MW	stated
Data center revenue projectionguidance	2026-09-27	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Anthropic computing capacity supply agreementcustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-27	-	9000000000.0 USD	stated
Data center revenue contracts with AMD and frontier AI labpartnership	2026-09-27	-	9800.0 USD	stated
AMD term loan for data center projectfinancing	2026-09-27	-	180.0 USD	stated
Prepaid and terminated Coinbase Credit secured credit facilityfinancing	2026-09-27	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Release of collateral pledged under Coinbase Credit facilityfinancing	2026-09-27	-	-	stated
20-year 191 MW Rockdale AI leasecustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-27	-	191.0 MW	stated
Rockdale AI deal reportedly Anthropic, ~$9Bcustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-27	-	9000000000.0 USD	stated
Q1 2026 revenue $167.2Mguidance	2026-09-27	-	167200000.0 USD	stated
Q1 2026 data center revenue $33.2Mguidance	2026-09-27	-	33200000.0 USD	stated
Early repayment of $200M Coinbase loanfinancing	2026-09-27	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Release of 5821 BTC collateralfinancing	2026-09-27	-	5821.0 BTC	stated
Coinbase loan terms: 6.15% rate, original April 2027 maturity, no prepayment penaltyfinancing	2026-09-27	2027-04-30	6.15 percent	stated
20-year 191 MW AI data center contractcustomer	2026-09-27	-	191.0 MW	stated
20-year, 191 MW Rockdale data-center supply agreement with AI companycustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-27	-	191.0 MW	stated
Coinbase Credit $200M BTC-backed loan repaid and terminatedfinancing	2026-09-27	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
No early termination fee on Coinbase loan prepaymentfinancing	2026-09-27	-	-	stated
Collateral released from Coinbase security interestfinancing	2026-09-27	-	-	stated
20-year 191 MW Rockdale deal with frontier AI companycustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-27	-	191.0 MW	stated
Coinbase Credit $200M bitcoin-backed facility repaid and terminatedfinancing	2026-09-27	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Collateral released on Coinbase facility terminationfinancing	2026-09-27	-	-	stated
Rockdale AI customer identified as Anthropic, ~$9B deal valuecustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-27	-	9000000000.0 USD	stated
Riot repaid $200M Bitcoin-backed facility earlyfinancing	2026-09-26	-	200.0 USD	stated
Bitcoin-backed facility interest ratefinancing	2026-09-26	-	6.15 percent	stated
Bitcoin collateral pledged under facilityfinancing	2026-09-26	-	5821.0 BTC	stated
Collateral value as of June 30, 2026financing	2026-09-26	-	340.7 USD	stated
Total Bitcoin holdings as of June 30, 2026financing	2026-09-26	-	11380.0 BTC	stated
Repaid Coinbase loanfinancing	2026-09-26	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Bitcoin collateral releasedfinancing	2026-09-26	-	5821.0 BTC	stated
Loan facility termsfinancing	2026-09-26	2027-04-20	-	stated
Original loan facilityfinancing	2026-09-26	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Bitcoin holdings percentagefinancing	2026-09-26	-	51.0 percent	stated
Bitcoin collateral valuationfinancing	2026-09-26	-	340.7 USD	stated
Coinbase Credit Facility Origination and Expansionfinancing	2026-09-26	-	200.0 million USD	stated
Fixed Interest Rate Amendmentfinancing	2026-09-26	-	6.15 percent	stated
Rockdale Data Center Lease Capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-26	-	191.0 MW	stated
Rockdale Data Center Lease Termfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-09-26	-	20.0 years	stated
AI Developer Data Center Partnershippartnership - Rockdale	2026-09-26	-	-	stated
Rockdale Lease Revenue Projectionguidance	2026-09-26	-	9.1 billion USD	stated
Coinbase Credit facility repaymentfinancing	2026-09-26	-	200.0 USD	stated
Rockdale data center lease with AI developerpartnership - Rockdale	2026-09-26	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
$200M Coinbase loan repaymentfinancing	2026-09-26	2027-04-30	200000000.0 USD	stated
$9.8B contracted data center revenue with AMD and frontier AI labcustomer	2026-09-26	2028-06-30	520000000.0 USD	stated
Contracted data center revenue backlogfinancing	2026-09-26	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
No common equity issued in Q2 2026financing	2026-09-26	-	-	stated
Bitcoin holdings at end of June 2026financing	2026-09-26	-	11380.0 BTC	stated
AI-lab project cost estimateguidance	2026-09-26	-	2300000000.0 USD	stated
Debt financing to cover 80-90% of AI-lab projectfinancing	2026-09-26	-	90.0 percent	stated
Planned $180M AMD term loanfinancing	2026-09-26	-	180000000.0 USD	stated
$573M Morgan Stanley interim facilityfinancing	2026-09-26	-	573000000.0 USD	stated
Corsicana nonbinding lease LOIcustomer - Corsicana	2026-09-26	-	-	stated
December 2027 delivery milestonefacility timeline	2026-09-26	2027-12-31	-	stated
Q2 2026 Bitcoin mining revenueguidance	2026-09-26	-	113700000.0 USD	stated
Q2 2026 external engineering revenueguidance	2026-09-26	-	37300000.0 USD	stated
Q2 2026 AMD lease revenuecustomer	2026-09-26	-	4900000.0 USD	stated
Total debt and cash at end of Q2 2026financing	2026-09-26	-	877800000.0 USD	stated
$9.8B contracted data center revenue with AMD and frontier AI labcustomer	2026-09-26	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
~$520M average annual data center revenue once fully deployed by June 2028guidance	2026-09-26	2028-06-30	520000000.0 USD	stated
Debt to fund 80-90% of AI-lab project costfinancing	2026-09-26	-	80.0 percent	stated
AI-lab project estimated cost $2.1B-$2.3Bguidance	2026-09-26	-	2100000000.0 USD	stated
$573M Morgan Stanley interim facility to be drawn and refinancedfinancing	2026-09-26	-	573000000.0 USD	stated
December 2027 data center deliveryfacility timeline	2026-09-26	2027-12-31	-	stated
Q2 2026 Revenuefinancing	2026-09-25	-	174.0 million USD	stated
Q2 2026 GAAP Net Lossfinancing	2026-09-25	-	237.0 million USD	stated
Q2 2026 Adjusted EBITDAfinancing	2026-09-25	-	-70.0 million USD	stated
Anthropic Data Center Capacityfacility capacity	2026-09-25	-	191.0 MW	stated
Anthropic Data Center Expected Revenuecustomer	2026-09-25	-	9.1 billion USD	stated
AMD Data Center Agreementpartnership	2026-09-25	-	35.0 MW	stated
Anthropic data center hosting agreementcustomer	2026-09-25	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Prepaid $200M Coinbase-backed secured loanfinancing	2026-09-25	-	200.0 USD	stated
No early termination fees on loan prepaymentfinancing	2026-09-25	-	-	verified
Completed full prepayment of $200M credit facility with Coinbasefinancing	2026-09-25	-	-	stated
Prepayment and termination of $200M Coinbase-backed secured term loanfinancing	2026-09-25	-	200.0 USD	stated
Coinbase loan prepaymentfinancing	2026-09-25	-	-	verified
Repaid $200M Coinbase Credit facilityfinancing	2026-09-25	2026-09-21	200000000.0 USD	verified
Coinbase Credit facility prepaid and terminatedfinancing	2026-09-25	-	200000000.0 USD	verified
Repaid and terminated $200M Coinbase Credit bitcoin-backed loanfinancing	2026-09-25	2026-09-21	200000000.0 USD	verified
Collateral security interests releasedfinancing	2026-09-25	-	-	stated
Release of pledged collateral on Coinbase facilityfinancing	2026-09-25	-	-	verified
Coinbase security interests releasedfinancing	2026-09-25	-	-	stated
Security interests over pledged bitcoin, USDC and cash releasedfinancing	2026-09-25	-	-	stated
AMD hosting agreementpartnership	2026-09-23	-	35.0 MW	stated
Q2 2026 Revenuefinancing	2026-09-22	-	70.6 USD millions	stated
Q2 2026 Adjusted EBITDAfinancing	2026-09-22	-	47.0 USD millions	stated
Q2 2026 Bitcoin Productionproduct	2026-09-22	-	1567.0 BTC	stated
Bitcoin Holdings End of Q2 2026financing	2026-09-22	-	19211.0 BTC	stated
35MW AMD data center hosting agreement at Rockdalecustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-21	-	35.0 MW	stated
Rockdale campus contracted power capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-21	-	1.0 GW	stated
Q2 2026 total revenueguidance	2026-09-21	-	70.6 million USD	stated
Q2 2026 year-over-year revenue growthguidance	2026-09-21	-	19.0 percent	stated
Q2 2026 adjusted EBITDAguidance	2026-09-21	-	47.0 million USD	stated
Q2 2026 Bitcoin mining outputproduct	2026-09-21	-	1567.0 BTC	stated
Bitcoin holdings at Q2 quarter-endfinancing	2026-09-21	-	19211.0 BTC	stated
2021 annual revenueguidance	2026-09-21	-	213.0 million USD	stated
2025 annual revenueguidance	2026-09-21	-	647.0 million USD	stated
Total debt outstandingfinancing	2026-09-21	-	1.3 billion USD	stated
Bitcoin holdings on balance sheetproduct	2026-09-21	-	15680.0 BTC	stated
Coinbase loan repayment with collateral releasefinancing	2026-09-21	-	200.0 USD	stated
Prepaid and terminated $200M Coinbase Credit facilityfinancing	2026-09-21	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Coinbase Credit secured term loan fully prepaid and terminatedfinancing	2026-09-21	-	200000000.0 USD	verified
Pledged bitcoin, USDC and cash collateral releasedfinancing	2026-09-21	-	-	stated
Repayment of USD 200M Coinbase secured credit facilityfinancing	2026-09-21	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Coinbase Credit facility prepaidfinancing	2026-09-21	-	200000000.0 USD	verified
Bitcoin pledged against Coinbase loan releasedfinancing	2026-09-21	-	5821.0 BTC	stated
Anthropic 191 MW AI data center leasefacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-18	-	191.0 MW	stated
AMD 25 MW data center leasefacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-18	-	25.0 MW	stated
Long-term contracted revenue from AI data center leasesfinancing	2026-09-18	-	9.8 billion USD	stated
Q2 2026 total revenuefinancing	2026-09-18	-	174.2 million USD	stated
Q2 2026 net lossfinancing	2026-09-18	-	237.2 million USD	stated
Trailing 12-month revenuefinancing	2026-09-18	-	647.4 million USD	stated
Cash and equivalents balancefinancing	2026-09-18	-	471.4 million USD	stated
Q2 2026 free cash flowfinancing	2026-09-18	-	176.1 million USD	stated
Bitcoin mining facility locationsfacility capacity	2026-09-18	-	-	stated
Bitcoin mining operationsproduct	2026-09-18	-	-	stated
Institutional mining hosting servicesproduct	2026-09-18	-	-	stated
Custom electrical productsproduct	2026-09-18	-	-	stated
AI data center partnership with Anthropicpartnership - Rockdale	2026-09-18	-	-	stated
Long-term contracted revenue from AI data centersguidance	2026-09-18	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
Rockdale 191 MW data center leasefacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-17	-	191.0 MW	stated
Rockdale data center contract valuefinancing - Rockdale	2026-09-17	-	9.1 billion USD	stated
Rockdale project financing commitmentfinancing - Rockdale	2026-09-17	-	573.0 million USD	stated
Rockdale AI data centerfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-17	-	9100.0 USD	stated
AMD data center leasecustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-17	-	-	stated
Rockdale data center financingfinancing - Rockdale	2026-09-17	-	573.0 USD	stated
Arcane Season 2 global successproduct	2026-09-17	-	-	stated
League of Legends MMO beta phase launchproduct	2026-09-17	-	-	stated
AI coach feature introductionproduct	2026-09-17	-	-	stated
Blockchain-based cosmetic ownership and cross-game item portabilityproduct	2026-09-17	-	-	stated
AMD data center partnership at Rockdalepartnership - Rockdale	2026-09-16	-	-	stated
Rockdale site acquisitionfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-16	-	96.0 million USD	stated
Data center business launchproduct	2026-09-16	-	-	stated
Anthropic data center capacity supply agreementpartnership - Rockdale	2026-09-16	2048-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
Anthropic data center - first phase deliveryfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-09-16	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Anthropic data center - full buildout completionfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-09-16	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
Anthropic site full deploymentfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-09-15	2028-06-30	-	stated
AMD lease capacitypartnership - Rockdale	2026-09-15	-	50.0 MW	stated
Total contracted data center revenuepartnership	2026-09-15	-	9.8 USD billions	stated
Q2 revenueguidance	2026-09-15	-	174.2 USD millions	stated
Q2 GAAP net lossguidance	2026-09-15	-	-237.0 USD millions	stated
Q2 diluted EPSguidance	2026-09-15	-	-0.68 USD per share	stated
Recurring operating lease revenueproduct	2026-09-15	-	4.9 USD millions	stated
Total contracted megawattsfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-15	-	241.0 MW	stated
Projected average annual revenue at full deploymentguidance	2026-09-15	2028-06-30	520.0 USD millions	stated
Engineering backlogproduct	2026-09-15	-	177.0 USD millions	stated
Morgan Stanley interim facilityfinancing	2026-09-15	-	573.0 USD millions	stated
AMD tranche debt expectationfinancing - Rockdale	2026-09-15	-	-	stated
Anthropic 20-year data center leasecustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-15	2028-06-30	9100.0 USD	stated
AMD data center lease expansioncustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-15	-	50.0 MW	stated
AMD project debt-to-equity ratiofinancing - Rockdale	2026-09-15	-	-	stated
AMD project financing closefinancing - Rockdale	2026-09-15	2026-09-30	-	outcome unconfirmed
BTC transfer to NYDIG Custodyfinancing	2026-09-14	-	-	stated
20-year data center lease contractcustomer - Rockdale	2026-09-13	-	9.1 billion USD	stated
Rockdale AI data center capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-13	-	191.0 MW	stated
Total contracted AI data-center capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-13	-	241.0 MW	stated
AMD deployment at Rockdalepartnership - Rockdale	2026-09-13	-	-	stated
20-year, 191 MW data center lease at Rockdale, Texasfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-13	-	191.0 MW	stated
$9.1 billion contracted revenue from Rockdale leasefinancing - Rockdale	2026-09-13	-	9.1 USD	stated
Tier 3 build-to-suit facility with phased deploymentfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-13	-	-	stated
Riot Notes Outstandingfinancing	2026-09-12	-	-	stated
Riot Q2 2026 Data-Center Revenueproduct	2026-09-12	-	-	stated
Riot AMD Capacity Deliverycustomer	2026-09-12	-	-	stated
Riot Frontier AI Lab Leasecustomer	2026-09-12	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
191-megawatt AI data center lease delivery to frontier AI labfacility timeline	2026-09-12	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
191 MW data center leasefacility capacity	2026-09-10	-	191.0 MW	stated
20-year AI data center leasepartnership	2026-09-10	-	191.0 MW	stated
Bitcoin sales Q1 2026financing	2026-09-05	-	3778.0 BTC	stated
Bitcoin sale proceeds Q1 2026financing	2026-09-05	-	289.5 USD	stated
Bitcoin production Q1 2026product	2026-09-05	-	1473.0 BTC	stated
Bitcoin holdings end Q1 2026financing	2026-09-05	-	15680.0 BTC	stated
Term loan facility for Rockdale data centerfinancing - Rockdale	2026-09-04	-	573.0 USD	stated
Rockdale lease capacity and termfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-01	-	191.0 MW	stated
Expected revenue from Rockdale leaseguidance	2026-09-01	-	9.1 USD billion	stated
Q2 liquidity and bitcoin holdingsfinancing	2026-09-01	-	1.2 USD billion	stated
Bitcoin pledged as collateralfinancing	2026-09-01	-	5821.0 BTC	stated
Q2 2026 revenueproduct	2026-09-01	-	174.2 USD million	stated
Rockdale data center term loanfinancing - Rockdale	2026-09-01	-	573.0 USD	stated
Rockdale data center capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-01	-	191.0 MW	stated
Rockdale campus 191 MW data center leasefacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-09-01	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
2029 revenue guidanceguidance	2026-09-01	2029-12-31	1200.0 USD	stated
2029 earnings guidanceguidance	2026-09-01	2029-12-31	148.2 USD	stated
Data center at Corsicanafacility timeline - Corsicana	2026-08-31	-	-	stated
Data center at Rockdalefacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-31	-	-	stated
191MW data center leasecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-31	-	9100.0 USD	stated
AMD expansion rights at Rockdalefacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-31	-	150.0 MW	stated
Corsicana 1GW campus LOIcustomer - Corsicana	2026-08-31	-	1000.0 USD	stated
Anthropic project financing structurefinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-31	-	-	stated
$180M term loan from AMD refinancingfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-31	-	180.0 USD	stated
$573M interim facility from Morgan Stanleyfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-31	-	573.0 USD	stated
Anthropic project capex requirementsfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-31	-	2150.0 USD	stated
Net operating income margin targetsguidance	2026-08-31	-	85.0 percent	stated
Morgan Stanley interim financing for Rockdale developmentfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-29	-	573.0 USD	stated
AMD data center lease at Rockdale (50 MW)customer - Rockdale	2026-08-29	-	50.0 MW	stated
Total leased data center capacity at Rockdale campusfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-29	-	241.0 MW	stated
Base-term contracted revenue from Anthropic and AMD leases combinedguidance	2026-08-29	-	9800.0 USD	stated
20-year lease for 191 MW data center capacity at Rockdalefacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-29	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
Net operating income guidance for Rockdale facilityguidance	2026-08-29	2048-06-30	7300000000.0 USD	stated
Bitcoin holdingsfinancing	2026-08-25	-	19000.0 BTC	stated
Cash balancefinancing	2026-08-25	-	330.0 USD	stated
Secured facility for Rockdale data centerfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-25	-	573.0 USD	stated
Bitcoin mining operationsfacility capacity	2026-08-25	-	-	stated
Available power capacityfacility capacity	2026-08-25	-	2.0 GW	stated
Contracted critical IT capacity at Rockdale campusfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-25	-	241.0 MW	stated
Long-term contracted revenue from Rockdale capacitycustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-25	-	9.8 USD billion	stated
Rockdale contracted capacity and revenuecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-25	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
Morgan Stanley interim financing for Rockdalefinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-24	-	573.0 USD	stated
Morgan Stanley facility maturity datefinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-24	2026-12-31	-	stated
20-year data center lease at Rockdale with AI labpartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-24	-	191.0 MW	stated
First phase Rockdale capacity deliveryfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-24	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Second phase Rockdale capacity deliveryfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-24	2028-06-30	95.0 MW	stated
20-year lease revenue projectionguidance	2026-08-24	2048-06-30	9100.0 USD	stated
Lease value with potential five-year extensionsguidance	2026-08-24	-	16100.0 USD	stated
Rockdale project estimated costguidance	2026-08-24	-	-	stated
Expected debt financing for Rockdale projectguidance	2026-08-24	-	-	stated
Morgan Stanley facility borrowing ratefinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-24	-	-	stated
Morgan Stanley delayed-draw facility for Rockdale data centerfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-24	2026-12-31	573000000.0 USD	stated
Anthropic 20-year lease at Rockdale for 191 MWcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-24	2048-06-30	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Rockdale data center capacity delivery schedulefacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-24	2028-06-30	-	stated
Coinbase $200M loan with BTC collateralfinancing	2026-08-22	-	200.0 USD	stated
Additional BTC pledged February 2026financing	2026-08-22	-	1825.0 BTC	stated
April refinancing BTC releasefinancing	2026-08-22	-	1544.0 BTC	stated
Pledged BTC balance June 30 2026financing	2026-08-22	-	5821.0 BTC	stated
Total BTC holdings June 30 2026financing	2026-08-22	-	11380.0 BTC	stated
Q2 2026 mining revenueproduct	2026-08-22	-	113.7 USD	stated
Q2 2026 data center revenueproduct	2026-08-22	-	23.2 USD	stated
191 MW facility lease for AI customerfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-22	-	191.0 MW	stated
Equipment financing facility $573Mfinancing	2026-08-22	-	573.0 USD	stated
$200M credit facility with Coinbasefinancing	2026-08-22	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Initial BTC collateral pledge to Coinbasefinancing	2026-08-22	-	3977.0 BTC	stated
Additional BTC collateral deposit to Coinbasefinancing	2026-08-22	-	1825.0 BTC	stated
Coinbase credit facilityfinancing	2026-08-22	-	200.0 USD	stated
Additional collateral depositfinancing	2026-08-22	-	1825.0 BTC	stated
Total pledged collateralfinancing	2026-08-22	-	5800.0 BTC	stated
$200M loan with Coinbasefinancing	2026-08-22	-	200.0 USD	stated
Initial BTC collateral at start of 2026financing	2026-08-22	-	3977.0 BTC	stated
Additional BTC collateral added in Februaryfinancing	2026-08-22	-	1825.0 BTC	stated
BTC collateral released in April refinancingfinancing	2026-08-22	-	1544.0 BTC	stated
BTC collateral balance as of June 30, 2026financing	2026-08-22	-	5821.0 BTC	stated
Potential BTC collateral recoveryfinancing	2026-08-22	-	-	stated
AMD capacity expansion at Rockdale data centerfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-22	-	50.0 MW	stated
20-year AI data center lease - 191 MWfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-22	-	191.0 MW	stated
$573M credit facilityfinancing	2026-08-21	-	573.0 USD	stated
Rockdale data center capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-21	-	191.0 MW	stated
Anthropic 20-year data center capacity agreementpartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-21	-	191.0 MW	stated
Anthropic first phase deployment (96 MW)facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-21	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Anthropic full deployment (191 MW)facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-21	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
Anthropic agreement revenue projection (base case)guidance	2026-08-21	-	9.1 USD	stated
Anthropic agreement revenue projection (with extensions)guidance	2026-08-21	-	16.1 USD	stated
Anthropic agreement NOI projection (total)guidance	2026-08-21	-	-	stated
AMD first 25 MW deployment completionfacility capacity	2026-08-21	-	25.0 MW	stated
AMD data center capacity expansion to 50 MWcustomer	2026-08-21	-	50.0 MW	stated
AMD 10 MW phase deploymentfacility timeline	2026-08-21	2026-11-30	10.0 MW	stated
AMD 15 MW phase deploymentfacility timeline	2026-08-21	2027-05-31	15.0 MW	stated
Morgan Stanley interim financing facilityfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-21	-	573.0 USD	stated
Terrestrial Energy MOU for small nuclear reactorspartnership	2026-08-21	-	-	stated
Terrestrial Energy nuclear capacity planfacility capacity	2026-08-21	-	-	stated
Bitcoin sales in first half 2026financing	2026-08-21	-	730000000.0 USD	stated
Q1 2026 Bitcoin salesfinancing	2026-08-21	-	289500000.0 USD	stated
Bitcoin holdings at end of Q1 2026financing	2026-08-21	-	15679.0 BTC	stated
Q1 2026 data-center revenueproduct	2026-08-21	-	33200000.0 USD	stated
AMD contracted capacitycustomer	2026-08-21	-	50.0 MW	stated
Anthropic project first phase deliveryfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-21	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Anthropic project full capacity deliveryfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-21	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
Anthropic deal revenue projectionguidance	2026-08-21	-	9.1 billion USD	stated
Anthropic deal net operating income projectionguidance	2026-08-21	-	7.3 billion USD	stated
AMD expanded data center capacitycustomer	2026-08-21	-	50.0 MW	stated
AMD 10 MW phase deliveryfacility timeline	2026-08-21	2026-11-30	10.0 MW	stated
AMD 15 MW phase deliveryfacility timeline	2026-08-21	2027-05-31	15.0 MW	stated
Terrestrial Energy memorandum of understandingpartnership	2026-08-21	-	4.0 GW	stated
Anthropic first phase delivery (96 MW by December 2027)facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-21	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Anthropic full delivery (191 MW by June 2028)facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-21	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
Anthropic contract expected net operating incomeguidance	2026-08-21	-	7300.0 USD	stated
AMD 10 MW phase delivery (November 2026)facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-21	2026-11-30	10.0 MW	stated
Memorandum of understanding with Terrestrial Energy for nuclear power explorationpartnership	2026-08-21	-	4.0 GW	stated
Anthropic data center power supply agreementcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-21	-	191.0 MW	stated
Anthropic capacity delivery milestonesfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-21	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
Expected annual net operating income from Anthropic contractguidance	2026-08-21	-	388.0 USD	stated
AMD capacity delivery schedulefacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-21	2027-05-31	25.0 MW	stated
$573 million credit facility for data center expansionfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-21	-	573.0 USD	stated
191 MW Rockdale data centerfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-21	-	191.0 MW	stated
Contracted data-center capacity with AMDfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-21	-	50.0 MW	stated
Anthropic AI data center partnershippartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-20	-	9.1 billion USD	stated
20-year colocation agreement durationfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-20	-	20.0 years	stated
Data center annual recurring revenuefacility capacity	2026-08-20	-	457.0 million USD	stated
Data center projected annual net operating incomefacility capacity	2026-08-20	-	365.0 million USD	stated
Morgan Stanley interim financing securedfinancing	2026-08-20	-	573.0 million USD	stated
Data center capital expenditure requiredfacility capacity	2026-08-20	-	2.1 billion USD	stated
Additional secured financing requiredfinancing	2026-08-20	-	3.7 billion USD	stated
Bitcoin holdings as of June 30, 2026product	2026-08-20	-	11380.0 BTC	stated
Peak Bitcoin holdingsproduct	2026-08-20	-	19368.0 BTC	stated
Bitcoin mining revenue decline in Q2 2026product	2026-08-20	-	19.0 percent	stated
Anthropic 20-year data center leasecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-20	-	9.1 USD	stated
Anthropic lease extension optioncustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-20	-	16.1 USD	stated
Anthropic data center colocation contractcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-20	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Morgan Stanley interim financing facilityfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-20	-	573000000.0 USD	stated
Anthropic 191 MW data center leasecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-20	2028-06-30	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Anthropic 20-year power supply agreementcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-20	-	191.0 MW	stated
$9.8B in long-term contracted revenueguidance	2026-08-20	-	9.8 USD	stated
Rockdale Expansion Loanfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-20	2026-12-31	573.0 USD	stated
Rockdale Data Center Build-outfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-20	-	191.0 MW	stated
AMD Lease at Rockdalecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-20	-	25.0 MW	stated
$9 billion compute deal with Anthropicpartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-20	-	9000000000.0 USD	stated
Major loan for data center expansionfinancing	2026-08-20	-	-	stated
Major long-term AI data center leasefacility timeline	2026-08-20	-	-	stated
191MW Rockdale lease with frontier AI labfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-20	-	191.0 MW	stated
Rockdale initial deployment (96MW)facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-20	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Rockdale full deployment (191MW)facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-20	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
AMD deployment (10MW)facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-20	2026-11-30	10.0 MW	stated
AMD deployment (15MW)facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-20	2027-05-31	15.0 MW	stated
Morgan Stanley interim financing facilityfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-20	-	573.0 USD	stated
Frontier AI lab data center lease at Rockdale campusfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-19	2048-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
AI lab lease initial contract revenuefinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-19	-	9.1 billion USD	stated
AI lab lease potential value with extensionsfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-19	-	16.1 billion USD	stated
Initial AI data center deployment at Rockdalefacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-19	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Full AI data center deployment at Rockdalefacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-19	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
AMD data center lease at Rockdale campuscustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-19	-	-	stated
Total contracted capacity at Rockdale campusfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-19	-	241.0 MW	stated
Total contracted revenue from Rockdale leasesfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-19	-	9.8 billion USD	stated
AMD Phase 2 completionfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-19	-	25.0 MW	stated
AMD Phase 3 scheduled deliveryfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-19	2026-11-30	10.0 MW	stated
AMD Phase 4 scheduled deliveryfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-19	2027-05-31	15.0 MW	stated
Combined contracted data center revenueguidance	2026-08-19	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
Q2 2026 Bitcoin salesfinancing	2026-08-19	-	4300.0 BTC	stated
Bitcoin holdings start of Q2 2026financing	2026-08-19	-	15680.0 BTC	stated
Bitcoin holdings June 30, 2026financing	2026-08-19	-	11380.0 BTC	stated
Pledged Bitcoin collateralfinancing	2026-08-19	-	5821.0 BTC	stated
Q1 2026 Bitcoin sales proceedsfinancing	2026-08-19	-	289.5 USD	stated
H1 2026 Bitcoin salesfinancing	2026-08-19	-	9665.0 BTC	stated
Cash on handfinancing	2026-08-19	-	548.9 USD	stated
Restricted cashfinancing	2026-08-19	-	77.5 USD	stated
Total liquid assetsfinancing	2026-08-19	-	1.2 USD	stated
Q2 2026 Bitcoin mining productionproduct	2026-08-19	-	1587.0 BTC	stated
Q2 2026 average mining cost per coinproduct	2026-08-19	-	49912.0 USD	stated
Q2 2026 quarterly revenueproduct	2026-08-19	-	174.2 USD	stated
Q2 2026 year-over-year revenue growthproduct	2026-08-19	-	14.0 percent	stated
Q1 2026 deployed hashratefacility capacity	2026-08-19	-	42.5 EH/s	stated
Year-over-year hashrate growthfacility capacity	2026-08-19	-	26.0 percent	stated
Anthropic data center leasepartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-19	-	191.0 MW	stated
Anthropic lease revenue projectionguidance	2026-08-19	2048-12-31	9.1 USD	stated
20-year, 191-megawatt data center lease with Anthropicpartnership	2026-08-19	2048-12-31	9100000000.0 USD	stated
20-year AI data center lease at Rockdalecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-19	2048-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
$9.1B expected revenue from AI data center leaseguidance	2026-08-19	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Initial 96 MW deployment by December 2027facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-19	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Full 191 MW deployment by June 2028facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-19	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
$16.1B potential value with lease extension optionsguidance	2026-08-19	-	16100000000.0 USD	stated
Anthropic compute agreementcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-19	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
AMD lease Phase 3 deploymentfacility timeline	2026-08-19	2026-11-30	10.0 MW	stated
AMD lease Phase 4 deploymentfacility timeline	2026-08-19	2027-05-31	15.0 MW	stated
Compliance with Texas data center standardsregulatory	2026-08-19	-	-	stated
Investments in other companiespartnership	2026-08-18	-	-	stated
Bitcoin Mining segment strategyproduct	2026-08-18	-	-	stated
Engineering segment products and capabilitiesproduct	2026-08-18	-	-	stated
Q2 2026 Bitcoin salesfinancing	2026-08-18	-	4300.0 BTC	stated
H1 2026 total Bitcoin salesfinancing	2026-08-18	-	9665.0 BTC	stated
Bitcoin treasury (Q1 end 2026)financing	2026-08-18	-	15680.0 BTC	stated
Bitcoin treasury (Q2 end 2026)financing	2026-08-18	-	11380.0 BTC	stated
Bitcoin pledged as collateralfinancing	2026-08-18	-	5821.0 BTC	stated
Q1 2026 Bitcoin sales proceedsfinancing	2026-08-18	-	289.5 USD	stated
Q2 2026 Bitcoin productionproduct	2026-08-18	-	1587.0 BTC	stated
Q2 2026 quarterly revenuefinancing	2026-08-18	-	174.2 USD	stated
Cash on hand (Q2 2026)financing	2026-08-18	-	548.9 USD	stated
Total liquid assets (Q2 2026)financing	2026-08-18	-	1.2 USD	stated
Deployed hashrate (Q1 2026)facility capacity	2026-08-18	-	42.5 EH/s	stated
Anthropic computing capacity leasecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-18	-	191.0 MW	stated
Anthropic lease revenue projectionguidance	2026-08-18	2048-12-31	9.1 USD	stated
Anthropic data center lease agreementcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-18	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Q2 2026 total revenuefinancing	2026-08-18	-	174200000.0 USD	stated
Q2 2026 data center operations revenuefinancing	2026-08-18	-	23200000.0 USD	stated
Available power capacityfacility capacity	2026-08-18	-	2.0 GW	stated
Contracted critical IT capacity at Rockdale campusfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-18	-	241.0 MW	stated
Long-term contracted revenue from Rockdaleguidance	2026-08-18	-	9.8 billion USD	stated
Compliance with Texas data center standardsregulatory	2026-08-18	-	-	stated
191-megawatt data center lease with Anthropicpartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-18	-	9.1 USD	stated
Anthropic lease revenue projectionguidance	2026-08-18	2048-12-31	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Riot Platforms commits to comply with Governor Abbott's data center standardsregulatory	2026-08-18	-	-	stated
191 MW compute supply to Anthropiccustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-18	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
241 MW total executed leasescustomer	2026-08-18	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
Rockdale contracted critical IT capacity and long-term revenuecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-18	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
Contracted IT capacity at Rockdale campuscustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-18	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
AMD lease execution progressfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-18	-	-	stated
$9.1 billion compute supply agreement with Anthropiccustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-18	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Two 5-year extension options with Anthropic for additional revenuecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-18	-	7000000000.0 USD	stated
191 MW compute capacity for Anthropicfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-18	-	191.0 MW	stated
Compute capacity lease to Advanced Micro Devicescustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-18	-	25.0 MW	stated
Approved compute capacityfacility capacity	2026-08-18	-	1.7 GW	stated
Terrestrial Energy molten salt nuclear partnershippartnership	2026-08-17	-	-	stated
Target nuclear power capacityfacility capacity	2026-08-17	-	4.0 GW	stated
Nuclear data center deployment timelinefacility timeline	2026-08-17	-	-	stated
IMSR reactor specificationsproduct	2026-08-17	-	-	stated
Riot's operational role in partnershippartnership	2026-08-17	-	-	stated
Exploring facility sitespartnership	2026-08-17	-	-	stated
Current Bitcoin holdingsfinancing	2026-08-17	-	-	stated
Bitcoin sales in Q1 2026financing	2026-08-17	-	-	stated
Bitcoin holdings restricted as collateralfinancing	2026-08-17	-	-	stated
20-year data centre lease at Rockdale, Texaspartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-17	2048-06-30	-	stated
Rockdale data centre capacity under contractfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-17	-	191.0 MW	stated
Data centre deal revenue projection through June 2048guidance	2026-08-17	2048-06-30	9.1 billion USD	stated
Data centre deal potential value with extension optionsguidance	2026-08-17	-	16.1 billion USD	stated
AMD - 10-year $311M lease (25 MW initial)partnership - Rockdale	2026-08-17	-	311.0 M USD	stated
AMD - $1B potential with 200 MW capacitypartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-17	-	1000.0 M USD	stated
AMD - 50 MW contracted after first expansionfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-17	-	50.0 MW	stated
Rockdale - 241 MW under signed leasesfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-17	-	241.0 MW	stated
Rockdale - 700 MW existing power capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-17	-	700.0 MW	stated
Q1 2026 total revenueproduct	2026-08-17	-	167.2 M USD	stated
Q1 2026 data center revenueproduct	2026-08-17	-	33.2 M USD	stated
Q2 2026 total revenueproduct	2026-08-17	-	174.2 M USD	stated
Q2 2026 data center revenueproduct	2026-08-17	-	23.2 M USD	stated
Q1 2026 Bitcoin productionproduct	2026-08-17	-	1473.0 BTC	stated
Q1 2026 Bitcoin mining revenueproduct	2026-08-17	-	111.9 M USD	stated
Q1 2026 Bitcoin soldproduct	2026-08-17	-	3778.0 BTC	stated
Q1 2026 average mining cost per BTCproduct	2026-08-17	-	44629.0 USD	stated
Anthropic computing partnershippartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-17	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Terrestrial Energy partnership for nuclear-powered data centerspartnership	2026-08-17	-	-	stated
Nuclear data center deployment timelinefacility timeline	2026-08-17	2030-01-01	-	stated
Nuclear data center site explorationfacility timeline	2026-08-17	-	-	stated
Senior secured delayed draw term loan facility for Riot DC Logisticsfinancing	2026-08-17	-	573.0 USD	stated
191 MW data center expansion at Rockdalefacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-17	-	191.0 MW	stated
20-year data center contract with frontier AI customercustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-17	-	191.0 MW	stated
96 MW first phase delivery to frontier AI customerfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-17	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
95 MW second phase delivery to frontier AI customerfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-17	2028-06-30	95.0 MW	stated
Rockdale campus full capacity conversion for data center customersfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-17	-	-	stated
Anthropic data center lease agreementpartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-17	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
$9.1B data center capacity supply agreement through 2048customer - Rockdale	2026-08-17	2048-06-30	9.1 USD	stated
Optional extension of AI data center contract to $16.1Bcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-17	-	16.1 USD	stated
191 MW data centre capacity at Rockdale, Texasfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-17	2048-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
$9.1 billion revenue from 20-year data centre leasepartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-17	2048-06-30	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Potential $16.1 billion deal value with two 5-year extension optionspartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-17	2058-06-30	16100000000.0 USD	stated
Anthropic AI compute services dealpartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-16	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
AMD compute capacity leasepartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-16	-	25.0 MW	stated
Q2 2026 data center division revenueguidance	2026-08-16	-	23000000.0 USD	stated
Q2 2026 total company revenueguidance	2026-08-16	-	174000000.0 USD	stated
Fully approved compute capacityfacility capacity	2026-08-16	-	1.7 GW	stated
Anthropic AI compute contractpartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-16	-	9000000000.0 USD	stated
Rockdale facility capacity for Anthropicfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-16	-	191.0 MW	stated
Rockdale contracted data-center revenuefinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-16	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
$9B AI compute deal with Anthropicpartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-16	-	9000000000.0 USD	stated
Anthropic compute services dealcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-16	-	9.0 USD	stated
Anthropic AI compute agreementcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-16	-	9000000000.0 USD	stated
Anthropic compute capacity agreementcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-16	-	9.1 USD	stated
AMD compute capacity agreementcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-16	-	25.0 MW	stated
$9.1B Anthropic AI compute agreementpartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-16	2046-08-16	9100.0 USD	stated
Anthropic compute capacity agreementcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-16	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Total approved compute capacityfacility capacity	2026-08-16	-	1700.0 MW	stated
AMD data-center agreement at Rockdalepartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-16	-	-	stated
Data center expansion loanfinancing	2026-08-15	-	-	stated
AMD capacity coming online in Q2facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-15	2026-06-30	-	outcome unconfirmed
Corsicana campus AI and hyperscaler supportfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-08-15	-	-	stated
Long-duration AI data center leasescustomer	2026-08-15	-	-	stated
20-year power supply agreement with Anthropic for 191 MW worth $9Bpartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-15	-	9000000000.0 USD	stated
Bitcoin sale to fund AI data center expansionfinancing	2026-08-14	-	-	stated
20-year power supply agreement with Anthropiccustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-14	-	9.1 USD	stated
20-year, 191-megawatt data center lease with major AI developercustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-14	2046-08-14	9100.0 USD	stated
Morgan Stanley $573M term loan for Rockdale data centerfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-14	-	573.0 USD million	stated
Rockdale data center 191 MW capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-14	-	191.0 MW	stated
$573M financing for 191 MW Rockdale data centerfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-14	-	573000000.0 USD	stated
Rockdale data center delayed draw term loanfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-14	-	573000000.0 USD	stated
$573M credit facility for data center equipment and project expensesfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-13	-	573.0 USD	stated
191 MW critical IT data center at Rockdale Facilityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-13	-	191.0 MW	stated
Bitcoin sale for AI data center expansionfinancing	2026-08-13	-	4300.0 BTC	stated
Q2 mining revenue declineproduct	2026-08-13	-	19.3 percent	stated
Cost to mine one Bitcoinproduct	2026-08-13	-	49912.0 USD	stated
Q2 mining revenueproduct	2026-08-13	-	113.7 USD millions	stated
Liquid assetsfinancing	2026-08-13	-	1.2 USD billions	stated
Cash balancefinancing	2026-08-13	-	548.9 USD millions	stated
Bitcoin holdingsfinancing	2026-08-13	-	11380.0 BTC	stated
AMD AI capacity deliveredfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-13	-	-	stated
20-year AI lab lease agreementpartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-13	-	9.1 USD billions	stated
Anthropic 20-year data center lease, Rockdalepartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-13	2048-06-30	9.1 USD	stated
Anthropic data center initial 96 MW deploymentfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-13	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Anthropic data center full 191 MW deploymentfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-13	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
AMD contracted capacity expansionpartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-13	-	50.0 MW	stated
Rockdale campus total power capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-13	-	700.0 MW	stated
Corsicana campus total power capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-08-13	-	1000.0 MW	stated
Corsicana LOI for 756 MW IT capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-08-13	-	756.0 MW	stated
Morgan Stanley interim financing facilityfinancing	2026-08-13	-	573.0 USD	stated
Term loan on AMD facility cash flowsfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-13	-	180.0 USD	stated
Anthropic lease average annual revenueguidance	2026-08-13	-	457.0 USD	stated
Anthropic CapEx estimate (low)guidance	2026-08-13	2028-06-30	2.1 USD	stated
Anthropic CapEx estimate (high)guidance	2026-08-13	2028-06-30	2.3 USD	stated
Anthropic cumulative NOI (low)guidance	2026-08-13	2048-06-30	7.3 USD	stated
Anthropic cumulative NOI (high)guidance	2026-08-13	2048-06-30	8.2 USD	stated
Anthropic lease potential value with extensionsguidance	2026-08-13	2058-06-30	16.1 USD	stated
Major data center expansion loanfinancing	2026-08-13	-	-	stated
Kentucky mining facility expansionfacility capacity - Kentucky Facility	2026-08-13	-	-	stated
AI data center business growthfacility capacity	2026-08-13	-	-	stated
20-year Anthropic data center lease at Rockdalepartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-13	2048-06-30	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Corsicana non-binding Letter of Intent for 1 GWpartnership - Corsicana	2026-08-13	-	1000.0 MW	stated
Estimated capital expenditure for Anthropic facilityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-13	-	2100000000.0 USD	stated
Long-term project debt targeting for gigawatt-scale developmentfinancing	2026-08-13	-	1700000000.0 USD	stated
20-year lease with Anthropicpartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-13	-	-	stated
Long-term customer contracts for AI computing capacitycustomer	2026-08-13	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
20-year agreement to lease AI laboratory facilitiespartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-13	-	9.1 USD	stated
Anthropic long-term compute power contractcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-13	-	9.1 USD	stated
Anthropic data center capacity leasecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-13	-	9100.0 USD	stated
Morgan Stanley interim financingfinancing	2026-08-12	-	573.0 USD millions	stated
Rockdale campus leased capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-12	-	191.0 MW	stated
Rockdale first phase deliveryfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-12	-	96.0 MW	stated
Rockdale full capacity deliveryfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-12	-	191.0 MW	stated
Frontier AI lab 20-year lease revenuecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-12	-	9100.0 USD millions	stated
Extended lease potential cumulative revenueguidance	2026-08-12	-	16100.0 USD millions	stated
Rockdale facility NOI projectionsguidance	2026-08-12	-	-	stated
Rockdale infrastructure tier specificationfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-12	-	-	stated
Total AI company leased capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-12	-	241.0 MW	stated
Total contracted revenue from two AI companiescustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-12	-	9800.0 USD millions	stated
AMD data center deploymentcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-12	-	-	stated
Q2 2026 data center segment revenuecustomer	2026-08-12	-	23.2 USD millions	stated
20-year lease at Rockdale with frontier AI labcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-12	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Rockdale data center capacity delivery schedulefacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-12	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
Rockdale lease extension options potentialcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-12	-	16100000000.0 USD	stated
Rockdale lease NOI projectionguidance	2026-08-12	-	8200000000.0 USD	stated
Total contracted capacity with two AI companiescustomer	2026-08-12	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
Anthropic 20-year compute agreementpartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-11	-	9000000000.0 USD	stated
Anthropic agreement revenue generationguidance	2026-08-11	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Long-term AI data center leasefacility timeline	2026-08-11	-	-	stated
Rockdale 20-year $9.1B AI colocation deal (reportedly Anthropic)customer - Rockdale	2026-08-11	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Rockdale AI data center capacity under contractfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-11	-	191.0 MW	stated
Rockdale phase 1 delivery: 96 IT MWfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-11	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Rockdale phase 2 delivery: 95 IT MWfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-11	2028-06-30	95.0 MW	stated
Corsicana 1 GW non-binding LOI with single tenantcustomer - Corsicana	2026-08-11	-	1000.0 MW	stated
20-year AI data-center lease at Rockdalecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	9.1 USD	stated
Q2 2026 quarterly revenueguidance	2026-08-10	-	174.2 USD	stated
Q2 2026 data-center revenueguidance	2026-08-10	-	23.2 USD	verified
Completed initial 25 MW delivery for AMDfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	25.0 MW	stated
Second 25 MW AMD expansion under constructionfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	25.0 MW	stated
AMD lease expected revenuefinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	311.0 USD	stated
Q2 2026 total revenuefinancing	2026-08-10	-	174.2 Million USD	verified
Q2 2026 liquid assetsfinancing	2026-08-10	-	1.2 Billion USD	stated
20-year Anthropic lease at Rockdale, Texaspartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	191.0 MW	stated
Total contracted capacity from Anthropic and AMDfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	241.0 MW	stated
Long-term contracted revenue from Anthropic and AMDfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	9.8 Billion USD	stated
Anthropic - 191 MW data center lease (20-year)customer - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	-	stated
Anthropic - First 96 MW deliveryfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-10	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Anthropic - Second 95 MW deliveryfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-10	2028-06-30	95.0 MW	stated
Anthropic - $9.1B base term revenue projectionfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-10	2048-06-30	9100.0 M USD	stated
Anthropic - $7.3-8.2B NOI projectionguidance	2026-08-10	2048-06-30	-	stated
Anthropic - $16.1B with extension optionsfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	16100.0 M USD	stated
$573M term loan for Anthropic projectfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	573.0 M USD	stated
Anthropic data center lease at Rockdale (20-year, 191 MW)customer - Rockdale	2026-08-10	2048-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
Anthropic lease delivery schedule at Rockdalefacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-10	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Expected contract revenue from Anthropic lease through 2048guidance	2026-08-10	2048-06-30	9100.0 USD	stated
Estimated cumulative net operating income from Anthropic leaseguidance	2026-08-10	2048-06-30	7300.0 USD	stated
Potential revenue if Anthropic exercises two 5-year lease extensionsguidance	2026-08-10	-	16100.0 USD	stated
Anthropic power lease agreementcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	191.0 MW	stated
Anthropic 20-year data center contract at Rockdalecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-10	2028-06-30	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Frontier AI lab 20-year data-center lease at Rockdalecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
AMD data-center expansion second 25 MW under constructionfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	311000000.0 USD	stated
Anthropic 191 MW lease at Rockdale, Texaspartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	191.0 MW	stated
Anthropic lease 20-year revenuepartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	9.1 USD billions	stated
Anthropic lease with extension options revenuepartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	16.1 USD billions	stated
Anthropic 20-year data center agreementpartnership - Rockdale	2026-08-10	2048-06-30	9.1 billion USD	stated
Total signed data center capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	241.0 MW	stated
Anthropic capacity deployment phase 1facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-10	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Anthropic capacity deployment completionfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-10	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
Morgan Stanley interim financing facilityfinancing	2026-08-10	-	573.0 million USD	verified
Q2 2026 revenue by segmentproduct	2026-08-10	-	-	stated
Q2 2026 net lossproduct	2026-08-10	-	237.2 million USD	stated
AI lab 20-year data center lease for 191 MWcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	9.1 USD billion	stated
Total contracted data center capacity and revenuecustomer	2026-08-10	-	9.8 USD billion	stated
20-year data center lease with AI lab, $9.1B contract revenuecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
20-year 191 MW Rockdale lease with frontier AI labcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Rockdale campus 191 MW leased capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-10	-	191.0 MW	stated
191 MW data center lease with frontier AI labcustomer	2026-08-10	-	191.0 MW	stated
USD 9.8B contracted data center revenue for 2026guidance	2026-08-10	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
Contracted data center revenuecustomer	2026-08-10	-	9800000000.0 USD	stated
20-year AI lab data center leasecustomer	2026-08-10	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Morgan Stanley $573M delayed-draw bridge facilityfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-10	2026-12-31	573000000.0 USD	stated
Takeout financing of Morgan Stanley bridgefinancing	2026-08-10	2026-12-31	-	stated
Capex ramp and peak timingguidance	2026-08-10	2027-09-30	-	stated
~$180M AMD term loan expected to close by Q3 endfinancing	2026-08-10	2026-09-30	180000000.0 USD	outcome unconfirmed
AMD first 25 MW leasedcustomer	2026-08-10	-	25.0 MW	stated
Morgan Stanley delayed-draw bridge facility for Rockdale AI labfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-10	2026-12-31	573000000.0 USD	stated
Capex ramp and peak timingguidance	2026-08-10	-	-	stated
AMD project term loan expected close by end of Q3 2026financing - Rockdale	2026-08-10	2026-09-30	180000000.0 USD	delayed
20-year frontier AI lab data center lease at Rockdalecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-09	2048-06-30	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Frontier AI lab lease extension options potential valuecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-09	-	16100000000.0 USD	stated
Frontier AI lab critical IT capacity at Rockdalefacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-09	-	191.0 MW	stated
AMD Phase 3 deployment at Rockdalefacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-09	2026-11-30	10.0 MW	stated
AMD Phase 4 deployment bringing total AMD capacity to 50 MWfacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-09	2027-05-31	15.0 MW	stated
Frontier AI lab Phase 1 deployment at Rockdalefacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-09	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Frontier AI lab full 191 MW deployment at Rockdalefacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-09	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
Frontier AI lab estimated cumulative NOI contributionguidance	2026-08-09	2048-06-30	7300000000.0 USD	stated
Frontier AI lab estimated average annual NOI contributionguidance	2026-08-09	-	365000000.0 USD	stated
Morgan Stanley interim financing for frontier AI lab developmentfinancing - Rockdale	2026-08-09	-	573000000.0 USD	stated
Total contracted AI data center capacity with AMD and frontier AI labfacility capacity	2026-08-09	-	241.0 MW	stated
Leading Frontier AI Lab Data Center Lease - 191 MWcustomer	2026-08-09	2028-06-30	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Leading Frontier AI Lab Phase 1 - 96 MW Deploymentfacility timeline	2026-08-09	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Leading Frontier AI Lab Phase 2 - 95 MW Deploymentfacility timeline	2026-08-09	2028-06-30	95.0 MW	stated
AMD Data Center Lease Expansion - 25 MWcustomer	2026-08-09	2027-05-31	25.0 MW	stated
Morgan Stanley Interim Financing Facilityfinancing	2026-08-09	-	573000000.0 USD	stated
Expected Term Loan for Initial 25 MW AMD Deploymentfinancing	2026-08-09	-	180000000.0 USD	stated
Delayed Draw Term Loan for Second 25 MW AMD Deploymentfinancing	2026-08-09	-	69000000.0 USD	stated
Corsicana Campus Development LOIfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-08-09	-	1300.0 MW	stated
Data Center NOI Margin Guidanceguidance	2026-08-09	-	-	stated
Leading Frontier AI Lab Expected Capexguidance	2026-08-09	-	2100000000.0 USD	stated
20-year AI data center contract for 191 MWcustomer	2026-08-01	-	191.0 MW	stated
20-year 191 MW lease with frontier AI customer at Rockdalecustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-01	-	191.0 MW	stated
BTC pledged as collateral at June 30financing	2026-08-01	-	5821.0 BTC	stated
Cash position at Q2 2026financing	2026-08-01	-	548900000.0 USD	stated
Q2 2026 revenueguidance	2026-08-01	-	174200000.0 USD	stated
Q2 2026 BTC productionfacility capacity	2026-08-01	-	1587.0 BTC	verified
20-year 191 MW Rockdale lease with frontier AI company (reportedly Anthropic)customer - Rockdale	2026-08-01	-	9100000000.0 USD	stated
Rockdale AI lease capacity 191 MWfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-08-01	-	191.0 MW	stated
Rockdale initial 96 MW delivery Dec 2027facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-01	2027-12-31	96.0 MW	stated
Rockdale full 191 MW deployment June 2028facility timeline - Rockdale	2026-08-01	2028-06-30	191.0 MW	stated
Rockdale lease extensions up to ~$16.1Bcustomer - Rockdale	2026-08-01	-	16100000000.0 USD	stated
Q2 2026 revenue $174.2M, up 14%guidance	2026-08-01	-	174200000.0 USD	stated
5,821 BTC pledged as of June 30, 2026financing	2026-06-30	-	5821.0 BTC	stated
Q2 2026 BTC holdings 11,380, 5,821 pledgedfinancing	2026-06-30	-	11380.0 BTC	stated
Cash of $548.9M at Q2 2026financing	2026-06-30	-	548900000.0 USD	stated
Bitcoin pledged against Coinbase loan at June 30financing	2026-06-30	-	5821.0 BTC	stated
Equity incentive plan expansionpersonnel	2026-06-15	-	15.0 million shares	stated
Class II director electionspersonnel	2026-06-15	-	-	stated
GRC patent infringement suit over immersion coolingother	2026-06-03	-	-	stated
Alleged ongoing use of patented technologyother	2026-06-03	-	-	stated
Corsicana Facility 400 MW immersion-cooledfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-06-03	-	400.0 MW	stated
Rockdale Facility 700 MW, 200 MW immersionfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-06-03	-	700.0 MW	stated
Corsicana substation energized April 2024facility timeline - Corsicana	2026-06-03	-	400.0 MW	stated
Midas immersion cooling purchasescustomer - Corsicana	2026-06-03	-	31200000.0 USD	stated
Deployed hash rate 38.5 EH/s at end of 2025facility capacity	2026-06-03	-	38.5	stated
Dependence on immersion coolingproduct	2026-06-03	-	-	stated
FY2025 Bitcoin Mining revenueother	2026-06-03	-	576300000.0 USD	stated
FY2023 total revenueother	2026-06-03	-	281000000.0 USD	stated
AMD contracted capacity at Rockdalepartnership - Rockdale	2026-05-01	-	50.0 MW	stated
Data center segment revenue Q1 2026financing	2026-05-01	-	33.2 USD	stated
Adjusted loss per share Q1 2026financing	2026-05-01	-	1.88 USD	stated
Total revenue Q1 2026financing	2026-05-01	-	167.2 USD	stated
Bitcoin mining revenue Q1 2026financing	2026-05-01	-	111.9 USD	stated
Bitcoin mined Q1 2026product	2026-05-01	-	1473.0 BTC	stated
Average Bitcoin mining cost Q1 2026product	2026-05-01	-	44629.0 USD	stated
Bitcoin holdings end of Q1 2026financing	2026-05-01	-	15679.0 BTC	stated
Cash holdings end of Q1 2026financing	2026-05-01	-	282.5 USD	stated
Q1 2026 revenue $167.2M with data center business contributing $33.2Mproduct	2026-05-01	-	167200000.0 USD	stated
Q1 2026 revenueguidance	2026-05-01	-	167200000.0 USD	stated
Q1 2026 BTC salesfinancing	2026-05-01	-	3778.0 BTC	stated
First quarter of data center revenueproduct	2026-05-01	-	33200000.0 USD	stated
AMD expands contracted capacity to 50 MWcustomer	2026-05-01	-	50.0 MW	verified
Coinbase facility fully drawn at Q1 2026financing	2026-05-01	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Q1 2026 revenue $167.2Mguidance	2026-05-01	-	167200000.0 USD	stated
Q1 2026 BTC production 1,473; sold 3,778 BTCproduct	2026-05-01	-	1473.0 BTC	stated
AMD 50 MW total contracted capacitycustomer	2026-04-30	-	50.0 MW	stated
Second amended credit agreement: maturity extended, 6.15% fixedfinancing	2026-04-30	2027-04-20	6.15 percent	stated
Q1 2026 revenue $167.2Mguidance	2026-04-30	-	167200000.0 USD	stated
Q1 2026 data-center revenue $33.2Mguidance	2026-04-30	-	33200000.0 USD	stated
Coinbase revolving credit facilityfinancing	2026-04-29	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Rhodium Settlement - Rockdale assets and power capacityacquisition	2026-04-29	-	125.0 MW	stated
Rockdale Facility land acquisitionacquisition	2026-04-29	-	200.0 acres	stated
AMD Lease - initial contracted capacitycustomer - Rockdale	2026-04-29	-	25.0 MW	stated
AMD Lease expansion optioncustomer - Rockdale	2026-04-29	-	75.0 MW	stated
AMD Lease right of first refusalcustomer - Rockdale	2026-04-29	-	100.0 MW	stated
AMD Lease renewal termscustomer - Rockdale	2026-04-29	-	-	stated
AMD Lease amendment - expanded contracted capacitycustomer - Rockdale	2026-04-29	-	50.0 MW	stated
Corsicana Facility Phase I Bitcoin build-outfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-04-29	-	400.0 MW	stated
New independent directorspersonnel	2026-04-29	-	3.0 directors	stated
Lance D'Ambrosio director nomineepersonnel	2026-04-29	-	-	stated
Michael Turner director nomineepersonnel	2026-04-29	-	-	stated
Deloitte & Touche LLP auditor appointmentregulatory	2026-04-29	2026-12-31	-	stated
Seventh Amendment to 2019 Equity Incentive Plan share increasefinancing	2026-04-29	-	-	stated
AMD Data Center Capacity Contractcustomer	2026-04-29	-	50.0 MW	stated
AMD 20 MW deliveryfacility timeline	2026-04-29	2026-05-31	20.0 MW	outcome unconfirmed
AMD Phase 3 expansion deliveryfacility timeline	2026-04-29	2026-11-30	10.0 MW	stated
AMD Phase 4 expansion deliveryfacility timeline	2026-04-29	2027-05-31	15.0 MW	stated
AMD 100 MW additional optioncustomer	2026-04-29	-	100.0 MW	stated
AMD 50 MW lease contract valuecustomer	2026-04-29	2027-05-31	636.0 USD	stated
Corsicana core & shell building commencedfacility timeline - Corsicana	2026-04-29	-	168.0 MW	stated
Corsicana campus capacity planfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-04-29	-	756.0 MW	stated
Riot Engineering capacity expansionproduct	2026-04-29	2026-12-31	25.0 percent	stated
Rockdale power capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-04-29	-	700.0 MW	stated
Kentucky power capacityfacility capacity - Kentucky Facility	2026-04-29	-	300.0 MW	stated
Corsicana power generationfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-04-29	-	1000.0 MW	stated
Data center portfolio NOI guidanceguidance	2026-04-29	-	1600.0 USD	stated
Data center growth without equity dilutionfinancing	2026-04-29	-	-	stated
Adam Black, EVP Design & Constructionpersonnel	2026-04-29	-	-	stated
Rhea Williams, SVP AI & Hyperscale Salespersonnel	2026-04-29	-	-	stated
Coinbase Credit facility terms (up to $200M secured term loan)financing	2026-04-27	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Coinbase Credit facility structure: up to $200M multiple-draw secured term loanfinancing	2026-04-27	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement with Coinbase Credit, Inc.financing	2026-04-26	-	200.0 USD millions	stated
Coinbase facility restated at 6.15% fixed, maturity April 2027financing	2026-04-21	2027-04-20	6.15 percent	stated
April 2026 amendment: fixed 6.15% rate, maturity extendedfinancing	2026-04-21	2027-04-20	6.15 percent	verified
Pre-amendment interest rate 8.3%financing	2026-03-31	-	8.3 percent	stated
Pre-amendment Coinbase facility rate 8.3% as of Mar 31financing	2026-03-31	-	8.3 percent	stated
AMD data center lease commenced operationspartnership	2026-03-02	-	-	stated
Nearly 2 GW power capacity for data center infrastructurefacility capacity	2026-03-02	-	2.0 GW	stated
Rockdale Facility developed capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-03-01	-	700.0 MW	stated
Corsicana Facility current developed capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-03-01	-	400.0 MW	stated
Corsicana Facility target developed capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-03-01	-	1.0 GW	stated
Kentucky Facility current developed capacityfacility capacity - Kentucky Facility	2026-03-01	-	137.0 MW	stated
Kentucky Facility capacity expansion targetfacility timeline - Kentucky Facility	2026-03-01	2026-12-31	232.0 MW	stated
Block Mining acquisitionacquisition	2026-03-01	-	-	stated
Rockdale land fee simple acquisitionacquisition	2026-03-01	-	-	stated
AMD long-term data center leasecustomer - Rockdale	2026-03-01	-	25.0 MW	stated
MicroBT long-term master purchase and sales agreementpartnership	2026-03-01	-	-	stated
MicroBT purchase orders executed for minerspartnership	2026-03-01	-	779.5 USD (millions)	stated
MicroBT miners expected deliveryfacility timeline	2026-03-01	2026-06-30	-	outcome unconfirmed
MicroBT future purchase options through December 2027partnership	2026-03-01	2027-12-31	-	stated
Corsicana Facility total developed capacity upon completionfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-03-01	-	1000.0 MW	stated
AMD data center lease at Rockdale Facilitycustomer - Rockdale	2026-03-01	-	25.0 MW	stated
MicroBT miners delivery scheduleguidance	2026-03-01	2026-06-30	-	outcome unconfirmed
Rockdale Facility available capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-03-01	-	700.0 MW	stated
Corsicana Facility planned total capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-03-01	-	1000.0 MW	stated
MicroBT miner deliveriesproduct	2026-03-01	2026-06-30	49.2 EH/s	outcome unconfirmed
AMD data center lease agreementcustomer - Rockdale	2026-03-01	-	25.0 MW	stated
Plaintiff sole Black employee on work crewpersonnel	2026-02-18	-	-	stated
Racial slur overheard in presence of employeepersonnel	2026-02-18	-	-	stated
Water bottle contaminated with urine after discrimination complaintpersonnel	2026-02-18	-	-	stated
Supervisor obstruction of protected discrimination reportpersonnel	2026-02-18	-	-	stated
Two Bitcoin mining facilities in Texasfacility capacity - Corsicana	2026-02-18	-	-	stated
HR investigation without corrective actionpersonnel	2026-02-18	-	-	stated
Workplace segregation by racepersonnel	2026-02-18	-	-	stated
Widespread N-word use acknowledged by employeespersonnel	2026-02-18	-	-	stated
Security video footage promised but not providedregulatory	2026-02-18	-	-	stated
Rockdale site acquisition and AMD data center leasefacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-01-16	-	-	stated
AMD data center leasepartnership - Rockdale	2026-01-16	-	-	stated
Rockdale land purchaseacquisition	2026-01-16	-	200.0 acres	stated
AMD 10-year lease for 25 MW Rockdale capacitypartnership - Rockdale	2026-01-16	-	25.0 MW	stated
10-year data center capacity lease with AMD for 25 MWcustomer - Rockdale	2026-01-16	-	25.0 MW	stated
Rockdale facility land acquisitionacquisition	2026-01-15	-	-	stated
AMD 10-year capacity lease at Rockdalepartnership - Rockdale	2026-01-15	-	25.0 MW	stated
Fee simple acquisition of Rockdale Site landacquisition	2026-01-15	-	96.0 USD	stated
Bitcoin sale to fund Rockdale acquisitionfinancing - Rockdale	2026-01-15	-	1080.0 BTC	stated
AMD data center lease agreementcustomer - Rockdale	2026-01-15	-	25.0 MW	stated
AMD data center deployment timeline at Rockdalefacility timeline - Rockdale	2026-01-15	2026-05-31	-	verified
Total data center portfolio power capacityfacility capacity	2026-01-15	-	1700.0 MW	stated
Rockdale Site grid interconnection capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-01-15	-	700.0 MW	stated
Intent to convert Rockdale power capacity for data centerguidance	2026-01-15	-	700.0 MW	stated
Plan to convert power capacity at Rockdale and Corsicana sitesguidance	2026-01-15	-	-	stated
Expected AMD lease revenue over initial 10-year termguidance	2026-01-15	-	311.0 USD	stated
Expected AMD lease total revenue with extension optionsguidance	2026-01-15	-	1000.0 USD	stated
AMD expansion and right of first refusal capacity optionsfacility capacity - Rockdale	2026-01-15	-	175.0 MW	stated
Capital expenditure for AMD facility retrofitguidance	2026-01-15	-	89.8 USD	stated
Expected average annual NOI from AMD leaseguidance	2026-01-15	-	25.0 USD	stated
Chief Data Center Officerpersonnel	2026-01-15	-	-	stated
Land holdings across Texas facilitiesfacility capacity	2026-01-15	-	1100.0 units	stated
Colin Yee transition bonus to Senior Advisorpersonnel	2026-01-04	2026-03-13	83333.33 USD	outcome unconfirmed
CFO Colin Yee transition to Senior Advisorpersonnel	2026-01-02	2026-03-01	500000.0 USD	verified
Jason Chung appointed as CFOpersonnel	2026-01-02	2026-03-01	-	verified
CEO and Executive Chairman salary increasepersonnel	2026-01-02	-	900000.0 USD	stated
Colin Yee CFO departurepersonnel	2026-01-01	2026-03-01	-	verified
Jason Chung appointed as Chief Financial Officerpersonnel	2026-01-01	2026-03-01	-	verified
Colin Yee Senior Advisor RSU awardpersonnel	2026-01-01	2028-01-01	2000000.0 USD	stated
Colin Yee Senior Advisor base feepersonnel	2026-01-01	-	500000.0 USD	stated
Jason Les CEO base salary increasepersonnel	2026-01-01	-	900000.0 USD	stated
Benjamin Yi Executive Chairman base salary increasepersonnel	2026-01-01	2026-01-01	900000.0 USD	verified
Jason Les and Benjamin Yi AIP target increasepersonnel	2026-01-01	2026-01-01	125.0 percent	verified
Jason Chung CFO base salary increasepersonnel	2026-01-01	-	550000.0 USD	stated
Stephen Howell COO base salary increasepersonnel	2026-01-01	2026-01-01	500000.0 USD	verified
Executive employment agreements extended through January 10, 2031personnel	2026-01-01	2031-01-10	-	stated
Bitcoin Yield metric eliminated from 2026 AIPguidance	2026-01-01	-	-	stated
Data center revenue metric introduction upon securing tenantguidance	2026-01-01	-	15.0 percent	stated
Adjusted EBITDA metric weighting reduced in 2026 AIPguidance	2026-01-01	-	25.0 percent	stated
LTIP measurement period methodology changeguidance	2026-01-01	-	-	stated
LTIP TSR cap on performance awardsguidance	2026-01-01	-	100.0 percent	stated
At-the-market offering agreement for up to $500 million in common stockfinancing	2025-12-30	-	500000000.0 USD	stated
Equity offering authorizationfinancing	2025-12-30	-	500000000.0 USD	stated
Sales agent commissionfinancing	2025-12-30	-	1.0 percent	stated
Rockdale Facility developed capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2025-12-30	-	700.0 MW	stated
Corsicana Facility total expected capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2025-12-30	-	1000.0 MW	stated
Corsicana first phase 400 MW completionfacility capacity - Corsicana	2025-12-30	-	400.0 MW	stated
Corsicana remaining power capacity for data center developmentfacility capacity - Corsicana	2025-12-30	-	600.0 MW	stated
Block Mining current and targeted capacityfacility capacity - Kentucky Facility	2025-12-30	2025-12-31	160.0 MW	verified
Block Mining 160 MW targeting timelinefacility timeline - Kentucky Facility	2025-12-30	2025-12-31	160.0 MW	verified
MicroBT miner delivery and deployment timelinefacility timeline	2025-12-30	2026-06-30	-	outcome unconfirmed
Block Mining acquisitionacquisition	2025-12-30	-	113600000.0 USD	stated
Block Mining contingent purchase priceacquisition	2025-12-30	2025-12-31	32500000.0 USD	outcome unconfirmed
E4A Solutions acquisitionacquisition	2025-12-30	-	-	stated
MicroBT long-term master supply agreementpartnership	2025-12-30	-	-	stated
MicroBT seven purchase orders executedpartnership	2025-12-30	-	779500000.0 USD	stated
MicroBT additional annual purchase optionspartnership	2025-12-30	2027-12-31	-	stated
Sales Agents for equity offeringpartnership	2025-12-30	-	-	stated
Anticipated total self-mining hash rate capacityguidance	2025-12-30	-	50.0 EH/s	stated
Scalable data center platform launch at Corsicanaguidance	2025-12-30	-	600.0 MW	stated
Corsicana Core & Shell developmentfacility capacity - Corsicana	2025-10-29	-	112.0 MW	stated
67-acre Corsicana adjacent land acquisitionacquisition	2025-10-29	2025-11-18	40.0 USD	outcome unconfirmed
Corsicana total land holdingsfacility capacity - Corsicana	2025-10-29	-	925.0 acres	stated
1 GW utility load deployment at Corsicanafacility capacity - Corsicana	2025-10-29	-	1000.0 MW	stated
Corsicana Core & Shell capex forecastguidance	2025-10-29	-	214.0 USD	stated
Corsicana Core & Shell construction startfacility timeline - Corsicana	2025-10-29	2026-03-31	-	verified
Build-to-suit data center deliveryfacility timeline - Corsicana	2025-10-29	2027-12-31	-	stated
Corbert Water Line infrastructure completionfacility timeline	2025-10-29	2026-06-30	-	outcome unconfirmed
Fully permitted and available power capacityfacility capacity	2025-10-29	-	1862.0 MW	stated
Data center leadership team expansionpersonnel	2025-10-29	-	-	stated
Hash rate capacity guidance Q4 2025guidance	2025-10-29	2025-12-31	38.5 units	verified
Hash rate capacity guidance Q1 2026guidance	2025-10-29	2026-03-31	43.5 units	delayed
Corsicana data center 112 MW capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2025-10-29	-	112.0 MW	stated
Corsicana 67-acre land parcel acquisitionacquisition	2025-10-29	-	67.0 units	stated
Corsicana Campus Design completionfacility timeline - Corsicana	2025-10-29	-	-	stated
Standard data center Basis of Designproduct	2025-10-29	-	-	stated
Jonathan Gibbs hired as Chief Data Center Officerpersonnel	2025-07-30	-	-	stated
3,300 BTC pledged as collateralfinancing	2025-07-30	-	3300.0 BTC	stated
2025 year-end hash rate targetguidance	2025-07-30	2025-12-31	40.0	verified
Q1 2026 hash rate targetguidance	2025-07-30	2026-03-31	45.0	delayed
Global network hash rate shareguidance	2025-07-30	-	4.0 percent	stated
H2 2025 capex forecastguidance	2025-07-30	2025-12-31	201600000.0 USD	outcome unconfirmed
2025 capex funded from cashfinancing	2025-07-30	2025-12-31	-	outcome unconfirmed
Coinbase BTC-backed credit facilityfinancing	2025-07-30	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
ATM equity raisefinancing	2025-07-30	-	99000000.0 USD	stated
Corsicana Corbert Water Line completionfacility timeline - Corsicana	2025-07-30	2026-06-30	-	outcome unconfirmed
Kentucky power capacity expansionfacility capacity - Kentucky Facility	2025-07-30	-	127.0 MW	stated
Corsicana Phase II substationfacility capacity - Corsicana	2025-07-30	-	600.0 MW	stated
Corsicana 238-acre land acquisitionacquisition	2025-07-30	-	-	stated
Rhodium asset acquisition at Rockdaleacquisition	2025-07-30	-	125.0 MW	stated
Chief Data Center Officer hirepersonnel	2025-07-30	-	-	stated
Data center tenant leasecustomer	2025-07-30	-	-	stated
Engineering segment H2 2025 accelerationguidance	2025-07-30	2025-12-31	118700000.0 USD	outcome unconfirmed
Stock-based compensation reductionguidance	2025-07-30	2026-06-30	-	outcome unconfirmed
Jaime Leverton elected directorpersonnel	2025-06-16	-	-	stated
Douglas Mouton elected directorpersonnel	2025-06-16	-	-	stated
Deloitte & Touche appointed as independent auditorregulatory	2025-06-16	2025-12-31	-	verified
Annual advisory votes on executive compensationregulatory	2025-06-16	-	-	stated
Board declassification approvedregulatory	2025-06-16	-	-	stated
Amended credit facility with Coinbase Creditfinancing	2025-05-22	-	200.0 USD	stated
Credit facility availability periodfinancing	2025-05-22	2025-07-22	-	outcome unconfirmed
Permitted borrowings under credit facilityfinancing	2025-05-22	-	4.0 borrowings	stated
Loan maturity datefinancing	2025-05-22	2026-04-21	-	delayed
Loan maturity extension optionfinancing	2025-05-22	-	364.0 days	stated
Upsize fee on credit facilityfinancing	2025-05-22	-	1.0 USD	stated
Upsized Coinbase facility to $200Mfinancing	2025-05-20	-	200000000.0 USD	verified
Original Coinbase facility interest ratefinancing	2025-05-20	-	4.5 percent	stated
Coinbase facility originally $100M, upsized to $200Mfinancing	2025-05-01	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Credit facility expanded to $200M in May 2025financing	2025-05-01	-	200000000.0 USD	stated
Acquisition of Rhodium Encore LLC assetsacquisition	2025-04-30	-	185.0 USD	stated
125 MW power capacity acquisition at Rockdale facilityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2025-04-30	-	125.0 MW	stated
Rhodium mining operations at Rockdale acquired via settlementacquisition	2025-04-30	-	-	stated
125 MW Rockdale capacity repurposed for self-miningfacility capacity - Rockdale	2025-04-30	-	125.0 MW	stated
Elimination of Rhodium hosting losses and litigation costsguidance	2025-04-30	-	-	stated
Corsicana substation completion bringing 1.0 GW onlinefacility timeline - Corsicana	2025-04-30	2026-03-31	1000.0 MW	delayed
Corsicana site enhancements for AI/HPC tenantsfacility timeline - Corsicana	2025-04-30	-	-	stated
Deployed hash rate 33.7 EH/sfacility capacity	2025-04-30	-	33.7	stated
E4A Solutions acquisitionacquisition	2025-04-30	-	-	stated
Coinbase bitcoin-collateralized credit facilityfinancing	2025-04-30	-	100000000.0 USD	stated
Rhodium acquisition and settlementacquisition	2025-04-30	-	185000000.0 USD	stated
125 MW returned at Rockdalefacility capacity - Rockdale	2025-04-30	-	125.0 MW	stated
Corsicana 600 MW substation expansionfacility timeline - Corsicana	2025-04-30	2026-03-31	600.0 MW	delayed
Corsicana 1 GW secured powerfacility capacity - Corsicana	2025-04-30	-	1000.0 MW	stated
355-acre Corsicana land purchaseacquisition	2025-04-30	2025-05-31	-	verified
Corbert Water Line completionfacility timeline - Corsicana	2025-04-30	2026-06-30	-	outcome unconfirmed
Kentucky power expansion to 120 MWfacility capacity - Kentucky Facility	2025-04-30	2025-12-31	120.0 MW	verified
Kentucky hash rate 6.5 EH/s by YE2025facility capacity - Kentucky Facility	2025-04-30	2025-12-31	-	verified
Q2-Q4 2025 key capex forecastguidance	2025-04-30	2025-12-31	155800000.0 USD	outcome unconfirmed
2025 hash rate growth targetguidance	2025-04-30	2025-12-31	22.0 percent	verified
~4% global network shareguidance	2025-04-30	-	4.0 percent	stated
Entered $100M Coinbase Credit facilityfinancing	2025-04-22	-	100000000.0 USD	stated
Coinbase facility origination at $100Mfinancing	2025-04-22	-	100000000.0 USD	stated
Non-binding term sheet to acquire Rhodium assets at Rockdale for $185Macquisition	2025-03-23	-	185000000.0 USD	stated
Cash component of Rhodium considerationacquisition	2025-03-23	-	129900000.0 USD	stated
Return of Rhodium power security depositacquisition	2025-03-23	-	6100000.0 USD	stated
$49.0M in Riot shares issued as acquisition considerationfinancing	2025-03-23	-	49000000.0 USD	stated
Riot to assume Rhodium's 125 MW at Rockdalefacility capacity - Rockdale	2025-03-23	-	125.0 MW	stated
Transfer of all Rockdale tangible property including ASIC minersacquisition	2025-03-23	-	-	stated
Mutual dismissal of litigation and release of claims with Rhodiumacquisition	2025-03-23	-	-	stated
Transaction subject to Bankruptcy Court approval and definitive agreementsregulatory	2025-03-23	-	-	stated
Inaugural convertible senior notes offeringfinancing	2025-02-23	-	579000000.0 USD	stated
Bitcoin purchased with convertible note proceedsfinancing	2025-02-23	-	5784.0 BTC	stated
Corsicana Facility energizedfacility timeline	2025-02-23	-	-	stated
Block Mining acquisitionacquisition	2025-02-23	-	-	stated
E4A Solutions acquisitionacquisition	2025-02-23	-	-	stated
Corsicana Facility power capacityfacility capacity	2025-02-23	-	600.0 MW	stated
AI/HPC counterparties for Corsicanapartnership	2025-02-23	-	-	stated
Deployed hash ratefacility capacity	2025-02-23	-	31.5	stated
Corsicana substation expansion +600 MWfacility capacity	2025-02-23	2026-03-31	600.0 MW	delayed
Rockdale + Corsicana 1.7 GW available through 2026facility capacity	2025-02-23	2026-12-31	1700.0 MW	stated
Corsicana municipal water supply for 2026facility timeline	2025-02-23	2026-12-31	-	stated
2025 hash rate growth forecast 22%guidance	2025-02-23	2025-12-31	22.0 percent	verified
Maintain ~4% share of global hash rateguidance	2025-02-23	2025-12-31	4.0 percent	outcome unconfirmed
Kentucky power capacity 60 MW to 120 MWfacility capacity	2025-02-23	2025-12-31	120.0 MW	verified
Kentucky deployed hash rate to 6.5 EH/s by YE 2025facility capacity	2025-02-23	2025-12-31	6.5	verified
Coleman Road energization H1 2026facility timeline	2025-02-23	2026-06-30	-	outcome unconfirmed
$198M 2025 key capex fully fundedfinancing	2025-02-23	2025-12-31	198000000.0 USD	outcome unconfirmed
~40% internal ceiling on debt to BTCfinancing	2025-02-23	-	40.0 percent	stated
$594.4M 0.75% convertible notes due 2030financing	2025-02-23	-	594400000.0 USD	stated
BTC treasury strategy: no sale of self-mined BTCfinancing	2025-02-23	-	-	stated
Accretive BTC yield target for 2025guidance	2025-02-23	2025-12-31	-	outcome unconfirmed
Engineering division ~$100M FY2025 revenueguidance	2025-02-23	2025-12-31	100000000.0 USD	outcome unconfirmed
Engineering $75M order backlogcustomer	2025-02-23	-	75000000.0 USD	stated
E4A Solutions acquired for $52Macquisition	2025-02-23	-	52000000.0 USD	stated
E4A synergies expected H2 2025acquisition	2025-02-23	2025-12-31	-	outcome unconfirmed
Block Mining acquired for $92.5Macquisition	2025-02-23	-	92500000.0 USD	stated
Kentucky potential capacity 305 MWfacility capacity	2025-02-23	-	305.0 MW	stated
Altman Solon AI/HPC feasibility study mid-March 2025facility timeline	2025-02-23	2025-03-15	-	verified
Evercore and Northland engaged for AI/HPC partnerspartnership	2025-02-23	-	-	stated
Three new directors with data center experiencepersonnel	2025-02-23	-	-	stated
Board expansion and director appointmentspersonnel	2025-02-12	-	-	stated
Director retirementspersonnel	2025-02-12	-	-	stated
Director annual cash retainerpersonnel	2025-02-12	-	100000.0 USD	stated
Director initial restricted stock grantpersonnel	2025-02-12	-	24000.0 shares	stated
Corsicana Facility power capacity evaluation for AI/HPCfacility capacity - Corsicana	2025-02-12	-	-	stated
Corsicana Facility remaining power capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2025-01-20	-	600.0 MW	stated
Phase II Bitcoin mining expansion haltedproduct	2025-01-20	-	-	stated
Coinbase Prime Broker Agreementpartnership	2024-12-19	-	-	stated
Coinbase custody of digital assetspartnership	2024-12-19	-	-	stated
Prospectus supplement for share resaleregulatory	2024-12-19	-	180000.0 shares	stated
2030 Convertible Notes Offering Closedfinancing	2024-12-15	-	594.4 USD	stated
Bitcoin Acquisitionacquisition	2024-12-15	-	667.0 BTC	stated
Bitcoin purchaseacquisition	2024-12-12	-	-	stated
Funding for Bitcoin acquisitionfinancing	2024-12-12	-	-	stated
0.75% convertible senior notes offeringfinancing	2024-12-10	2030-01-15	525000000.0 USD	stated
Bitcoin acquisition using convertible notes proceedsacquisition	2024-12-10	-	-	stated
Convertible senior notes offering pricedfinancing	2024-12-09	2024-12-11	525.0 USD	verified
Overallotment option for convertible notesfinancing	2024-12-09	-	75.0 USD	stated
Convertible notes offeringfinancing	2024-12-08	-	500000000.0 USD	stated
Jason Les Chief Executive Officerpersonnel	2024-11-25	-	-	stated
Benjamin Yi Executive Chairmanpersonnel	2024-11-25	-	-	stated
William Jackman EVP General Counselpersonnel	2024-11-25	-	-	stated
Jason Chung EVP Head of Corporate Development & Strategypersonnel	2024-11-25	-	-	stated
Executive employment term 36 months with auto-renewalpersonnel	2024-11-25	-	-	stated
Settlement agreement with Bitfarmspartnership	2024-09-22	-	-	stated
Voting commitment at Bitfarms special meetingpartnership	2024-09-22	-	-	stated
Director replacement nomination rightspartnership	2024-09-22	-	-	stated
Board member voting commitmentpartnership	2024-09-22	-	-	stated
Standstill provisions and restrictionspartnership	2024-09-22	-	-	stated
Beneficial ownership thresholdacquisition	2024-09-22	-	7.5 percent	stated
Agreement term expirationpartnership	2024-09-22	2026-06-01	-	outcome unconfirmed
Purchase rights conditionacquisition	2024-09-22	-	15.0 percent	stated
Riot owns 19.9% stake in Bitfarms Ltdacquisition	2024-09-22	-	-	stated
Riot and Bitfarms enter settlement agreementpartnership	2024-09-22	2024-09-23	-	withdrawn
Riot obtains director nomination rightpartnership	2024-09-22	-	-	stated
Riot has conditional share purchase rights at Bitfarmsacquisition	2024-09-22	-	-	stated
Riot acquires 19.9% stake in Bitfarms Ltd.acquisition	2024-09-04	-	90110912.0 shares	stated
Riot finances Bitfarms acquisition from working capitalfinancing	2024-09-04	-	202180487.0 USD	stated
Riot acquired significant stake in Bitfarms Ltdacquisition	2024-08-20	-	-	stated
Acquisition of Bitfarms common shares stakeacquisition	2024-06-23	-	-	stated
Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal application to cease-trade Bitfarms poison pillregulatory	2024-06-23	-	-	stated
Withdrawn acquisition proposal for Bitfarmsacquisition	2024-06-23	-	-	stated
Ownership stake in Bitfarmsacquisition	2024-06-23	-	14.9 percent	stated
Requisitioned special shareholders meeting to reconstitute Bitfarms boardacquisition	2024-06-23	-	-	stated
Application to Ontario tribunal to cease-trade Bitfarms shareholder rights planregulatory	2024-06-23	-	-	stated
15M shares reserved under Sixth Amendment to 2019 Equity Planfinancing	2024-06-17	-	15000000.0 shares	stated
Authorized Common Stock increased from 340M to 680M sharesfinancing	2024-06-17	-	680000000.0 shares	stated
Five executive employment agreements amended with revised severance provisionspersonnel	2024-06-17	-	-	stated
New indemnification agreements with directors and officers adoptedpersonnel	2024-06-17	-	-	stated
Riot acquires 14% stake in Bitfarms Ltd.acquisition	2024-06-12	-	-	stated
Bitfarms acquisition financed with working capitalfinancing	2024-06-12	-	-	stated
Corsicana Facility land holdingsfacility capacity - Corsicana	2024-06-12	-	-	stated
Riot's equity stake in Bitfarms Ltd.acquisition	2024-06-11	-	53793440.0 units	stated
Riot's total investment in Bitfarms sharesfinancing	2024-06-11	-	111090522.0 USD	stated
Chief Operating Officer Appointmentpersonnel	2024-06-05	-	-	stated
COO Annual Base Salarypersonnel	2024-06-05	-	400000.0 USD	stated
COO Annual Incentive Plan Targetpersonnel	2024-06-05	-	100.0 percent	stated
COO Long-Term Incentive Awardpersonnel	2024-06-05	-	373927.0 shares	stated
Bitfarms stake acquisitionacquisition	2024-06-04	-	-	stated
Riot acquired Bitfarms shares for approximately $90 millionacquisition	2024-06-03	-	89972452.0 USD	stated
Riot owns 11.3% of Bitfarmsacquisition	2024-06-03	-	44866115.0 units	stated
Colin Yee is Chief Financial Officerpersonnel	2024-06-03	-	-	stated
William Jackman is EVP, General Counsel and Secretarypersonnel	2024-06-03	-	-	stated
Acquired 10% stake in Bitfarms Ltdacquisition	2024-05-28	-	-	stated
Acquisition cost was $78.7Macquisition	2024-05-28	-	-	stated
Purchased 3.0M Bitfarms shares on 5/28/2024acquisition	2024-05-28	-	-	stated
Stake in Bitfarms Ltd.acquisition	2024-05-27	-	36856350.0 shares	stated
Proposed acquisition of Bitfarms Ltd.acquisition	2024-05-27	-	2.3 USD per share	stated
Bitfarms acquisition proposalacquisition	2024-05-27	-	2.3 USD	stated
Election of Benjamin Yi and Jason Les as Class III directorspersonnel	2024-05-19	-	-	stated
Increase in authorized common stockfinancing	2024-05-19	-	680000000.0 shares	stated
Increase in 2019 Equity Incentive Plan share poolfinancing	2024-05-19	-	15000000.0 shares	stated
Corsicana Facility expected capacity upon completionfacility capacity - Corsicana	2024-04-28	-	1000.0 MW	stated
First 400 MW immersion cooling capacity developmentfacility capacity - Corsicana	2024-04-28	2024-12-31	400.0 MW	verified
Total hash rate capacity target by end of 2024guidance	2024-04-28	2024-12-31	31.0 EH/s	verified
Corsicana bitcoin mining facility energizationfacility timeline - Corsicana	2024-04-17	-	-	stated
Rockdale Facility North America scalefacility capacity - Rockdale	2024-04-15	-	-	stated
Corsicana Facility expected capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2024-04-15	-	1000.0 MW	stated
Immersion cooling capacity development completionfacility timeline - Corsicana	2024-04-15	2024-12-31	400.0 MW	verified
Hash rate capacity target 2024guidance	2024-04-15	2024-12-31	31.0 EH/s	verified
Emergency information collection (Form EIA-862) discontinuedregulatory	2024-03-01	-	-	verified
Obligation to respond to Form EIA-862 eliminatedregulatory	2024-03-01	-	-	verified
Future cryptocurrency mining data collection to use notice-and-comment proceduresregulatory	2024-03-01	-	-	verified
Future cryptocurrency mining survey to follow normal clearance proceduresregulatory	2024-03-01	-	-	verified
EIA to destroy Form EIA-862 emergency collection dataregulatory	2024-03-01	-	-	verified
Emergency authorization for cryptocurrency mining survey discontinuedregulatory	2024-02-26	-	-	verified
MicroBT Bitcoin Miners Purchase Orderacquisition	2024-02-26	2024-06-30	96673500.0 USD	outcome unconfirmed
Rockdale Facility Hash Rate Expansionfacility capacity - Rockdale	2024-02-26	2024-07-31	15.1 EH/s	verified
2024 Year-End Hash Rate Targetguidance	2024-02-26	2024-12-31	31.0 EH/s	verified
MicroBT Master Agreement Purchase Optionspartnership	2024-02-26	2027-12-31	265000.0 units	stated
At-the-market equity offering of $750Mfinancing	2024-02-26	-	750000000.0 USD	stated
Sales agent commission for equity offeringfinancing	2024-02-26	-	3.0 percent	stated
$750M at-market offering of common stockfinancing	2024-02-25	-	750000000.0 USD	stated
Rockdale Facility developed capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2024-02-25	-	700.0 MW	stated
Corsicana Facility planned Bitcoin mining capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2024-02-25	-	1.0 GW	stated
Bitcoin Mining operational hash rate capacity as of December 31, 2023product	2024-02-25	-	12.4 EH/s	stated
Expected hash rate capacity by end of 2024guidance	2024-02-25	2024-12-31	28.0 EH/s	verified
Master purchase agreement with MicroBT for miners, first orderpartnership - Corsicana	2024-02-25	2024-03-31	33280.0 units	delayed
Follow-on purchase order from MicroBT for additional minerspartnership - Corsicana	2024-02-25	2024-06-30	66560.0 units	delayed
MicroBT Master Agreement purchase options through 2027partnership	2024-02-25	2027-12-31	265000.0 units	stated
Anticipated total self-mining hash rate after full MicroBT deploymentguidance	2024-02-25	-	38.3 EH/s	stated
Court granted temporary restraining order preventing survey enforcementregulatory	2024-02-23	-	-	verified
Plaintiffs allege emergency cryptocurrency mining survey violated statutory requirementsregulatory	2024-02-22	-	-	stated
Corsicana Facility total Bitcoin mining capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2024-02-22	-	1.0 GW	stated
Rockdale Facility competitive positionfacility capacity - Rockdale	2024-02-22	-	-	stated
Total Bitcoin mining hash rate capacity targetguidance	2024-02-22	2024-12-31	28.0 EH/s	verified
Self-mining hash rate capacity after MicroBT miner deploymentfacility capacity	2024-02-22	2025-06-30	38.0 EH/s	verified
Long-term miner supply agreement with MicroBTpartnership	2024-02-22	-	-	stated
MicroBT miner purchase ordersfinancing	2024-02-22	-	453400.0 USD	stated
Corsicana Facility operations commencementfacility timeline - Corsicana	2024-02-22	2024-03-31	-	verified
Corsicana Facility initial phase immersion-cooled capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2024-02-22	-	400.0 MW	stated
MicroBT additional miner purchase optionspartnership	2024-02-22	2027-12-31	265000.0 units	stated
MicroBT miner deployment completionguidance	2024-02-22	2025-06-30	99840.0 units	outcome unconfirmed
Anticipated hash rate capacity by end of 2024guidance	2024-02-22	2024-12-31	28.0 EH/s	verified
Self-mining hash rate capacity upon MicroBT miner deploymentfacility capacity	2024-02-22	-	38.0 EH/s	stated
MicroBT miner purchase orderproduct	2024-02-22	-	99840.0 units	stated
Rockdale Facility scalefacility capacity - Rockdale	2024-02-22	-	-	stated
Corsicana Facility total capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2024-02-22	-	1000.0 MW	stated
Corsicana Facility full capacity upon completionfacility capacity - Corsicana	2024-02-22	-	1.0 gigawatt	stated
Total hash rate capacity guidance for end of 2024guidance	2024-02-22	2024-12-31	28.0 EH/s	verified
Purchase of 99,840 MicroBT miners for $453.4 millionproduct	2024-02-22	-	453.4 USD	stated
Delivery and deployment of 99,840 MicroBT miners by mid-2025facility timeline	2024-02-22	2025-06-30	99840.0 miners	outcome unconfirmed
Corsicana Facility initial phase operations commence by end of Q1 2024facility timeline - Corsicana	2024-02-22	2024-03-31	-	verified
Bitcoin mining hash rate by end of 2024guidance	2024-02-22	2024-12-31	28.0 EH/s	verified
Corsicana Facility total capacity targetfacility capacity - Corsicana	2024-02-22	-	1.0 GW	stated
Equity compensation plan authorizationpersonnel	2023-12-19	-	13000000.0 shares	stated
MicroBT mining server purchase orderacquisition	2023-12-05	2025-04-30	290.5 USD	outcome unconfirmed
Corsicana Texas data center hashrate capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2023-12-05	-	38.0 EH/s	stated
MicroBT annual miner purchase optionspartnership	2023-12-05	-	265000.0 units	stated
Immersion-cooled Bitcoin mining hardware implementationproduct	2023-11-07	-	-	stated
Second hyper-scale Bitcoin mining data center developmentfacility timeline - Corsicana	2023-11-07	-	-	stated
Industrial-scale immersion-cooled Bitcoin mining hardwareproduct	2023-11-07	-	-	stated
One-gigawatt data center outside Corsicana, Texasfacility capacity - Corsicana	2023-11-07	-	1.0 GW	stated
Equity Incentive Plan share increase authorizationfinancing	2023-10-31	-	13000000.0 shares	stated
Equity incentive plan share pool expansionfinancing	2023-10-16	-	13000000.0 shares	stated
Equity Incentive Plan share increasepersonnel	2023-10-16	-	13000000.0 shares	stated
Immersion-cooled mining hardware developmentproduct	2023-09-05	-	-	stated
Data center expansion outside Corsicanafacility timeline - Corsicana	2023-09-05	-	-	stated
Controlled Equity Offering Sales Agreementfinancing	2023-08-09	-	750000000.0 USD	stated
At-the-market stock offering programfinancing	2023-08-08	-	750000000.0 USD	stated
Sales commission rate for equity offeringfinancing	2023-08-08	-	3.0 percent	stated
Rockdale Facility power capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2023-08-08	-	700.0 MW	stated
Corsicana Facility planned power capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2023-08-08	-	1.0 GW	stated
Current operational hash rate capacityfacility capacity	2023-08-08	-	10.7 EH/s	stated
Expected self-mining hash rate capacity by end of 2023guidance	2023-08-08	2023-12-31	12.5 EH/s	verified
Expected self-mining hash rate capacity after miner deliveriesguidance	2023-08-08	2024-06-30	20.1 EH/s	verified
Industrial-scale immersion-cooled Bitcoin mining hardwareproduct	2023-08-08	-	-	stated
Controlled Equity Offering Agreementfinancing	2023-08-08	-	750000000.0 USD	stated
Sales agent commission on ATM offeringfinancing	2023-08-08	-	3.0 percent	stated
Data center development in Texasfacility timeline - Corsicana	2023-08-08	-	-	stated
CEO LTIP Service Awardpersonnel	2023-07-18	2026-07-01	184820.0 shares	outcome unconfirmed
CEO LTIP Performance Awardpersonnel	2023-07-18	2026-07-31	184820.0 shares	outcome unconfirmed
CFO LTIP Service Awardpersonnel	2023-07-18	2026-07-01	123231.0 shares	outcome unconfirmed
CFO LTIP Performance Awardpersonnel	2023-07-18	2026-07-31	123321.0 shares	outcome unconfirmed
Executive Chairman LTIP Service Awardpersonnel	2023-07-18	2026-07-01	184820.0 shares	outcome unconfirmed
Executive Chairman LTIP Performance Awardpersonnel	2023-07-18	2026-07-31	184820.0 shares	outcome unconfirmed
General Counsel LTIP Service Awardpersonnel	2023-07-18	2026-07-01	123231.0 shares	outcome unconfirmed
General Counsel LTIP Performance Awardpersonnel	2023-07-18	2026-07-31	123321.0 shares	outcome unconfirmed
Chief Accounting Officer LTIP Service Awardpersonnel	2023-07-18	2026-07-01	19714.0 shares	outcome unconfirmed
Chief Accounting Officer LTIP Performance Awardpersonnel	2023-07-18	2026-07-31	19714.0 shares	outcome unconfirmed
MicroBT long-term mining hardware supply agreementpartnership	2023-06-29	-	-	stated
Initial purchase order of 33,280 Bitcoin mining serversproduct	2023-06-29	2024-04-15	33280.0 units	outcome unconfirmed
Total purchase price for initial mining hardware orderfinancing	2023-06-29	-	162900000.0 USD	stated
Hash rate capacity increase from initial mining hardware orderfacility capacity	2023-06-29	2024-04-15	7.6 EH/s	outcome unconfirmed
Option to purchase up to 66,560 additional M56S++ mining serversproduct	2023-06-29	2024-12-31	66560.0 units	verified
Hash rate capacity represented by full Purchase Optionfacility capacity	2023-06-29	2024-12-31	15.3 EH/s	verified
Additional shares reserved under equity incentive planpersonnel	2023-06-29	-	4000000.0 units	stated
Class II Director Nomineespersonnel	2023-06-04	-	-	stated
Equity Incentive Plan Share Increasefinancing	2023-06-04	-	4000000.0 shares	stated
Class II Director Electionspersonnel	2023-06-04	-	-	stated
Independent Auditor Appointmentregulatory	2023-06-04	-	-	stated
Acquisition of ESS Metron, LLCacquisition	2023-06-01	-	-	stated
Equity issuance in ESS Metron acquisitionfinancing	2023-06-01	-	70165.0 shares	stated
Acquisition of ESS Metron, LLCacquisition	2023-05-31	-	-	stated
Industrial scale immersion-cooled Bitcoin mining hardwareproduct	2023-05-09	-	-	stated
One-gigawatt data center development outside Corsicana, Texasfacility capacity - Corsicana	2023-05-09	-	1.0 GW	stated
Corsicana Facility total planned capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2023-04-30	-	1000.0 MW	stated
Corsicana Facility initial immersion-cooled capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2023-04-30	-	400.0 MW	stated
Anticipated miner deployment by end of 2023guidance	2023-04-30	2023-12-31	111216.0 units	verified
Anticipated hash rate capacity by end of 2023guidance	2023-04-30	2023-12-31	12.5 EH/s	verified
Rockdale Facility developed capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2023-04-30	-	-	stated
Corsicana Facility total capacity upon completionfacility capacity - Corsicana	2023-04-30	-	1000.0 MW	stated
Rockdale Facility current capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2023-03-01	-	700.0 MW	stated
Corsicana Facility planned capacityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2023-03-01	-	1.0 GW	stated
Anticipated miners by end of 2023guidance	2023-03-01	2023-12-31	111216.0 units	verified
Fourth building at Rockdale Facility completionfacility timeline - Rockdale	2023-03-01	2023-03-31	-	verified
Immersion-cooled Bitcoin mining deployment at Corsicanaproduct	2023-03-01	-	400.0 MW	stated
Bitcoin miners in operation by end of 2023guidance	2023-03-01	2023-12-31	111216.0 units	verified
Expected miner deployment by end of 2023guidance	2023-03-01	2023-12-31	111216.0 miners	verified
Fourth building completion at Rockdale Facilityfacility timeline - Rockdale	2023-03-01	-	-	stated
Corsicana Facility expected capacity upon completionfacility capacity - Corsicana	2023-03-01	-	1000.0 MW	stated
Bitmain ASIC miner purchase orderpartnership	2023-03-01	-	-	stated
Bitcoin Miner Fleet Expansion Forecastguidance	2023-03-01	2023-12-31	111216.0 units	verified
Rockdale Facility 400 MW expansion completionfacility capacity - Rockdale	2023-03-01	2023-03-31	400.0 MW	verified
Bitcoin mining miner count guidanceguidance	2023-03-01	2023-12-31	111216.0 units	verified
Miner deployment guidance for 2023guidance	2023-03-01	2023-12-31	111216.0 miners	verified
Bitcoin mining and switchgear operationsfacility capacity	2022-10-26	-	-	stated
Navarro site expansionfacility timeline - Corsicana	2022-10-26	-	-	stated
New miner deliveriesproduct	2022-10-26	-	-	stated
M.W. capacity under developmentfacility capacity	2022-10-26	-	-	stated
Future hash rate growthguidance	2022-10-26	-	-	stated
Navarro site facility expansion with scheduled constructionfacility timeline - Corsicana	2022-10-24	-	-	stated
Scheduled Bitcoin miner deliveriesproduct	2022-10-24	-	-	stated
Megawatt capacity under developmentfacility capacity	2022-10-24	-	-	stated
Immersion-cooling technology anticipated benefitsproduct	2022-10-24	-	-	stated
Future Bitcoin mining hashrate growthguidance	2022-10-24	-	-	stated
Corsicana, Texas Bitcoin mining facilityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2022-10-18	-	1.0 GW	stated
Rockdale facility expansionfacility timeline - Rockdale	2022-10-18	-	-	stated
Proposal to increase authorized sharesfinancing	2022-10-02	-	340000000.0 shares	stated
Benjamin Yi serves as Executive Chairmanpersonnel	2022-10-02	-	-	stated
Jason Les serves as Chief Executive Officerpersonnel	2022-10-02	-	-	stated
McGonegal CFO Retirementpersonnel	2022-10-02	-	-	stated
McGonegal Senior Advisor Engagementpersonnel	2022-10-02	2023-02-07	-	verified
Colin M. Yee CFO Appointmentpersonnel	2022-10-02	-	-	stated
Yee CFO Base Compensationfinancing	2022-10-02	-	350000.0 USD	stated
Yee RSU Awardfinancing	2022-10-02	-	100565.0 units	stated
Yee PSU Awardfinancing	2022-10-02	-	242000.0 units	stated
Yee RSA Awardfinancing	2022-10-02	2024-06-01	74294.0 units	outcome unconfirmed
Yee CFO Employment Termpersonnel	2022-10-02	2024-04-12	-	verified
Ryan D. Werner CAO Appointmentpersonnel	2022-10-02	-	-	stated
Werner CAO Base Compensationfinancing	2022-10-02	-	275000.0 USD	stated
Werner PSU Awardfinancing	2022-10-02	-	120000.0 units	stated
Werner RSA Awardfinancing	2022-10-02	2024-06-01	148588.0 units	outcome unconfirmed
Werner PSA Awardfinancing	2022-10-02	-	85998.0 units	stated
Werner CAO Employment Termpersonnel	2022-10-02	2023-03-15	-	verified
Increase in authorized common stock sharesfinancing	2022-09-22	-	340000000.0 shares	stated
Executive Chairmanpersonnel	2022-09-22	-	-	stated
Chief Executive Officerpersonnel	2022-09-22	-	-	stated
Expanded megawatt capacity under developmentfacility capacity	2022-08-15	-	-	stated
Acquired businesses being integratedacquisition	2022-08-15	-	-	stated
New bitcoin mining computer deploymentproduct	2022-08-15	-	-	stated
Expected miner delivery scheduleguidance	2022-08-15	-	-	stated
Immersion-cooling benefits anticipatedproduct	2022-08-15	-	-	stated
Whinstone facility capacityfacility capacity - Rockdale	2022-08-14	-	-	stated
Corsicana facility developmentfacility capacity - Corsicana	2022-08-14	-	1000.0 MW	stated
Immersion-cooled Bitcoin mining hardware developmentproduct	2022-08-14	-	-	stated
Equity Plan Share Increasefinancing	2022-08-01	-	10000000.0 shares	stated
Director Election - Hubert Marleaupersonnel	2022-08-01	-	-	stated
Independent Auditor Appointmentregulatory	2022-08-01	-	-	stated
Authorized common stock increasefinancing	2022-07-11	-	-	stated
Navarro site expansionfacility timeline - Corsicana	2022-07-11	-	-	stated
Navarro County immersion cooling expansionfacility capacity - Corsicana	2022-07-07	-	1000.0 MW	stated
Buildings F and G immersion cooling at Whinstonefacility capacity - Rockdale	2022-07-07	-	-	stated
Rhodium as largest hosting customercustomer	2022-07-07	-	-	stated
Ending Coinmint hosting relationshippartnership	2022-07-07	-	-	stated
Equity compensation - infrastructure targetguidance	2022-07-07	-	1500.0 MW	stated
Equity compensation - EBITDA targetguidance	2022-07-07	-	500.0 USD	stated
Navarro site expansion constructionfacility timeline - Corsicana	2022-07-07	-	-	stated
Full-time workforcepersonnel	2022-06-30	-	-	stated
100 MW liquid immersion building at Rockdalefacility capacity - Rockdale	2022-06-30	-	-	stated
Largest controlled load response facility in the worldfacility capacity - Rockdale	2022-06-30	-	-	stated
400 MW substation at Rockdalefacility capacity - Rockdale	2022-06-30	-	-	stated
Construction of multiple buildings in 11 monthsfacility timeline - Rockdale	2022-06-30	-	-	stated
Bitcoin mining hash rate targetfacility capacity	2022-06-26	-	12.6 EH/s	stated
Whinstone facility power capacity expansionfacility capacity - Rockdale	2022-06-26	-	700.0 MW	stated
New mining facility development in Corsicana, Texasfacility capacity - Corsicana	2022-06-26	-	1.0 GW	stated
Class I Director Election Termpersonnel	2022-06-16	-	-	stated
Independent Accounting Firm Engagementpartnership	2022-06-16	2022-12-31	-	verified
Engagement of Marcum LLP as Independent Auditorregulatory	2022-06-16	2022-12-31	-	verified
Authorized Common Stock Shares Increasefinancing	2022-06-16	-	340000000.0 shares	stated
Equity Incentive Plan Shares Increasefinancing	2022-06-16	-	10000000.0 shares	stated
Hubert Marleau Elected as Class I Directorpersonnel	2022-06-16	-	-	stated
Hubert Marleau elected as Class I directorpersonnel	2022-06-06	-	-	stated
Common stock authorization increasefinancing	2022-06-06	-	340000000.0 shares	stated
Preferred stock authorization increasefinancing	2022-06-06	-	30000000.0 shares	stated
Equity Incentive Plan authorization increasefinancing	2022-06-06	-	10000000.0 shares	stated
CFO retirementpersonnel	2022-06-05	2022-08-15	-	verified
Retiring CFO to transition to Senior Advisor rolepersonnel	2022-06-05	2023-02-07	-	verified
New CFO appointmentpersonnel	2022-06-05	2022-08-15	-	verified
Corsicana 1 GW expansion facilityfacility capacity - Corsicana	2022-05-17	-	1.0 GW	stated
Rockdale megawatt capacity expansionfacility capacity - Rockdale	2022-05-17	-	-	stated
2019 Equity Plan second amendment increases authorized sharesfinancing	2022-05-01	-	4400000.0 shares	stated
Benjamin Yi appointed Executive Chairmanpersonnel	2022-05-01	-	-	stated
Jason Les appointed Chief Executive Officerpersonnel	2022-05-01	-	-	stated
Megan Brooks resigned as Chief Operating Officerpersonnel	2022-05-01	-	-	stated
At-the-market offering agreementfinancing	2022-03-31	-	500000000.0 USD	stated
At-the-market offering programfinancing	2022-03-30	-	500000000.0 USD	stated
Sales agent compensationfinancing	2022-03-30	-	3.0 percent	stated
Whinstone Bitcoin mining facility locationfacility capacity - Rockdale	2022-03-30	-	-	stated
Largest Bitcoin mining facility in North Americafacility capacity - Rockdale	2022-03-30	-	-	stated
Bitcoin mining colocation servicesproduct	2022-03-30	-	-	stated
Industrial-scale immersion-cooled Bitcoin mining infrastructureproduct	2022-03-30	-	-	stated
ESS Metron partnership for immersion-cooling technologypartnership	2022-03-30	-	-	stated
ESS Metron electrical components and engineering servicespartnership	2022-03-30	-	-	stated
Intended use of offering proceedsguidance	2022-03-30	-	-	stated
COO separationpersonnel	2022-03-22	2022-04-07	-	verified
COO cash severancepersonnel	2022-03-22	2022-07-07	406250.0 USD	outcome unconfirmed
COO pro-rated bonuspersonnel	2022-03-22	2022-04-07	86370.0 USD	outcome unconfirmed
COO transition services feepersonnel	2022-03-22	2022-07-07	81250.0 USD	outcome unconfirmed
COO time-based RSU vesting continuationpersonnel	2022-03-22	2022-07-07	6000.0 units	outcome unconfirmed
COO RSU accelerationpersonnel	2022-03-22	2022-07-07	1500.0 units	outcome unconfirmed
COO performance-based RSU vestingpersonnel	2022-03-22	-	-	stated
COO transition services RSU grantpersonnel	2022-03-22	2022-07-07	75000.0 units	outcome unconfirmed
COO COBRA medical coveragepersonnel	2022-03-22	-	-	stated
Miner deployment by end of 2022guidance	2022-03-15	2022-12-31	120150.0 miners	delayed
Power capacity by end of 2022guidance	2022-03-15	2022-12-31	370.0 MW	outcome unconfirmed
Bitmain miner purchase orderfinancing	2022-03-15	2022-12-31	480.0 million USD	verified
Whinstone Facility expansion to 700 MWfacility capacity - Rockdale	2022-03-15	-	700.0 MW	stated
Coinmint co-location agreementpartnership - Massena	2022-03-15	-	-	stated
Long-term power purchase agreementpartnership - Rockdale	2022-03-15	-	-	stated
Largest mining facility in North Americafacility capacity - Rockdale	2022-03-15	-	-	stated
Mining capacity target for end of 2022guidance	2022-03-15	2022-12-31	370.0 MW	outcome unconfirmed
Whinstone US, Inc. strategic acquisition completedacquisition	2022-03-15	-	-	stated
ESS Metron (Ferrie Franzmann Industries) acquisition completedacquisition	2022-03-15	-	-	stated
Industrial-scale immersion-cooled Bitcoin mining deploymentproduct	2022-03-15	-	200.0 MW	stated
Congressional inquiry on cryptocurrency energy usageregulatory	2022-03-15	-	-	stated
Mining Miner Deployment Guidanceguidance	2022-03-15	2022-12-31	120150.0 units	delayed
Mining Power Capacity Guidanceguidance	2022-03-15	2022-12-31	370.0 MW	outcome unconfirmed
120,150 miners operational by end of 2022facility capacity	2022-03-15	2022-12-31	120150.0 units	delayed
700 MW total Whinstone Facility capacity after 400 MW expansion including 200 MW immersion-cooledfacility capacity - Rockdale	2022-03-15	-	700.0 MW	stated
$480 million Bitmain ASIC miner purchase order with delivery through December 2022financing	2022-03-15	2022-12-31	480.0 USD	verified
82,500 ASIC miners (S19XP, S19j, S19j Pro models) with delivery through December 2022product	2022-03-15	2022-12-31	82500.0 units	verified
Whinstone US acquisition from Northern Data AGacquisition	2022-03-15	-	-	stated
ESS Metron acquisition for power distribution equipment and engineering servicesacquisition	2022-03-15	-	-	stated
Coinmint month-to-month co-location mining services agreement at Massena, New York facilitypartnership - Massena	2022-03-15	-	-	stated
Whinstone US, Inc. acquisition completedacquisition	2022-02-28	-	-	stated
ESS Metron, LLC acquisition completedacquisition	2022-02-28	-	-	stated
Expected significant change in results of operationsguidance	2022-02-28	-	-	stated
ESS Metron acquisition cash considerationacquisition	2021-12-01	-	25000000.0 USD	stated
ESS Metron acquisition immediate share issuanceacquisition	2021-12-01	-	645248.0 shares	stated
ESS Metron acquisition holdback share issuanceacquisition	2021-12-01	2023-06-01	70165.0 shares	verified
Whinstone power capacity expansion underwayfacility capacity - Rockdale	2021-12-01	-	-	stated
ESS Metron acquisitionacquisition	2021-11-30	-	-	stated
Shelf registration of common stock for ESS Metron former ownersfinancing	2021-11-30	-	645248.0 shares	stated
Whinstone US acquisition and integrationacquisition	2021-11-14	-	-	stated
Liquid immersion-cooled Bitcoin mining technology developmentproduct	2021-11-14	-	-	stated
Antminer S-19j Pro purchase from Bitmainproduct	2021-11-07	-	56.25 USD	stated
Miners hashing power specificationproduct	2021-11-07	-	900000.0 TH/s	stated
Miner delivery schedulefacility timeline	2021-11-07	2022-05-01	-	outcome unconfirmed
Miner purchase payment schedulefinancing	2021-11-07	-	-	stated
COO Megan M. Brooks salary increasepersonnel	2021-11-07	-	325000.0 USD	stated
COO equity awardpersonnel	2021-11-07	2022-01-01	6000.0 units	verified
Non-employee director compensation increasepersonnel	2021-11-07	2022-01-01	1000.0 USD	outcome unconfirmed
Equity incentive plan share authorization increasepersonnel	2021-10-21	-	4400000.0 shares	stated
Immersion-cooled Bitcoin mining capacity development at Whinstone Rockdalefacility capacity - Rockdale	2021-10-21	-	200.0 MW	stated
First industrial-scale immersion-cooled Bitcoin mining hardwareproduct	2021-10-21	-	-	stated
Acquisition of Whinstone US, Inc.acquisition	2021-10-03	-	-	stated
Acquisition of Whinstone US, Inc.acquisition	2021-09-27	-	-	stated
Marcum LLP auditor engagement for FY 2021regulatory	2021-09-20	2021-12-31	-	verified
2019 Equity Plan share increase of 4.4M sharesfinancing	2021-09-20	-	4400000.0 shares	stated
Whinstone US Inc acquisitionacquisition	2021-08-22	-	267409.0 USD	stated
Whinstone Facility power and infrastructure requirementsfacility capacity - Rockdale	2021-08-22	-	-	stated
Future power credits contingent considerationfinancing	2021-08-22	-	83138.0 USD	stated
Infrastructure capacity development targetfacility capacity	2021-08-15	2023-12-31	1500.0 MW	outcome unconfirmed
Benjamin Yi Performance RSU grantpersonnel	2021-08-15	-	525000.0 units	stated
Jason Les Performance RSU grantpersonnel	2021-08-15	-	525000.0 units	stated
Jeffrey McGonegal Performance RSU grantpersonnel	2021-08-15	-	450000.0 units	stated
Megan Brooks Performance RSU grantpersonnel	2021-08-15	-	400000.0 units	stated
Whinstone US, Inc. acquisitionacquisition	2021-08-15	-	-	stated
Expected significant change in results from Whinstone acquisitionguidance	2021-08-15	-	-	stated
Acquisition of Whinstone US, Inc.acquisition	2021-08-11	-	-	stated
Sale of Coinsquare equity stake to Mogo Inc.acquisition	2021-06-07	-	22000000.0 CAD	stated
Northern Data AG common stock issuancefinancing	2021-05-26	-	11800000.0 shares	stated
Whinstone US, Inc. acquisition - cash considerationacquisition	2021-05-25	-	80000000.0 USD	stated
Whinstone US, Inc. acquisition - stock considerationacquisition	2021-05-25	-	11800000.0 shares	stated
Benjamin Yi appointed Executive Chairpersonpersonnel	2021-05-23	-	-	stated
Benjamin Yi annual salary compensationpersonnel	2021-05-23	-	240000.0 USD	stated
Benjamin Yi Bitcoin compensationpersonnel	2021-05-23	-	10.0 BTC	stated
Benjamin Yi restricted stock unit grantpersonnel	2021-05-23	-	15000.0 units	stated
Benjamin Yi three-year employment termpersonnel	2021-05-23	2024-05-24	-	verified
Lance D'Ambrosio elected to Board of Directorspersonnel	2021-05-23	-	-	stated
Lance D'Ambrosio committee assignmentspersonnel	2021-05-23	-	-	stated
Hannah Cho elected Compensation Committee chairpersonpersonnel	2021-05-23	-	-	stated
Board of Directors expanded to five memberspersonnel	2021-05-23	-	-	stated
Antminer purchase agreement with Bitmainproduct	2021-05-16	-	33646.0 units	stated
Jason Les appointed Chief Executive Officerpersonnel	2021-04-29	-	-	stated
Jeffrey McGonegal returns to Chief Financial Officerpersonnel	2021-04-29	-	-	stated
Megan Brooks appointed Chief Operating Officerpersonnel	2021-04-29	-	-	stated
Hannah Cho appointed to Board of Directorspersonnel	2021-04-29	-	-	stated
Whinstone acquisitionacquisition	2021-04-26	-	-	stated
Jason Les - Chief Executive Officerpersonnel	2021-04-26	-	-	stated
Jeffrey McGonegal - Chief Financial Officerpersonnel	2021-04-26	-	-	stated
Acquisition of Whinstone US for $80M and 11.8M sharesacquisition	2021-04-08	-	80000000.0 USD	stated
Whinstone US acquisition agreementacquisition	2021-04-07	-	-	stated
Future Sales and Purchases Agreement with Bitmain Technologies Limitedpartnership	2021-04-06	-	-	stated
42,000 Antminer S19j miners from Bitmainacquisition	2021-04-06	2021-11-01	42000.0 units	verified
Mining power capacity from Antminer acquisitionfacility capacity	2021-04-06	2021-11-01	3.7 EH/s	verified
Purchase price for Antminer acquisitionfinancing	2021-04-06	-	138500000.0 USD	stated
Antminer delivery schedule from Bitmainfacility timeline	2021-04-06	2021-11-01	3500.0 units	verified
Appointment of Megan Brooks as Chief Operating Officerpersonnel	2021-04-06	-	-	stated
COO annual salary for Megan Brookspersonnel	2021-04-06	-	275000.0 USD	stated
Equity award for Megan Brooks as COOpersonnel	2021-04-06	-	6000.0 units	stated
4,000 S17-Pro Antminers ordered and deliveredacquisition	2021-03-30	-	6.3 USD	stated
S19 series Antminers acquisition program commencedacquisition	2021-03-30	-	-	stated
30,603 additional Antminers ordered from Bitmainacquisition	2021-03-30	2021-10-31	30603.0 units	verified
2,500 S19-Pro Antminers delivered January 2021acquisition	2021-03-30	-	2500.0 units	stated
2,002 S19-Pro Antminers delivered February 2021acquisition	2021-03-30	-	2002.0 units	stated
2,201 S19-Pro Antminers delivered March 2021acquisition	2021-03-30	-	2201.0 units	stated
11,900 S19-Pro Antminers scheduled for delivery through August 2021acquisition	2021-03-30	2021-08-31	11900.0 units	verified
12,000 S19j-Pro Antminers scheduled for delivery September-November 2021acquisition	2021-03-30	2021-11-30	12000.0 units	outcome unconfirmed
1,500 S19j Antminers ordered for approximately $7.2 millionacquisition	2021-03-30	2021-10-31	7.2 USD	verified
Co-location mining services agreement with Coinmintpartnership - Massena	2021-03-30	-	-	stated
OKC Facility lease expirationfacility timeline - Oklahoma City	2021-03-30	-	-	stated
Relocation of S17-Pro Antminers to Coinmint facilityfacility timeline - Oklahoma City	2021-03-30	-	-	stated
Hash rate capacity as of December 31, 2020facility capacity	2021-03-30	-	0.57 EH/s	stated
Projected hash rate capacity with 13,746 received Antminersfacility capacity	2021-03-30	-	1.3 EH/s	stated
Projected hash rate capacity at full deployment of 39,146 Antminersfacility capacity	2021-03-30	-	4.0 EH/s	stated
Exclusive use of Antminer seriesproduct	2021-03-30	-	-	stated
Independent auditor appointment for fiscal year 2020regulatory	2020-10-13	2020-12-31	-	verified
Common stock, preferred stock, and warrant shelf registrationfinancing	2020-10-06	-	100000000.0 USD	stated
4,000 S17-Pro Antminer purchaseacquisition	2020-10-06	-	6400000.0 USD	stated
1,000 S19-Pro Antminer purchase (April 2020)acquisition	2020-10-06	-	2400000.0 USD	stated
1,040 S19 Antminer purchaseacquisition	2020-10-06	-	1940000.0 USD	stated
1,000 S19-Pro Antminer purchase (June 2020)acquisition	2020-10-06	-	2300000.0 USD	stated
15,600 S19-Pro Antminer purchase agreementacquisition	2020-10-06	-	35300000.0 USD	stated
First tranche of S19-Pro miners deliveryfacility timeline	2020-10-06	-	2500.0 units	stated
Remaining S19-Pro miners delivery schedulefacility timeline	2020-10-06	-	13100.0 units	stated
Coinmint co-location mining services agreementpartnership - Massena	2020-10-06	-	-	stated
Total mining fleet at full deploymentfacility capacity	2020-10-06	-	22640.0 units	stated
Expected operational improvements from Coinmint relocationguidance	2020-10-06	-	-	stated
2,500 Antminer S19 Pro-110 TH/s miners from Bitmainacquisition	2020-10-06	2020-12-31	2500.0 units	outcome unconfirmed
5,100 Antminer S19 Pro miners from Bitmainacquisition	2020-08-26	2021-06-30	11200000.0 USD	verified
Price reduction for 8,000 Antminer S19 Pro minersacquisition	2020-08-26	-	17500000.0 USD	stated
Antminer S19 Pro purchase from Bitmainacquisition	2020-08-17	2021-04-30	8000.0 units	verified
Bitmain purchase payment commitmentfinancing	2020-08-17	2021-03-01	17700000.0 USD	outcome unconfirmed
Receipt of 1,000 Model S19 Pro Antminers from Bitmainacquisition	2020-07-20	-	-	stated
Miner relocation to Coinmint Massena facilityfacility timeline - Massena	2020-06-15	-	-	stated
Purchase of 1,000 Antminer S19 Pro miners from Bitmainacquisition	2020-06-04	-	2300000.0 USD	stated
First delivery of Antminer S19 Pro minersfacility timeline	2020-06-04	2020-09-30	-	outcome unconfirmed
Second delivery of Antminer S19 Pro minersfacility timeline	2020-06-04	2020-10-31	-	outcome unconfirmed
Antminer S19 Pro miners purchase from Bitmainacquisition	2020-05-11	2020-07-25	1940000.0 USD	verified
Purchase of 4,000 Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro minersacquisition	2020-05-07	-	6.3 USD	stated
Delivery of Bitmain S17 miners to Oklahoma City facilityfacility timeline - Oklahoma City	2020-05-07	-	-	stated
Installation and operation of 4,000 Bitmain S17 minersfacility timeline	2020-05-07	-	-	stated
Previous-generation miners taken offline; future use under evaluationfacility capacity	2020-05-07	-	-	stated
At-the-market offering facility with H.C. Wainwrightfinancing	2020-05-07	-	100.0 USD	stated
12-month liquidity sufficiencyguidance	2020-05-07	2021-03-31	-	outcome unconfirmed
Purchase of 1,000 Antminer S19 Pro digital currency miners from Bitmainacquisition	2020-05-04	2020-06-30	2437000.0 USD	verified
Lease extension for Kairos subsidiary facilityfacility timeline - Oklahoma City	2020-04-19	-	-	stated
Coinmint Co-Locating Mining Services Agreementpartnership - Massena	2020-04-13	-	-	stated
Coinmint mining operations agreement termfacility timeline - Massena	2020-04-13	2020-10-08	-	verified
Massena facility mining equipment and power capacityfacility capacity - Massena	2020-04-13	-	9500.0 kWh	stated
Purchase of 4,000 Bitmain S17 Pro Antminersacquisition	2020-03-24	-	6.4 USD	stated
S17 Pro Antminers deployment to production in Q1 2020facility capacity	2020-03-24	-	4000.0 units	stated
Maximum hashing rate of S17 Pro Antminers at OKC facilityfacility capacity - Oklahoma City	2020-03-24	-	248.0 PH/s	stated
Oklahoma mining facility power capacityfacility capacity - Oklahoma City	2020-03-24	-	12.0 MW	stated
Kairos Global Technology business combinationacquisition	2020-03-24	-	8000.0 units	withdrawn
Logical Brokerage (RiotX) acquisitionacquisition	2020-03-24	-	600000.0 USD	stated
Bitmain S17 Pro Antminers purchase and deploymentacquisition	2020-03-24	-	6400000.0 USD	stated
S17 Pro Antminer hashing performanceproduct	2020-03-24	-	248.0 PH/s	stated
Bitcoin halving May 2020guidance	2020-03-24	2020-05-31	6.25 BTC	outcome unconfirmed
Litecoin halving August 2023guidance	2020-03-24	2023-08-31	6.25 LTC	outcome unconfirmed
Equity investment in Coinsquarepartnership	2020-03-24	-	11.7 percent	stated
Equity investment in Veradypartnership	2020-03-24	-	3.2 percent	stated
Equity investment in TessPaypartnership	2020-03-24	-	8.8 percent	stated
Logical Brokerage regulatory registrationsregulatory	2020-03-24	-	-	stated
Kairos Global Technology business combinationacquisition	2020-03-24	-	8000.0 units	stated
Bitmain S17 Pro Antminers purchaseacquisition	2020-03-24	-	4000.0 units	stated
Mining operation estimated maximum hashing ratefacility capacity	2020-03-24	-	248.0 PH/s	stated
S17 Pro Antminers delivery to facilityfacility timeline - Oklahoma City	2020-03-24	-	-	stated
Operating ASIC miners inventoryfacility capacity - Oklahoma City	2020-03-24	-	7400.0 units	stated
Coinsquare Ltd. equity ownershippartnership	2020-03-24	-	11.7 percent	stated
Verady LLC equity ownershippartnership	2020-03-24	-	3.2 percent	stated
TessPay Inc. equity ownershippartnership	2020-03-24	-	8.8 percent	stated
S17 Pro Antminers deployment in servicefacility capacity	2020-03-24	-	4000.0 units	stated
CEOpersonnel	2020-03-16	-	-	stated
Results stability expectedguidance	2020-03-16	-	-	stated
10-K filing deadlineregulatory	2020-03-16	2020-04-15	-	outcome unconfirmed
XMS Capital Partners engagementpartnership	2020-02-25	-	-	stated
RiotX Exchange sunsetproduct	2020-02-25	-	-	stated
2020 strategic focus on bitcoin miningguidance	2020-02-25	-	-	stated
Delivery of 1,060 S17 Pro Antminersacquisition	2020-02-13	-	1060.0 units	stated
SEC Investigation Conclusionregulatory	2020-02-02	-	-	stated
Kairos lease extension through May 2020facility timeline - Oklahoma City	2020-01-12	-	-	stated
S17 Antminer deployment at Oklahoma City facilityfacility capacity - Oklahoma City	2020-01-12	-	-	stated
Purchase of 1,000 Antminer S17 Pro miners from Bitmainacquisition	2019-12-17	-	1000.0 units	stated
Expected delivery of Antminer S17 Pro minersfacility timeline	2019-12-17	2020-01-31	1000.0 units	verified
Installation and integration of minersfacility timeline	2019-12-17	-	-	stated
Antminer S17 Pro miner purchase from Bitmainacquisition	2019-12-03	-	4850465.85 USD	stated
Delivery of Antminer S17 Pro miners to Oklahoma City facilityfacility timeline - Oklahoma City	2019-12-03	2019-12-11	3000.0 units	verified
At-the-market offering authorization with H.C. Wainwrightfinancing	2019-11-11	-	100.0 million USD	stated
RiotX exchange platform developmentproduct	2019-11-11	-	-	stated
Operating cash sufficiency through twelve monthsguidance	2019-11-11	-	-	stated
Directors elected to Boardpersonnel	2019-10-27	-	-	stated
Independent auditor ratifiedregulatory	2019-10-27	-	-	stated
Equity Incentive Plan approvedfinancing	2019-10-27	-	-	stated
Election of Directorspersonnel	2019-10-27	-	-	stated
Appointment of Independent Auditorsregulatory	2019-10-27	-	-	stated
Approval of 2019 Equity Incentive Planfinancing	2019-10-27	-	-	stated
Payment to Synapse for agreement terminationfinancing	2019-09-29	-	50000.0 USD	stated
Termination of Synapse Master Services Agreementpartnership	2019-09-29	-	-	stated
Marcum, LLP auditor appointment for fiscal year 2019regulatory	2019-09-19	2019-12-31	-	verified
2019 Equity Incentive Plan adoptionpersonnel	2019-09-19	2019-10-23	-	verified
CFO Robby Chang terminationpersonnel	2019-08-14	2019-08-15	-	verified
Jeffrey G. McGonegal interim CFO appointmentpersonnel	2019-08-14	2019-08-15	-	verified
McGonegal tenure and continued CEO rolepersonnel	2019-08-14	-	-	stated
At-the-market offering capacityfinancing	2019-08-07	-	100000000.0 USD	stated
RiotX exchange platform developmentproduct	2019-08-07	-	-	stated
Advisory Board Formationpersonnel	2019-07-24	-	-	stated
At-the-Market Common Stock Offering Agreementfinancing	2019-05-23	-	100000000.0 USD	stated
Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Notes Issuancefinancing	2019-05-23	-	3358333.0 USD	stated
RiotX Digital Currency Exchangeproduct	2019-05-23	-	-	stated
Expected Near-Term Operating Lossesguidance	2019-05-23	-	-	stated
Twelve-Month Capital Requirementsguidance	2019-05-23	-	-	stated
ATM Offering Agreement with Wainwrightfinancing	2019-05-23	-	100000000.0 USD	stated
Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Notes issuancefinancing	2019-05-09	-	3358333.0 USD	stated
Warrant issuance with convertible notesfinancing	2019-05-09	-	1908144.0 shares	stated
Acquisition of mining miners from multiple companiesacquisition	2019-05-09	-	8000.0 miners	stated
RiotX digital currency exchange under investigationproduct	2019-05-09	-	-	stated
Expected near-term operating lossesguidance	2019-05-09	-	-	stated
Oklahoma mining facility miner deploymentfacility capacity - Oklahoma City	2019-01-10	-	8000.0 units	stated
Bitcoin mining maximum hash ratefacility capacity	2019-01-10	-	95.0 PH/s	stated
Oklahoma mining facility lease expirationfacility timeline - Oklahoma City	2019-01-10	-	-	stated
Oklahoma mining facility monthly lease rent obligationfinancing - Oklahoma City	2019-01-10	-	190000.0 USD	stated
Shelf offering of $100 millionfinancing	2019-01-02	-	100000000.0 USD	stated
Logical Brokerage Corp. 92.5% stake acquiredacquisition	2019-01-02	-	92.5 percent	stated
Kairos Global Technologies acquisitionacquisition	2019-01-02	-	-	stated
Tess Inc. acquisitionacquisition	2019-01-02	-	-	stated
Investment in Coinsquarepartnership	2019-01-02	-	-	stated
John O'Rourke resigned as CEO and Chairmanpersonnel	2019-01-02	-	-	stated
Christopher Ensey appointed interim CEOpersonnel	2019-01-02	-	-	stated
Remo Mancini appointed Chairmanpersonnel	2019-01-02	-	-	stated
Andrew Kaplan resigned from boardpersonnel	2019-01-02	-	-	stated
Benjamin Yi appointed to boardpersonnel	2019-01-02	-	-	stated
Mining operations relocated to Oklahoma Cityfacility timeline - Oklahoma City	2019-01-02	-	-	stated
8,000 digital currency miners deployedfacility capacity - Oklahoma City	2019-01-02	-	8000.0 units	stated
Mining equipment operational since June 2018facility timeline - Oklahoma City	2019-01-02	-	-	stated
Mining facility lease extended through August 2019facility timeline - Oklahoma City	2019-01-02	-	-	stated
12 megawatts monthly power capacityfacility capacity - Oklahoma City	2019-01-02	-	12.0 MW	stated
95 petahash per second maximum hash ratefacility capacity	2019-01-02	-	95.0 petahash per second	stated
RiotX digital currency exchange in developmentproduct	2019-01-02	-	-	stated
Pursuing regulatory approval for digital currency exchangeregulatory	2019-01-02	-	-	stated
Logical Brokerage Corp acquisitionacquisition	2018-12-11	-	92.5 percent	stated
Digital currency miners at Oklahoma City facilityfacility capacity - Oklahoma City	2018-12-11	-	8000.0 units	stated
Maximum mining hash ratefacility capacity	2018-12-11	-	95.0 petahash per second	stated
Oklahoma City facility lease extensionfacility timeline - Oklahoma City	2018-12-11	-	-	stated
RiotX digital currency exchangeproduct	2018-12-11	-	-	stated
Banking services partnership for RiotXpartnership	2018-12-11	-	-	stated
Exchange platform partnership with Shift Marketspartnership	2018-12-11	-	-	stated
Expected near-term operational lossesguidance	2018-12-11	-	-	stated
Capital requirements within 12 monthsguidance	2018-12-11	-	-	stated
Expected ongoing revenues from bitcoin miningguidance	2018-12-11	-	-	stated
Currently pursuing debt and equity capitalfinancing	2018-12-11	-	-	stated
Christopher Ensey interim CEOpersonnel	2018-12-11	-	-	stated
Remo Mancini board chairmanpersonnel	2018-12-11	-	-	stated
Benjamin Yi board memberpersonnel	2018-12-11	-	-	stated
Lease term extended through August 2019facility timeline - Oklahoma City	2018-12-05	-	-	stated
Monthly facility rent December 2018financing - Oklahoma City	2018-12-05	-	235000.0 USD	stated
Monthly facility rent January 2019financing - Oklahoma City	2018-12-05	-	230000.0 USD	stated
Monthly facility rent from February 2019 onwardsfinancing - Oklahoma City	2018-12-05	-	190000.0 USD	stated
Electricity metering installation cost reimbursementfinancing - Oklahoma City	2018-12-05	-	14000.0 USD	stated
Lease renewal options availablefacility timeline - Oklahoma City	2018-12-05	-	-	stated
Agreement with Shift Markets for crypto exchange platformpartnership	2018-11-27	-	-	stated
Christopher Ensey as Interim Chief Executive Officerpersonnel	2018-11-13	-	-	stated
Interim CEOpersonnel	2018-11-13	-	-	stated
10-Q filing deadlineregulatory	2018-11-13	2018-11-19	-	outcome unconfirmed
Synapse Financial Technologies partnership for digital currency exchangepartnership	2018-10-28	-	-	stated
Planned branded digital currency exchange in the United Statesproduct	2018-10-28	-	-	stated
Andrew Kaplan Board Resignationpersonnel	2018-10-22	-	-	stated
Benjamin Yi Appointed as Independent Directorpersonnel	2018-10-22	2018-10-23	-	outcome unconfirmed
Benjamin Yi Annual Director Compensationpersonnel	2018-10-22	-	56000.0 USD	stated
SEC Section 8(e) Examination Terminatedregulatory	2018-10-22	-	-	stated
Ongoing SEC Investigationregulatory	2018-10-22	-	-	stated
Christopher Ensey appointed Interim Chief Executive Officerpersonnel	2018-09-25	-	-	stated
Interim CEO base salarypersonnel	2018-09-25	-	306000.0 USD	stated
Interim CEO bonus eligibilitypersonnel	2018-09-25	-	100.0 percent	stated
RSU award to Interim CEOpersonnel	2018-09-25	-	24000.0 units	stated
CEO resignation and interim appointmentpersonnel	2018-09-09	-	-	stated
Chairman appointmentpersonnel	2018-09-09	-	-	stated
Investment and Strategy Committee createdpersonnel	2018-09-09	-	-	stated
Audit Committee chair appointmentpersonnel	2018-09-09	-	-	stated
Coinsquare exclusive licensing agreement for U.S. cryptocurrency exchangepartnership	2018-09-06	-	-	stated
Cryptocurrencies offered on Riot exchangeproduct	2018-09-06	-	-	stated
450,000 Riot common shares as one-time fee for Coinsquare licensefinancing	2018-09-06	-	450000.0 common shares	stated
Shares equivalent to 9.9% of RiotX Holdings as one-time fee for Coinsquare licensefinancing	2018-09-06	-	9.9 percent of RiotX Holdings Inc shares	stated
Integration fees for Coinsquare platform customizationfinancing	2018-09-06	-	485331.0 USD	stated
Ongoing transaction fees to Coinsquarefinancing	2018-09-06	-	0.1 percent	stated
Minority stake acquisition in Coinsquare (September 2017)acquisition	2018-09-06	-	3000000.0 USD	stated
Additional equity and warrant investment in Coinsquare (February 2018)acquisition	2018-09-06	-	6400000.0 USD	stated
Riot current ownership stake in Coinsquareacquisition	2018-09-06	-	12.9 percent	stated
Cole Diamond appointment to Riot Advisory Board and share compensationpersonnel	2018-09-06	-	15000.0 restricted common shares	stated
RiotX CFTC-registered futures introducing brokerregulatory	2018-09-06	-	-	stated
RiotX FinCEN Money Service Business licenseregulatory	2018-09-06	-	-	stated
RiotX Florida Money Transmitter Licenseregulatory	2018-09-06	-	-	stated
RiotX pursuing additional state Money Transmitter Licensesregulatory	2018-09-06	-	-	stated
Initial waiver payment to BMSSfinancing	2018-08-23	2018-08-21	150000.0 USD	outcome unconfirmed
Recurring $200,000 waiver payments to BMSSfinancing	2018-08-23	2018-09-30	200000.0 USD	delayed
Final payment to BMSS with accrued interestfinancing	2018-08-23	-	150000.0 USD	stated
Restricted stock issuance to BMSSfinancing	2018-08-23	2018-08-28	50000.0 shares	outcome unconfirmed
Acquisition of Kairos Global Technology, Inc.acquisition	2018-08-13	-	1200.0 units	stated
Acquisition of Prive Technologies, Inc. minersacquisition	2018-08-13	-	3800.0 units	stated
Acquisition of Blockchain Mining Supply & Services Ltd. minersacquisition	2018-08-13	-	3000.0 units	stated
Acquisition of 92.5% stake in Logical Brokerage Corp.acquisition	2018-08-13	-	92.5 percent	stated
Execution of data center facility lease in Oklahoma Cityfacility timeline - Oklahoma City	2018-08-13	-	107000.0 sqft	stated
Formation of Digital Green Energy Corp. subsidiarypartnership	2018-08-13	-	-	stated
Active miners installed at Oklahoma City data centerfacility capacity - Oklahoma City	2018-08-13	-	8000.0 units	stated
Logical Brokerage CFTC and NFA registrationregulatory	2018-08-13	-	-	stated
Working capital sufficiency guidanceguidance	2018-08-13	2019-08-14	-	outcome unconfirmed
Cryptocurrency mining operations in Oklahoma Cityproduct	2018-07-09	-	-	stated
Investigation of cryptocurrency exchange launch in the USproduct	2018-07-09	-	-	stated
Completed acquisition of Kairos Global Technology, Inc.acquisition	2018-07-09	-	-	stated
Completed acquisition of Tess Inc.acquisition	2018-07-09	-	-	stated
Investment in Coinsquarepartnership	2018-07-09	-	-	stated
Potential establishment of mining operations in other locationsguidance	2018-07-09	-	-	stated
Kairos miners acquisitionacquisition	2018-06-28	-	1200.0 miners	stated
Additional miners acquisitionacquisition	2018-06-28	-	6800.0 miners	stated
Oklahoma data center facility leasefacility timeline - Oklahoma City	2018-06-28	-	107000.0 square feet	stated
Miners installed and operating as of March 31, 2018facility capacity - Oklahoma City	2018-06-28	-	3500.0 miners	stated
Full deployment miner capacityfacility capacity - Oklahoma City	2018-06-28	-	8000.0 miners	stated
Full deployment power consumptionfacility capacity - Oklahoma City	2018-06-28	-	12.0 MW	stated
Expected mining hashing ratefacility capacity - Oklahoma City	2018-06-28	-	110.0 PH/s	stated
Logical Brokerage Corp acquisitionacquisition	2018-06-28	-	600000.0 USD	stated
Logical Brokerage CFTC and NFA registrationregulatory	2018-06-28	-	-	stated
Logical Brokerage FinCEN and Florida licensingregulatory	2018-06-28	-	-	stated
Investment in Coinsquarepartnership	2018-06-28	-	12.9 percent	stated
Convertible note in Verady LLCfinancing	2018-06-28	-	200000.0 USD	stated
Ownership in Tess Incpartnership	2018-06-28	-	52.0 percent	stated
Digital Green Energy Corp subsidiary formationpartnership	2018-06-28	-	-	stated
Logical Brokerage exchange offeringsproduct	2018-06-28	-	-	stated
Kairos Global Technology acquisition with 1,200 minersacquisition	2018-06-28	-	1200.0 miners	stated
Miners installation progress as of March 31, 2018facility timeline - Oklahoma City	2018-06-28	-	3500.0 miners	stated
Ownership of 12.9% of Coinsquare cryptocurrency exchangepartnership	2018-06-28	-	12.9 percent	stated
Mining operation capacity target upon full deploymentfacility capacity - Oklahoma City	2018-06-28	-	12.0 MW	stated
Estimated hash rate upon full mining deploymentguidance	2018-06-28	-	110.0 PH/s	stated
FinCEN Money Service Business registrationregulatory	2018-06-28	-	-	stated
Florida Money Transmitter License for Logical Brokerageregulatory	2018-06-28	-	-	stated
Mining hardware performance specificationproduct	2018-06-28	-	13.75 TH/s	stated
Mining facility power supply capacityfacility capacity - Oklahoma City	2018-06-28	-	12.0 MW	stated
Mining operation hashing rate targetfacility capacity	2018-06-28	-	110.0 PH/s	stated
Miners deployed and operatingfacility capacity - Oklahoma City	2018-06-28	-	3500.0 units	stated
Ownership stake in Coinsquare crypto exchangepartnership	2018-06-28	-	12.9 percent	stated
Ownership stake in Tess Inc blockchain solutionspartnership	2018-06-28	-	52.0 percent	stated
Mining hardware performance specificationsproduct	2018-06-28	-	13.5 TH/s	stated
Expected hashing rate at full deploymentguidance	2018-06-28	-	110.0 PH/s	stated
Regained Nasdaq listing complianceregulatory	2018-06-20	-	-	stated
Directors elected at 2018 annual meetingpersonnel	2018-06-14	-	-	stated
MNP LLP appointed as auditor for 2018regulatory	2018-06-14	-	-	stated
Chief Executive Officerpersonnel	2018-04-01	-	-	stated
Private placement of convertible notes, warrants, and preferred stock closed March 16, 2017financing	2017-04-27	-	4750000.0 USD	stated
Board authorization to issue common stock upon warrant exercise at $3.00financing	2017-04-27	-	8500000.0 USD	stated
Reincorporation from Colorado to Nevadaregulatory	2017-04-27	-	-	stated
Increase authorized common stock to 170 million sharesregulatory	2017-04-27	-	170000000.0 shares	stated
Authorization of 15 million blank check preferred sharesregulatory	2017-04-27	-	15000000.0 shares	stated
2017 Equity Incentive Plan with 895,000 shares reservedregulatory	2017-04-27	-	895000.0 shares	stated
Acquisition of BiOptix Diagnosticsacquisition	2016-10-16	-	-	stated
BiOptix Diagnostics acquisitionacquisition	2016-10-06	-	-	stated
Corporate name change from Venaxis to Bioptixregulatory	2016-10-06	-	-	stated
GHP Horwath ratified as independent accounting firm for fiscal year 2016regulatory	2016-10-06	2016-12-31	-	outcome unconfirmed
Stock Incentive Plan Share Increasefinancing	2014-04-29	-	1800000.0 shares	stated
Independent Accounting Firm Ratificationregulatory	2014-04-29	2014-12-31	-	outcome unconfirmed
Stephen A. Williams joins Board of Directorspersonnel	2013-04-28	2013-05-01	-	outcome unconfirmed
GHP Horwath P.C. ratified as independent auditorregulatory	2013-04-28	-	-	stated
Common stock authorized shares increasefinancing	2013-04-28	-	60000000.0 shares	stated
Stock Incentive Plan share reserve increasepersonnel	2013-04-28	-	425000.0 shares	stated
AppyScore™ blood-based diagnostic test for appendicitisproduct	2012-10-14	-	-	stated
Common stock offering initiated in 2012financing	2012-10-14	-	-	stated
Exclusive license agreement for animal health intellectual propertypartnership	2012-10-14	-	-	stated
Pursuing FDA regulatory clearance for AppyScore™regulatory	2012-10-14	-	-	stated
Four directors resigned September 26, 2012personnel	2012-10-14	-	-	stated
Stock Incentive Plan term extension to July 8, 2021personnel	2011-05-31	2021-07-08	-	outcome unconfirmed
Stock Incentive Plan share reserve increasepersonnel	2011-05-31	-	700000.0 shares	stated
Stephen T. Lundy appointed Chief Executive Officer and Presidentpersonnel	2010-10-21	-	-	stated
Board restructuring: Gail Schoettler becomes non-executive Chair, Daryl Faulkner steps down as Executive Chairmanpersonnel	2010-10-21	-	-	stated
GHP Horwath appointed as independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2011regulatory	2010-10-21	2011-12-31	-	outcome unconfirmed
Amendment to 2002 Stock Incentive Plan increasing shares reservedfinancing	2010-10-21	-	700000.0 shares	stated
Authorization for reverse stock split at ratios 1-for-2 to 1-for-6 prior to February 4, 2011financing	2010-10-21	2011-02-04	-	outcome unconfirmed
Gail Schoettler appointed non-executive Chair of the Boardpersonnel	2010-10-11	-	-	stated
Daryl Faulkner stepped down from Executive Chairman rolepersonnel	2010-10-11	-	-	stated
Vice Chairman office eliminatedpersonnel	2010-10-11	-	-	stated
Lead Director designation eliminatedpersonnel	2010-10-11	-	-	stated
GHP Horwath, P.C. as independent auditor for fiscal year 2011regulatory	2010-10-11	2011-12-31	-	outcome unconfirmed
Board authorization for reverse stock split up to 1-for-6 by February 4, 2011financing	2010-10-11	2011-02-04	-	outcome unconfirmed
Stock Incentive Plan increase by 700,000 sharesfinancing	2010-10-11	-	700000.0 shares	stated
Stock incentive plan expansionfinancing	2009-10-15	-	1500000.0 shares	stated
Independent accounting firm ratificationregulatory	2009-10-15	-	-	stated
Antigen business acquisition from Vitro Diagnosticsacquisition	2005-09-25	-	-	stated
Richard G. Donnelly appointed President and CEOpersonnel	2005-09-25	-	-	stated
Richard G. Donnelly elected Directorpersonnel	2005-09-25	-	-	stated
Jeffrey G. McGonegal appointed CFOpersonnel	2005-09-25	-	-	stated
Douglas I. Hepler joined Board of Directorspersonnel	2005-09-25	-	-	stated
David E. Welch joined Board of Directorspersonnel	2005-09-25	-	-	stated
Roger D. Hurst employment terminatedpersonnel	2005-09-25	-	-	stated
Stock Incentive Plan share increasefinancing	2005-09-25	-	3500000.0 units	stated
Authorized shares increasefinancing	2005-09-25	-	60000000.0 units	stated
Company name change to AspenBio Pharma, Inc.guidance	2005-09-25	-	-	stated
Holding company restructuringfinancing	2005-09-25	-	-	stated
Merial exclusive marketing and distribution rights for SurBred 15partnership	2004-09-13	-	-	stated
License arrangements with three universitiespartnership	2004-09-13	-	-	stated
SurBred 15 early detection bovine pregnancy testproduct	2004-09-13	-	-	stated
StayBred recombinant luteinizing hormone for cattle pregnancy maintenanceproduct	2004-09-13	-	-	stated
Pipeline products in developmentproduct	2004-09-13	-	-	stated
Roger Hurst exclusive employment agreementpersonnel	2004-09-13	-	-	stated
SurBred 15 antigen-based blood test not subject to FDA regulationregulatory	2004-09-13	-	-	stated
StayBred requires FDA approval or ANDA filingregulatory	2004-09-13	-	-	stated
Markets over 30 products to diagnostic test manufacturers and research facilitiescustomer	2004-09-13	-	-	stated
Director appointmentpersonnel	2004-04-04	-	-	stated
CFO appointmentpersonnel	2004-04-04	-	-	stated
Douglas I. Hepler appointed to Board of Directorspersonnel	2004-03-23	-	-	stated
Jeffrey G. McGonegal appointed Chief Financial Officerpersonnel	2004-03-23	-	-	stated
Douglas I. Hepler stock optionspersonnel	2004-03-23	-	100000.0 shares	stated
Acquisition of antigen business from Vitro Diagnosticsacquisition	2004-03-23	-	-	stated

Executive compensation FY2025

Year	Name	Role as filed	Salary	Stock awards	Option awards	Incentive	Other	Total	Source
2025	Colin M. Yee	CFO (Principal Financial Officer)	$320.8K	$4.71M	$6.99M	$641.7K	$14.5K	$12.67M	View cached copy (2026-08-31)Live source ↗
2025	Soo il Benjamin Yi	Executive Chairman	$1.58M	—	—	$1.87M	$8.9K	$3.45M	View cached copy (2026-08-31)Live source ↗

As reported in the company's DEF 14A Summary Compensation Table (SEC Reg S-K Item 402(c)). Stock and option awards are grant-date fair values — what the award was worth on the day it was granted, not cash received and not what it is worth now. Every row here reconciles: its columns add up to the total the filing printed.

Show earlier years (FY2024, FY2023, FY2022, FY2021, FY2020, FY2019, FY2010, FY2009, FY2008, FY2007)

Year	Name	Role as filed	Salary	Bonus	Stock awards	Option awards	Incentive	Other	Total	Source
2024	Jason Les	CEO	$1.33M	—	$79.26M	—	$2.89M	$41.1K	$83.53M	View cached copy (2026-08-31)Live source ↗
2024	Soo il Benjamin Yi	Executive Chairman	$1.37M	—	$79.26M	—	$2.87M	$9.6K	$83.50M	View cached copy (2026-08-31)Live source ↗
2024	William Richard Jackman	EVP, General Counsel	$500.0K	—	$19.76M	—	$915.0K	$16.0K	$21.19M	View cached copy (2026-08-31)Live source ↗
2024	Jason Chung	EVP, Head of Corporate Development & Strategy	$475.0K	—	$19.76M	—	$858.8K	$18.2K	$21.11M	View cached copy (2026-08-31)Live source ↗
2024	Colin M. Yee	CFO (Principal Financial Officer)	$475.0K	—	$19.76M	—	$863.8K	$8.0K	$21.10M	View cached copy (2026-08-31)Live source ↗
2023	Soo il Benjamin Yi	Executive Chairman	$986.1K	—	$10.99M	—	$1.50M	$28.5K	$13.50M	View cached copy (2026-08-31)Live source ↗
2023	Jason Les	CEO	$963.8K	—	$10.99M	—	$1.50M	$39.1K	$13.49M	View cached copy (2026-08-31)Live source ↗
2023	William Richard Jackman	EVP, General Counsel	$483.7K	—	$7.33M	—	$675.0K	$30.0K	$8.52M	View cached copy (2026-08-31)Live source ↗
2023	Colin M. Yee	CFO (Principal Financial Officer)	$400.0K	—	$7.33M	—	$600.0K	$7.5K	$8.33M	View cached copy (2026-08-31)Live source ↗
2023	Jason Chung	EVP, Head of Corporate Development & Strategy	$375.0K	—	$7.33M	—	$562.5K	$15.6K	$8.28M	View cached copy (2026-08-31)Live source ↗
2022	Jason Les	Chief Executive Officer	$679.8K	—	$20.30M	—	$511.2K	$12.1K	$21.50M	View cached copy (2026-09-13)Live source ↗
2022	Soo il Benjamin Yi	Executive Chairman	$679.8K	—	$20.30M	—	$512.8K	$8.9K	$21.50M	View cached copy (2026-08-31)Live source ↗
2022	Chad Everett Harris	EVP and Chief Commercial Officer (Former)	$346.3K	—	$5.07M	—	$305.0K	$29.8K	$5.76M	View cached copy (2026-09-13)Live source ↗
2022	William Richard Jackman	EVP, General Counsel	$358.8K	—	$5.07M	—	$315.3K	—	$5.75M	View cached copy (2026-09-13)Live source ↗
2022	Colin M. Yee	EVP, Chief Financial Officer	$228.9K	—	$3.31M	—	$200.9K	—	$3.74M	View cached copy (2026-09-13)Live source ↗
2022	Jeffrey Mcgonegal	Chief Financial Officer (Former)	$360.0K	—	$1.52M	—	$316.8K	—	$2.20M	View cached copy (2026-09-13)Live source ↗
2021	Jason Les	Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)	$631.9K	—	$20.16M	—	$1.09M	$3.5K	$21.88M	View cached copy (2026-09-13)Live source ↗
2021	Soo il Benjamin Yi	Executive Chairman	$484.9K	—	$20.12M	—	$732.2K	$5.3K	$21.35M	View cached copy (2026-09-13)Live source ↗
2021	Jeffrey Mcgonegal	Chief Financial Officer (Former)	$354.1K	—	$17.23M	—	$601.9K	$11.2K	$18.20M	View cached copy (2026-09-13)Live source ↗
2021	William Richard Jackman	EVP, General Counsel	$147.9K	—	$12.82M	—	$230.2K	—	$13.20M	View cached copy (2026-09-13)Live source ↗
2020	Jeffrey Mcgonegal	Chief Financial Officer (Former)	$294.1K	$90.0K	$300.0K	—	—	$14.5K	$698.6K	View cached copy (2026-09-13)Live source ↗
2020	Megan M. Brooks	Chief Operating Officer	$175.0K	$78.0K	$144.0K	—	—	$5.0K	$402.0K	View cached copy (2026-09-13)Live source ↗
2019	Jeffrey Mcgonegal	Chief Executive Officer (former) and Chief Financial Officer	$252.2K	—	$175.0K	—	—	$89.2K	$516.4K	View cached copy (2026-09-13)Live source ↗
2019	Megan M. Brooks	Chief Operating Officer	$136.2K	—	$15.0K	—	—	$4.2K	$155.5K	View cached copy (2026-09-13)Live source ↗
2010	Stephen T. Lundy	Chief Executive Officer	$212.6K	—	—	$726.4K	$42.1K	$17.0K	$998.1K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2010	Daryl Faulkner	Executive Chairman and Fmr Chief Executive Officer	$192.3K	—	—	$220.8K	—	$37.9K	$451.0K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2010	Gregory L Bennett	—	$225.0K	—	—	$88.3K	$50.0K	$7.0K	$370.3K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2010	Jeffrey Mcgonegal	Chief Financial Officer	$200.0K	—	—	$88.3K	$35.0K	$19.7K	$343.0K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2009	Daryl Faulkner	Executive Chairman and Fmr Chief Executive Officer	$234.0K	—	—	$696.0K	—	$61.3K	$991.3K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2009	Robert Frederick Caspari	—	$222.6K	—	—	$445.2K	$50.0K	$10.5K	$728.3K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2009	Vice P resident, Product Development and Manufacturing Senior	—	—	—	—	$340.2K	—	$51.0K	$391.3K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2009	Jeffrey Mcgonegal	Chief Financial Officer	$167.5K	—	—	$54.8K	$40.0K	$18.4K	$280.7K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2009	Gregory Pusey	Vice Chairman	$150.0K	—	—	$54.8K	$38.0K	$18.4K	$261.2K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2009	Richard G Donnelly	Former Chief Executive Officer and Director	$31.2K	—	$54.8K	—	—	$167.9K	$253.9K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2009	Mark Colgin	Chief Scientific Officer	$146.9K	—	—	$54.8K	$23.0K	$11.4K	$236.1K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2008	Richard G Donnelly	Former Chief Executive Officer and Director	$250.0K	$37.5K	—	$140.7K	—	$30.9K	$459.2K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2008	Gregory Pusey	Vice Chairman	$150.0K	—	—	$195.4K	—	$20.6K	$366.0K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2008	Jeffrey Mcgonegal	Chief Financial Officer	$110.0K	—	—	$156.3K	—	$20.6K	$286.9K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2008	Mark Colgin	Chief Scientific Officer	$125.0K	—	—	—	$26.6K	$12.4K	$164.0K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2008	Donald L. Traul Dr.	—	$105.0K	$15.0K	—	$15.8K	—	$9.1K	$144.9K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2007	Richard G Donnelly	Former Chief Executive Officer and Director	$222.9K	—	$74.0K	$234.9K	$280.0K	$31.8K	$843.6K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2007	- Former	Chief Executive Officer and Director	$222.9K	$280.0K	$74.0K	$79.0K	—	$31.8K	$687.7K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2007	Gregory Pusey	Vice Chairman	$100.0K	—	—	$117.5K	$125.0K	—	$342.4K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2007	Jeffrey Mcgonegal	Chief Financial Officer	$100.0K	—	—	$117.5K	$80.0K	$20.9K	$318.3K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2007	Projects Manager-Scientific	—	$90.0K	$40.0K	—	$91.5K	—	$8.2K	$229.7K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
2007	Mark Colgin	Chief Scientific Officer	$105.0K	—	—	—	$60.0K	$12.4K	$177.4K	View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗

Insider transactions (SEC Form 3/4/5)

Totals across all insiders

Bucket	Invested (shares)	Invested (USD)	Divested (shares)	Divested (USD)	Net direction	Txns	Invested @ last price	Divested @ last price
All time	12,160,992	$0	11,464,818	$182.86M	↓ Divested $182.86M	100	$169.89M	$160.16M
2026	12,128,786	$0	9,820,442	$155.58M	↓ Divested $155.58M	82	$169.44M	$137.19M
2025	32,206	$0	1,644,376	$27.27M	↓ Divested $27.27M	18	$449.9K	$22.97M
2025-Q4	-	$0	379,600	$7.14M	↓ Divested $7.14M	6	$0	$5.30M
2026-Q1	11,562,718	$0	78,850	$999.0K	↓ Divested $999.0K	34	$161.53M	$1.10M
2026-Q2	-	$0	2,897,208	$16.11M	↓ Divested $16.11M	10	$0	$40.47M
2026-Q3	566,068	$0	6,844,384	$138.48M	↓ Divested $138.48M	38	$7.91M	$95.62M

Invested = shares acquired (buys, grants, option exercises) — insider adding to the position. Divested = shares reduced (sells, dispositions, tax-withholding) — cash flowing TO the insider. Net direction shows which side wins on dollar terms in each bucket. % of holder's stake not yet computed (pending Form 3/4 holdings ingest). See methodology. The two @ last price columns restate the same share counts at the most recent share price we read (close of 2026-10-19); they are a valuation, not a cash flow, and they move every day the market does.

Individual filings

Date	Insider	Kind	Shares	Amount (USD)	Value @ last price	Source
2026-08-12	Stephen Mitchell Howell Jr.	Bona fide gift	21,198	-	$296.1K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-08-12	Stephen Mitchell Howell Jr.	Bona fide gift	21,198	-	$296.1K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-08-05	Ryan D. Werner	Open-market sale	2,501	$58,849	$34.9K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-08-05	Ryan D. Werner	Open-market sale	9,802	$223,682	$136.9K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-08-05	Ryan D. Werner	Open-market sale	35,430	$778,751	$495.0K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-08-05	Ryan D. Werner	Open-market sale	2,501	$58,849	$34.9K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-08-05	Ryan D. Werner	Open-market sale	9,802	$223,682	$136.9K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-08-05	Ryan D. Werner	Open-market sale	35,430	$778,751	$495.0K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-31	Jason Les	Tax withholding on vesting	2,896,921	$58,430,897	$40.47M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-31	Stephen Mitchell Howell Jr.	Tax withholding on vesting	153,162	$3,089,278	$2.14M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-31	Ryan D. Werner	Tax withholding on vesting	148,500	$2,995,245	$2.07M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-31	Jason Les	Tax withholding on vesting	2,896,921	$58,430,897	$40.47M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-31	Stephen Mitchell Howell Jr.	Tax withholding on vesting	153,162	$3,089,278	$2.14M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-31	Ryan D. Werner	Tax withholding on vesting	148,500	$2,995,245	$2.07M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-07	Ryan D. Werner	Open-market sale	7,596	$166,580	$106.1K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-07	Ryan D. Werner	Open-market sale	10,232	$217,123	$142.9K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-07	Ryan D. Werner	Open-market sale	7,596	$166,580	$106.1K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-07	Ryan D. Werner	Open-market sale	10,232	$217,123	$142.9K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Stephen Mitchell Howell Jr.	Tax withholding on vesting	21,966	$526,305	$306.9K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Jason Les	Tax withholding on vesting	101,015	$2,420,319	$1.41M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Ryan D. Werner	Tax withholding on vesting	13,869	$332,301	$193.7K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Colin M. Yee	Option / RSU exercise · Restricted Stock Units	83,752	-	$1.17M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Colin M. Yee	Option / RSU exercise · Restricted Stock Units	41,071	-	$573.8K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Colin M. Yee	Option / RSU exercise	124,823	-	$1.74M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Michael John Turner	Grant / award / vesting	8,347	-	$116.6K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗

Show older filings (75 more)

Date	Insider	Kind	Shares	Amount (USD)	Value @ last price	Source
2026-07-01	Lance Varro D'Ambrosio	Grant / award / vesting	8,347	-	$116.6K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Douglas Mouton	Grant / award / vesting	8,347	-	$116.6K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Jaime Leverton	Grant / award / vesting	8,347	-	$116.6K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Stephen Mitchell Howell Jr.	Tax withholding on vesting	21,966	$526,305	$306.9K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Jason Les	Tax withholding on vesting	101,015	$2,420,319	$1.41M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Ryan D. Werner	Tax withholding on vesting	13,869	$332,301	$193.7K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Colin M. Yee	Option / RSU exercise · Restricted Stock Units	83,752	-	$1.17M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Colin M. Yee	Option / RSU exercise · Restricted Stock Units	41,071	-	$573.8K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Colin M. Yee	Option / RSU exercise	124,823	-	$1.74M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Michael John Turner	Grant / award / vesting	8,347	-	$116.6K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Lance Varro D'Ambrosio	Grant / award / vesting	8,347	-	$116.6K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Douglas Mouton	Grant / award / vesting	8,347	-	$116.6K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-07-01	Jaime Leverton	Grant / award / vesting	8,347	-	$116.6K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-06-22	Ryan D. Werner	Open-market sale	25,375	$761,250	$354.5K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-06-22	Jason Les	Open-market sale	62,703	$1,886,733	$876.0K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-06-22	Ryan D. Werner	Open-market sale	25,375	$761,250	$354.5K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-06-22	Jason Les	Open-market sale	62,703	$1,886,733	$876.0K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-05-27	Ryan D. Werner	Open-market sale	37,616	$996,824	$525.5K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-05-27	Ryan D. Werner	Open-market sale	37,616	$996,824	$525.5K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-05-11	Jason Les	Open-market sale	175,000	$4,408,250	$2.44M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-05-11	Jason Les	Open-market sale	175,000	$4,408,250	$2.44M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-04-12	Jonathan Gibbs	Sale to issuer (buyback)	1,147,910	-	$16.04M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-04-12	Jonathan Gibbs	Sale to issuer (buyback)	1,147,910	-	$16.04M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Jason Les	Grant / award / vesting	947,118	-	$13.23M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Jason Les	Grant / award / vesting	473,559	-	$6.62M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Ryan D. Werner	Grant / award / vesting	118,388	-	$1.65M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Ryan D. Werner	Grant / award / vesting	59,194	-	$826.9K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Ryan D. Werner	Tax withholding on vesting	9,943	$125,978	$138.9K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Stephen Mitchell Howell Jr.	Grant / award / vesting	394,632	-	$5.51M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Stephen Mitchell Howell Jr.	Grant / award / vesting	197,316	-	$2.76M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Stephen Mitchell Howell Jr.	Tax withholding on vesting	29,482	$373,537	$411.9K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Soo il Benjamin Yi	Grant / award / vesting	947,118	-	$13.23M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Soo il Benjamin Yi	Grant / award / vesting	473,559	-	$6.62M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	William Richard Jackman	Grant / award / vesting	394,632	-	$5.51M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	William Richard Jackman	Grant / award / vesting	197,316	-	$2.76M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Jason Chung	Grant / award / vesting	473,558	-	$6.62M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Jason Chung	Grant / award / vesting	236,779	-	$3.31M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Jonathan Gibbs	Grant / award / vesting	473,558	-	$6.62M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Jonathan Gibbs	Grant / award / vesting	236,779	-	$3.31M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Colin M. Yee	Grant / award / vesting · Restricted Stock Units	157,853	-	$2.21M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Jason Les	Grant / award / vesting	947,118	-	$13.23M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Jason Les	Grant / award / vesting	473,559	-	$6.62M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Ryan D. Werner	Grant / award / vesting	118,388	-	$1.65M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Ryan D. Werner	Grant / award / vesting	59,194	-	$826.9K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Ryan D. Werner	Tax withholding on vesting	9,943	$125,978	$138.9K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Stephen Mitchell Howell Jr.	Grant / award / vesting	394,632	-	$5.51M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Stephen Mitchell Howell Jr.	Grant / award / vesting	197,316	-	$2.76M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Stephen Mitchell Howell Jr.	Tax withholding on vesting	29,482	$373,537	$411.9K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Soo il Benjamin Yi	Grant / award / vesting	947,118	-	$13.23M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Soo il Benjamin Yi	Grant / award / vesting	473,559	-	$6.62M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	William Richard Jackman	Grant / award / vesting	394,632	-	$5.51M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	William Richard Jackman	Grant / award / vesting	197,316	-	$2.76M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Jason Chung	Grant / award / vesting	473,558	-	$6.62M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Jason Chung	Grant / award / vesting	236,779	-	$3.31M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Jonathan Gibbs	Grant / award / vesting	473,558	-	$6.62M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Jonathan Gibbs	Grant / award / vesting	236,779	-	$3.31M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2026-01-01	Colin M. Yee	Grant / award / vesting · Restricted Stock Units	157,853	-	$2.21M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-12-01	Jonathan Gibbs	Tax withholding on vesting	60,868	$942,237	$850.3K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-12-01	Jonathan Gibbs	Tax withholding on vesting	60,868	$942,237	$850.3K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-10-10	Ryan D. Werner	Open-market sale	14,984	$344,632	$209.3K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-10-10	Ryan D. Werner	Open-market sale	14,984	$344,632	$209.3K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-10-03	Jason Les	Open-market sale	113,948	$2,283,518	$1.59M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-10-03	Jason Les	Open-market sale	113,948	$2,283,518	$1.59M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-09-29	Jason Les	Open-market sale	12,800	$256,000	$178.8K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-09-29	Jason Les	Open-market sale	12,800	$256,000	$178.8K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-09-24	Jason Les	Open-market sale	23,252	$465,970	$324.8K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-09-24	Jason Les	Open-market sale	23,252	$465,970	$324.8K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-09-10	William Richard Jackman	Open-market sale	248,168	$3,916,091	$3.47M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-09-10	William Richard Jackman	Open-market sale	248,168	$3,916,091	$3.47M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-09-10	William Richard Jackman	Open-market sale	248,168	$3,916,091	$3.47M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-09-10	William Richard Jackman	Open-market sale	248,168	$3,916,091	$3.47M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-07-21	Jason Les	Open-market sale	100,000	$1,512,000	$1.40M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-07-21	Jason Les	Open-market sale	100,000	$1,512,000	$1.40M	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-07-11	Douglas Mouton	Grant / award / vesting	16,103	-	$225.0K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗
2025-07-11	Jaime Leverton	Grant / award / vesting	16,103	-	$225.0K	View cached copy (2026-08-30)Live source ↗

Federal court dockets (via CourtListener/RECAP)

Every docket has its full metadata cached locally so we don't send visitors through a login wall. Click a case number to see our cached docket page.

Court	Case number	Case title	Link	Filed
txnd	3:26-cv-01842	Green Revolution Cooling Inc v. Riot Platforms Inc	Party	2026-06-03
txnd	3:26-cv-00532	Howell v. Riot Platforms Inc	Party	2026-02-18
txwd	1:25-cv-02129	Riot Platforms, Inc. v. Hash House Tech, Inc.	Party	2025-12-23
txwd	7:25-cv-00567	Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. Foundry Digital LLC	Party	2025-12-12
cod	1:25-cv-02534	Ess Metron, LLC v. Kratos Industries, LLC	Party	2025-08-13
txsb	25-03047	Rhodium JV LLC v. Whinstone US, Inc.	Party	2025-02-11
txwd	6:24-cv-00099	Texas Blockchain Council v. Department of Energy	Party	2024-02-22
nywd	6:26-cv-06874	Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. Foundry Digital LLC	Mentioned	2026-08-28
txwd	7:26-mc-00323	Neural AI, LLC v. CoreWeave, Inc.	Mentioned	2026-08-18
njd	2:26-cv-00355	MASAITIS v. COREWEAVE, INC.	Mentioned	2026-01-12
azd	2:25-cv-04416	Singh Family Revocable Trust U/A Dated 2/18/2019 v. Sprouts Farmers Market Incor	Mentioned	2025-11-24
txsd	4:25-cv-04477	Hernandez v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc.	Mentioned	2025-09-21
cod	1:25-cv-02770	Lee v. Quantum Corporation	Mentioned	2025-09-04
ctd	3:25-cv-01441	Keller v. Tronox Holdings PLC	Mentioned	2025-09-03
cacd	2:25-cv-07844	Omar Abdul-Hameed v. Snap Inc.	Mentioned	2025-08-21
txed	2:25-cv-00519	Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. Core Scientific, Inc.	Mentioned	2025-05-12
cacd	2:24-cv-08280	Electric Solidus, Inc. v. Proton Management LTD.	Mentioned	2024-09-25