·We may encounter unforeseen difficulties with our business or operations in the future that may deplete our capital resources more rapidly than anticipated. As a result, we may be required to obtain additional working capital in the future through public or private debt or equity financings, borrowings or otherwise. If we are required to raise additional working capital in the future, such financing may be unavailable to us on favorable terms, if at all, or may be dilutive to our existing stockholders. If we fail to obtain additional working capital,classified as and when needed, such failure could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.an inadvertent investment company.

Therefore, thereWe are not engaged in the business of investing, reinvesting, or trading in securities, and we do not hold ourselves out as being engaged in those activities. Under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), however, a company may be deemed an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act if the value of its investment securities is no assurancemore than 40% of its total assets (exclusive of government securities and cash items) on a consolidated basis.

We have commenced digital asset mining, the outputs of which are cryptocurrencies, which may be deemed a security. In the event that the monetizationdigital assets held by us exceed 40% of our patent portfoliostotal assets, exclusive of cash, we inadvertently become an investment company. An inadvertent investment company can avoid being classified as an investment company if it can rely on one of the exclusions under the 1940 Act. One such exclusion, Rule 3a-2 under the 1940 Act, allows an inadvertent investment company a grace period of one year from the earlier of (a) the date on which an issuer owns securities and/or cash having a value exceeding 50% of the issuer’s total assets on either a consolidated or unconsolidated basis and (b) the date on which an issuer owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of such issuer’s total assets (exclusive of government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. We are putting in place policies that we expect will generate enough revenuework to recoupkeep the investment securities held by us at less than 40% of our investment.

We presently rely upontotal assets, which may include acquiring assets with our cash, liquidating our investment securities or seeking a no-action letter from the patent assets we acquire from other patent owners. IfSEC if we are unable to monetize such assets and generate revenue and profit through thoseacquire sufficient assets or byliquidate sufficient investment securities in a timely manner.

As Rule 3a-2 is available to a company no more than once every three years, and assuming no other means, there isexclusion were available to us, we would have to keep within the 40% limit for at least three years after we cease being an inadvertent investment company. This may limit our ability to make certain investments or enter into joint ventures that could otherwise have a significant risk thatpositive impact on our earnings. In any event, we do not intend to become an investment company engaged in the business would fail.of investing and trading securities.

WhenClassification as an investment company under the 1940 Act requires registration with the SEC. If an investment company fails to register, it would have to stop doing almost all business, and its contracts would become voidable. Registration is time consuming and restrictive and would require a restructuring of our operations, and we commenced our current linewould be very constrained in the kind of business in 2012, we acquiredcould do as a registered investment company. Further, we would become subject to substantial regulation concerning management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons and portfolio composition, and would need to file reports under the 1940 Act regime. The cost of patent assets from Sampo IP, LLC (“Sampo”), a company affiliated with our Chief Executive Officer, Douglas Croxall, from which we have generated revenue from enforcement activities and for which we plan to continue to generate enforcement related revenue.  On April 16, 2013, we acquired a patent from Mosaid Technologies Incorporated, a Canadian corporation. On April 22, 2013, we acquired a patent portfolio through a merger between our wholly-owned subsidiary, CyberFone Acquisition Corp., a Texas corporation and CyberFone Systems LLC, a Texas limited liability company (“CyberFone Systems”). In June 2013, in connection with the closing of a licensing agreement with Siemens Technology, we acquired a patent portfolio from that company.  In September 2013, we acquired a portfolio from TeleCommunication Systems and an additional portfolio from Intergraph Corporation.  In October 2013, we acquired a patent portfolio from TT IP, LLC.  In December 2013 we engaged in three transactions: (i) in connection with a licensing agreement with Zhone, we acquired a portfolio of patents from that company; (ii) we acquired a patent portfolio from Delphi Technologies, Inc.; and (iii) in connection with a settlement and license agreement, we agreed to settle and release a defendant for past and future use of our patents, whereby the defendant agreed to assign and transfer two U.S. patents and rights to us.  In May 2014, we acquired ownership rights of Dynamic Advances, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, IP Liquidity Ventures, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and Sarif Biomedical, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, all of which hold patent portfolios or contract rights to the revenue generated from patent portfolios. In June 2014, we acquired Selene Communication Technologies, LLC, which holds multiple patentssuch compliance would result in the searchCompany incurring substantial additional expenses, and network intrusion field.  In August 2014, we acquired patents from Clouding IP LLC, with such patents relatedthe failure to network and data management technology. In September 2014, we acquired TLI Communications, which ownsregister if required would have a single patent in the telecommunication field. In October 2014, we acquired three patent portfolios from MedTech Development, LLC, which owns medical technology patents. In June 2016, we acquired two patent portfolios from Siemens covering W-CDMA and GSM cellular technology. In July 2016, we acquired a patent portfolio from Siemens covering internet-of-things technology. In

August 2016, entered into two transactions.  In the first, we acquired a patent portfolio from CPT IP Holdings, LLC covering battery technology and in the second, we entered into a Patent Funding and Exclusive License Agreement with a Fortune 50 companymaterially adverse impact to monetize more than 10,000 patents in a single industry vertical. In September 2016, we acquired a patent from Cirrex Systems, LLC covering LED technology. We plan to generate revenues fromconduct our acquired patent portfolios.  However, if our efforts to generate revenue from these assets fail, we will have incurred significant losses and may be unable to acquire additional assets. If this occurs, our business would likely fail.operations.

We have economic interests in patent portfolios that the Company does not control and the decision regarding the timing and amount of licenses are held by third parties, which could lead to outcomes materially different than what the Company intended.

The Company owns contract rights to two patent portfolios over which it does not exercise control and cannot determine when and if, and if so, for how much, the patent owner licenses the patents.  This could lead to situations where we have dedicated resources, time and money to portfolios that, despite the best interests of the Company, provide little or no return on our investment.  In these situations, the Company would record a loss on its investment and incur losses that contribute to the overall performance of the Company and could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition.

Failure to effectively manage our growth could place strains on our managerial, operational and financial resources and could adversely affect our business and operating results.

Our growth has placed, and is expected to continue to place, a strain on our limited managerial, operational and financial resources and systems. Further, as our subsidiary companies’ businesses grow, we will be required to continue to manage multiple relationships. Any further growth by us or our subsidiary companies, or an increase in the number of our strategic relationships, may place additional strain on our managerial, operational and financial resources and systems. Although we may not grow as we expect, if we fail to manage our growth effectively or to develop and expand our managerial, operational and financial resources and systems, our business and financial results would be materially harmed.

Marathon has an evolving business model.

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

Digital Assets such as bitcoin and ether are likely to be regulated as securities or investment securities.

Bitcoin is the oldest and most well-known form of digital asset. Bitcoin, ether, and other forms of digital assets/cryptocurrencies have been the source of much regulatory consternation, resulting in differing definitional outcomes without a single unifying statement. When the interests of investor protection are paramount, for example in the offer or sale of Initial Coin Offering (“ICO”) tokens, the SEC has no difficulty determining that the token offerings are securities under the “Howey” test as stated by the United States Supreme Court, a conclusion with which Marathon agrees. As such, ICO offerings would require registration under the Securities Act or an available exemption therefrom for offers or sales in the United States to be lawful. Section 5(a) of the Securities Act provides that, unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, it is unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to engage in the offer or sale of securities in interstate commerce. Section 5(c) of the Securities Act provides a similar prohibition against offers to sell, or offers to buy, unless a registration statement has been filed. Although we do not believe our mining activities require registration for us to conduct such activities and accumulate digital assets the SEC, CFTC, NASDAQ or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency or organization may conclude that our activities involve the offer or sale of “securities”, or ownership of “investment securities”, and we may face regulation under the Securities Act or the 1940 Act. Such regulation or the inability to meet the requirements to continue operations, would have a material adverse effect on our business and operations.

Bitcoin and other digital assets are viewed differently by different regulatory and standards setting organizations. For example, the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) consider a cryptocurrency as currency or an asset or property.

Bitcoin is described as a virtual currency by the Financial Action Task Force, as follows:

a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded and functions as: (1) a medium of exchange; and/or (2) a unit of account; and/or (3) a store of value, but does not have legal tender status (i.e., when tendered to a creditor, is a valid and legal offer of payment) in any jurisdiction. It is not issued or guaranteed by any jurisdiction, and it fulfils the above functions only by agreement within the community of users of the virtual currency. Virtual currency is distinguished from fiat currency (a.k.a. “real currency,” “real money,” or “national currency”), which is the coin and paper money of a country that is designated as its legal tender; circulates; and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the issuing country. It is distinct from e-money, which is a digital representation of fiat currency used to electronically transfer value denominated in fiat currency.¹

Further, the IRS views bitcoin as property and applies general tax principles that apply to property transactions to transactions involving virtual currency, as follows:²

IR-2014-36, March. 25, 2014

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today issued a notice providing answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) on virtual currency, such as bitcoin. These FAQs provide basic information on the U.S. federal tax implications of transactions in, or transactions that use, virtual currency.

In some environments, virtual currency operates like “real” currency — i.e., the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender, circulates, and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance — but it does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.

The notice provides that virtual currency is treated as property for U.S. federal tax purposes. General tax principles that apply to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. Among other things, this means that:

Wages paid to employees using virtual currency are taxable to the employee, must be reported by an employer on a Form W-2, and are subject to federal income tax withholding and payroll taxes.

Payments using virtual currency made to independent contractors and other service providers are taxable and self-employment tax rules generally apply. Normally, payers must issue Form 1099.

The character of gain or loss from the sale or exchange of virtual currency depends on whether the virtual currency is a capital asset in the hands of the taxpayer.

A payment made using virtual currency is subject to information reporting to the same extent as any other payment made in property.

¹ FATF Report, Virtual Currencies, Key Definitions and Potential AML/CFT Risks, FINANCIAL ACTION TASK FORCE (June 2014), http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/Virtual-currency-key-definitions-and-potentialaml-cft-risks.pdf. The Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) is an independent inter-governmental body that develops and promotes policies to protect the global financial system against money laundering, terrorist financing and the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The FATF Recommendations are recognized as the global anti-money laundering (“AML”) and counter-terrorist financing (“CFT”) standard.

² IR-2014-36 (Marth 25, 2014). https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-virtual-currency-guidance

In June 2016, the AICPA commented on IRS Notice 2014-21 urging the IRS to provide additional guidance about existing tax principles whether virtual currency is property, currency or commodity.³

Furthermore, in the several applications to establish an Exchange Traded Fund (“ETF”) of cryptocurrency, and in the questions raised by the Staff under the 1940 Act, no clear principles emerge from the regulators as to how they view these issues and how to regulate cryptocurrency under the applicable securities acts. It has been widely reported that the SEC has recently issued letters and requested various ETF applications be withdrawn because of concerns over liquidity and valuation and unanswered questions about absence of reporting and compliance procedures capable of being implemented under the current state of the markets for exchange traded funds.⁴

Accordingly, there is no one unifying principle governing the regulatory status of cryptocurrency nor whether cryptocurrency is a security in each context in which it is viewed. Cryptocurrency may be a security and its offer or sale may require compliance with Section 5 of the Securities Act, in certain instances. However, since the Company does not intend to be engaged in the offer or sale of securities in the form of ICO offerings its internal mining activities that are not related to ICO offerings do not require registration under the Securities Act. We may face similar issues with various state securities regulators who may interpret our actions as requiring registration under state securities laws, banking laws, or money transmitter and similar laws, which are also an unsettled area or regulation that exposes us to risks.

Since there has been limited precedent set for financial accounting or taxation of digital assets other than digital securities, it is unclear how we will be required to account for digital asset transactions and the taxation of our businesses.

There is currently no authoritative literature under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States which specifically addresses the accounting for digital assets, including digital currencies. Therefore, by analogy, we intend to record digital assets similar to financial instruments under ASC 825, Financial Instruments, because the economic nature of these digital assets is most closely related to a financial instrument such as an investment in a foreign currency.

We believe that Marathon will recognize revenue when it is realized or realizable and earned. Our material revenue stream is expected to be related to the mining of digital currencies. Marathon will derive revenue by providing transaction verification services within the digital currency networks of crypto-currencies, such as bitcoin and ethereum commonly termed “crypto-currency mining.” In consideration for these services, Marathon expects to receive digital currency (also known as “Coins”). Coins are generally recorded as revenue, using the average spot price on the date of receipt. The coins are recorded on the balance sheet at their fair value. Gains or losses on sale of Coins are recorded in the statement of operations. Expenses associated with running the crypto-currency mining business, such as equipment deprecation, rent and electricity cost are recorded as cost of revenues.

In 2014, the IRS issued guidance in Notice 2014-21 that classified cryptocurrency as property, not currency, for federal income tax purposes. But according to the requirements of FATCA, which requires foreign financial institutions to provide the IRS with information about accounts held by U.S. taxpayers or foreign entities controlled by U.S. taxpayers, cryptocurrency exchanges, in the ordinary course of doing business, are considered financial institutions.

On November 30, 2016, a federal judge in the Northern District of California granted an IRS application to serve a “John Doe” summons on Coinbase Inc., which operates a cryptocurrency wallet and exchange business. The summons asked Coinbase to identify all U.S. customers who transferred convertible cryptocurrency from 2013 to 2015. The IRS is trying to get cryptocurrency owners to report the value of their wallets to the federal government and the IRS is treating cryptocurrency as both property and currency.

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants recommended in a June 2016 letter to the IRS that cryptocurrency accounts be reported in the summary information section of Form 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets, which breaks with the IRS’s 2014 guidance that cryptocurrency be treated as property.

Property is divided into certain sections within the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) that determine everything from how the property is treated at sale, to how the property is depreciated, to the nature and character of the gain on sale of the asset. For instance, IRC §1231 property (real or depreciable business property held for more than one year) is treated as capital in nature when sold for a profit, but it is treated as ordinary when the property is sold for a loss. IRC §1245 property, on the other hand, is treated as ordinary in nature. IRC §1245 property encompasses most types of property. IRC §1250 property covers everything else. IRC §1250 states that a gain from selling real property that has been depreciated should be taxed as ordinary income, to the extent that the accumulated depreciation exceeds the depreciation calculated using the straight-line method, which is the most basic depreciation method used on an income statement. IRC §1250 bases the amount of tax due on the type of property, such as residential or nonresidential property, and on how many months the property was owned.

IRS guidance is silent on which section of the tax code cryptocurrency falls into. For instance, IRC §1031 allows for the like-kind exchange of certain property. IRC §1031 exchanges typically are done with real estate or business assets. However, with the classification of cryptocurrency as property by the IRS, many tax professionals will argue that cryptocurrency can be exchanged using IRC §1031.

³ https://www.aicpa.org/advocacy/cpaadvocate/2016/virtual-currency-guidance-needed.html

⁴ https://seekingalpha.com/article/4137093-sec-saying-no-bitcoin-etfs-one-may-still-get-approved

We believe that all of our digital asset mining activities will be accounted for on the same basis regardless of the form of digital asset. A change in regulatory or financial accounting standards or interpretation by the IRS or accounting standards or the SEC could result in changes in our accounting treatment, taxation and the necessity to restate our financial statements. Such a restatement could negatively impact our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operation.

The further development and acceptance of digital asset networks and other digital assets, which represent a new and rapidly changing industry, are subject to a variety of factors that are difficult to evaluate. The slowing or stopping of the development or acceptance of digital asset systems may adversely affect an investment in us.

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

A decline in the popularity or acceptance of the digital asset networks of bitcoin or ether, or similar digital asset systems, could adversely affect an investment in us.

If we acquire digital securities, even unintentionally, we may violate the Investment Company Act of 1940 and incur potential third-party liabilities.

The Company intends to comply with the 1940 Act in all respects. To that end, if holdings of cryptocurrencies are determined to constitute investment securities of a kind that subject the Company to registration and reporting under the 1940 Act, the Company will limit its holdings to less than 40% of its assets. Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act defines “investment company” to mean any issuer that is engaged or proposes to engage in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities, and owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of such issuer’s total assets (exclusive of Government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. Section 3(a)(2) of the 1940 Act defines “investment securities” to include all securities except (A) Government securities, (B) securities issued by employees’ securities companies, and (C) securities issued by majority-owned subsidiaries which (i) are not investment companies and (ii) are not relying on the exception from the definition of investment company in section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act. As noted above, the SEC has not stated whether bitcoin and cryptocurrency is an investment security, as defined in the 1940 Act.

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

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

COVID-19 or any pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of an infectious disease in the United States or elsewhere may adversely affect our business.

The COVID-19 virus has had unpredictable and unprecedented impacts in the United States and around the world. The World Health Organization has declared the outbreak of COVID-19 as a “pandemic,” or a worldwide spread of a new disease. Many countries around the world have imposed quarantines and restrictions on travel and mass gatherings to slow the spread of the virus. In the United States, federal, state and local governments have enacted restrictions on travel, gatherings, and workplaces, with exceptions made for essential workers and businesses. As of the date of this prospectus, we have not been declared an essential business. As a result, we may be required to substantially reduce or cease operations in response to governmental action or decree as a result of COVID-19. We are still assessing the effect on our business from COVID-19 and any actions implemented by the federal, state and local governments. We have implemented safety protocols to protect our staff, but we cannot offer any assurance that COVID-19 or any other pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of an infectious disease in the United States or elsewhere, will not materially and adversely affect our business.

Significant contributors to all or any digital asset network could propose amendments to the respective network’s protocols and software that, if accepted and authorized by such network, could adversely affect an investment in us.

For example, with respect to bitcoins network, a small group of individuals contribute to the Bitcoin Core project on GitHub.com. This group of contributors is currently headed by Wladimir J. van der Laan, the current lead maintainer. These individuals can propose refinements or improvements to the bitcoin network’s source code through one or more software upgrades that alter the protocols and software that govern the bitcoin network and the properties of bitcoin, including the irreversibility of transactions and limitations on the mining of new bitcoin. Proposals for upgrades and discussions relating thereto take place on online forums. For example, there is an ongoing debate regarding altering the blockchain by increasing the size of blocks to accommodate a larger volume of transactions. Although some proponents support an increase, other market participants oppose an increase to the block size as it may deter miners from confirming transactions and concentrate power into a smaller group of miners. To the extent that a significant majority of the users and miners on the bitcoin network install such software upgrade(s), the bitcoin network would be subject to new protocols and software that may adversely affect an investment in the Shares. In the event a developer or group of developers proposes a modification to the bitcoin network that is not accepted by a majority of miners and users, but that is nonetheless accepted by a substantial plurality of miners and users, two or more competing and incompatible blockchain implementations could result. This is known as a “hard fork.” In such a case, the “hard fork” in the blockchain could materially and adversely affect the perceived value of digital assets as reflected on one or both incompatible blockchains, which may adversely affect an investment in us.

Forks in a digital asset network may occur in the future which may affect the value of digital assets held by us.

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

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

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

If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control in excess of 50% of the processing power active on any digital asset network, including the bitcoin network or ether network, it is possible that such actor or botnet could manipulate the blockchain in a manner that adversely affects an investment in us.

If a malicious actor or botnet (a volunteer or hacked collection of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) obtains a majority of the processing power dedicated to mining on any digital asset network, including the bitcoin network or ether network, it may be able to alter the blockchain by constructing alternate blocks if it is able to solve for such blocks faster than the remainder of the miners on the blockchain can add valid blocks. In such alternate blocks, the malicious actor or botnet could control, exclude or modify the ordering of transactions, though it could not generate new digital assets or transactions using such control. Using alternate blocks, the malicious actor could “double-spend” its own digital assets (i.e., spend the same digital assets in more than one transaction) and prevent the confirmation of other users’ transactions for so long as it maintains control. To the extent that such malicious actor or botnet does not yield its majority control of the processing power or the digital asset community does not reject the fraudulent blocks as malicious, reversing any changes made to the blockchain may not be possible. Such changes could adversely affect an investment in us.

For example, in late May and early June 2014, a mining pool known as GHash.io approached and, during a 24- to 48-hour period in early June may have exceeded, the threshold of 50% of the processing power on the bitcoin network. To the extent that GHash.io did exceed 50% of the processing power on the network, reports indicate that such threshold was surpassed for only a short period, and there are no reports of any malicious activity or control of the blockchain performed by GHash.io. Furthermore, the processing power in the mining pool appears to have been redirected to other pools on a voluntary basis by participants in the GHash.io pool, as had been done in prior instances when a mining pool exceeded 40% of the processing power on the bitcoin network.

The approach towards and possible crossing of the 50% threshold indicate a greater risk that a single mining pool could exert authority over the validation of digital asset transactions. To the extent that the digital assets ecosystems do not act to ensure greater decentralization of digital asset mining processing power, the feasibility of a malicious actor obtaining in excess of 50% of the processing power on any digital asset network (e.g., through control of a large mining pool or through hacking such a mining pool) will increase, which may adversely impact an investment in us.

If the award of digital assets for solving blocks and transaction fees for recording transactions are not sufficiently high to incentivize miners, miners may cease expending hashrate to solve blocks and confirmations of transactions on the blockchain could be slowed temporarily. A reduction in the hashrate expended by miners on any digital asset network could increase the likelihood of a malicious actor obtaining control in excess of fifty percent (50%) of the aggregate hashrate active on such network or the blockchain, potentially permitting such actor to manipulate the blockchain in a manner that adversely affects an investment in us.

Bitcoin miners record transactions when they solve for and add blocks of information to the blockchain. When a miner solves for a block, it creates that block, which includes data relating to (i) the solution to the block, (ii) a reference to the prior block in the blockchain to which the new block is being added and (iii) all transactions that have occurred but have not yet been added to the blockchain. The miner becomes aware of outstanding, unrecorded transactions through the data packet transmission and propagation discussed above. Typically, bitcoin transactions will be recorded in the next chronological block if the spending party has an internet connection and at least one minute has passed between the transaction’s data packet transmission and the solution of the next block. If a transaction is not recorded in the next chronological block, it is usually recorded in the next block thereafter.

As the award of new digital assets for solving blocks declines, and if transaction fees are not sufficiently high, miners may not have an adequate incentive to continue mining and may cease their mining operations. For example, the current fixed reward on the bitcoin network for solving a new block is twelve and a half (12.5) bitcoins per block; the reward decreased from twenty-five (25) bitcoin in July 2016. It is estimated that it will halve again in about four (4) years. This reduction may result in a reduction in the aggregate hashrate of the bitcoin network as the incentive for miners will decrease. Moreover, miners ceasing operations would reduce the aggregate hashrate on the bitcoin network, which would adversely affect the confirmation process for transactions (i.e., temporarily decreasing the speed at which blocks are added to the blockchain until the next scheduled adjustment in difficulty for block solutions) and make the bitcoin network more vulnerable to a malicious actor obtaining control in excess of fifty percent (50%) of the aggregate hashrate on the bitcoin network. Periodically, the bitcoin network has adjusted the difficulty for block solutions so that solution speeds remain in the vicinity of the expected ten (10) minute confirmation time targeted by the bitcoin network protocol.

Marathon believes that from time to time there will be further considerations and adjustments to the bitcoin network, and others, including the ether network, regarding the difficulty for block solutions. More significant reductions in aggregate hashrate on digital asset networks could result in material, though temporary, delays in block solution confirmation time. Any reduction in confidence in the confirmation process or aggregate hashrate of any digital asset network may negatively impact the value of digital assets, which will adversely impact an investment in us.

To the extent that the profit margins of digital asset mining operations are not high, operators of digital asset mining operations are more likely to immediately sell their digital assets earned by mining in the digital asset exchange market, resulting in a reduction in the price of digital assets that could adversely impact an investment in us.

Over the past two years, digital asset mining operations have evolved from individual users mining with computer processors, graphics processing units and first-generation servers. Currently, new processing power brought onto the digital asset networks is predominantly added by incorporated and unincorporated “professionalized” mining operations. Professionalized mining operations may use proprietary hardware or sophisticated machines. They require the investment of significant capital for the acquisition of this hardware, the leasing of operating space (often in data centers or warehousing facilities), incurring of electricity costs and the employment of technicians to operate the mining farms. As a result, professionalized mining operations are of a greater scale than prior miners and have more defined, regular expenses and liabilities. These regular expenses and liabilities require professionalized mining operations to more immediately sell digital assets earned from mining operations on the digital asset exchange market, whereas it is believed that individual miners in past years were more likely to hold newly mined digital assets for more extended periods. The immediate selling of newly mined digital assets greatly increases the supply of digital assets on the digital asset exchange market, creating downward pressure on the price of each digital asset.

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

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

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

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

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

Intellectual property rights claims may adversely affect the operation of some or all digital asset networks.

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

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

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

For example, over the past 4 years, a number of bitcoin exchanges have been closed due to fraud, failure or security breaches. In many of these instances, the customers of such bitcoin exchanges were not compensated or made whole for the partial or complete losses of their account balances in such bitcoin exchanges. While smaller bitcoin exchanges are less likely to have the infrastructure and capitalization that make larger bitcoin exchanges more stable, larger bitcoin exchanges are more likely to be appealing targets for hackers and “malware” (i.e., software used or programmed by attackers to disrupt computer operation, gather sensitive information or gain access to private computer systems). Further, the collapse of the largest bitcoin exchange in 2014 suggests that the failure of one component of the overall bitcoin ecosystem can have consequences for both users of a bitcoin exchange and the bitcoin industry as a whole.

More recently, the Wall Street Journal has reported that China will shut down bitcoin exchanges and other virtual currency trading platforms. The article reported that China has accounted for the bulk of global bitcoin trading.

A lack of stability in the digital asset exchange market and the closure or temporary shutdown of digital asset exchanges due to fraud, business failure, hackers or malware, or government-mandated regulation may reduce confidence in the digital asset networks and result in greater volatility in digital asset values. These potential consequences of a digital asset exchange’s failure could adversely affect an investment in us.

Political or economic crises may motivate large-scale sales of digital assets, which could result in a reduction in some or all digital assets’ values and adversely affect an investment in us.

As an alternative to fiat currencies that are backed by central governments, digital assets such as bitcoins, which are relatively new, are subject to supply and demand forces based upon the desirability of an alternative, decentralized means of buying and selling goods and services, and it is unclear how such supply and demand will be impacted by geopolitical events. Nevertheless, political or economic crises may motivate large-scale acquisitions or sales of digital assets either globally or locally. Large-scale sales of digital assets would result in a reduction in their value and could adversely affect an investment in us.

Demand for ether and bitcoin is driven, in part, by their status as the two most prominent and secure digital assets. It is possible that digital assets other than ether and bitcoin could have features that make them more desirable to a material portion of the digital asset user base, resulting in a reduction in demand for ether and bitcoin, which could have a negative impact on the price of ether and bitcoin and adversely affect an investment in us.

Bitcoins and ether, as assets, hold “first-to-market” advantages over other digital assets. This first-to-market advantage is driven in large part by having the largest user bases and, more importantly, the largest combined mining power in use to secure their respective blockchains and transaction verification systems. Having a large mining network results in greater user confidence regarding the security and long-term stability of a digital asset’s network and its blockchain; as a result, the advantage of more users and miners makes a digital asset more secure, which makes it more attractive to new users and miners, resulting in a network effect that strengthens the first-to-market advantage.

As of June 5, 2020, there were over 5,000 alternate digital assets tracked by CoinMarketCap, having a total market capitalization (including the market capitalization of ether and bitcoin) of approximately $176.0 billion, using market prices and total available supply of each digital asset. This included digital assets using a “proof of work” mining structure similar to bitcoin, and those using a “proof of stake” transaction verification system that is different than bitcoin’s mining system (e.g., Peercoin, Bitshares and NXT). As of March 23, 2020, bitcoin’s $115.2 billion market capitalization was almost eight (8) times the size of the $14.9 billion market cap of ether, the second largest proof-of-work digital asset. Despite the marked first-mover advantage of the bitcoin network over other digital asset networks, it is possible that another digital asset could become materially popular due to either a perceived or exposed shortcoming of the bitcoin network protocol that is not immediately addressed by the bitcoin contributor community or a perceived advantage of an altcoin that includes features not incorporated into bitcoin. If a digital asset obtains significant market share (either in market capitalization, mining power or use as a payment technology), this could reduce bitcoin’s market share as well as other digital assets we may become involved in and have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, such digital assets and could adversely affect an investment in us.

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

The history of digital asset exchanges has shown that exchanges and large holders of digital assets must adapt to technological change in order to secure and safeguard their digital assets. We rely on Bitgo Inc.’s multi-signature enterprise storage solution to safeguard our digital assets from theft, loss, destruction or other issues relating to hackers and technological attack. Our digital assets will also be moved to various exchanges in order to exchange them for fiat currency during which time we will be relying on the security of such exchanges to safeguard our digital assets. We believe that it may become a more appealing target of security threats as the size of our bitcoin holdings grow. To the extent that either Bitgo Inc. or we are unable to identify and mitigate or stop new security threats, our digital assets may be subject to theft, loss, destruction or other attack, which could adversely affect an investment in us.

Security threats to us could result in, a loss of our digital assets, or damage to the reputation and our brand, each of which could adversely affect an investment in us.

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

We primarily rely on Bitgo Inc.’s (https://www.bitgo.com/) multi-signature enterprise storage solution to safeguard its digital assets from theft, loss, destruction or other issues relating to hackers and technological attack. Nevertheless, Bitgo Inc.’s security system may not be impenetrable and may not be free from defect or immune to acts of God, and any loss due to a security breach, software defect or act of God will be borne by the Company. The Company’s digital assets will also be stored with exchanges such as Bitgo, Kraken, Bitfinex, Itbit and Coinbase and others prior to selling them.

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

At present, Marathon has not experienced hacking and we use a Bitcoin Address and other cryptocurrency wallets, and may consider using services, such as Xapo, Inc., or Bitgo Inc., which services claim to offer a free, ultra-secure vault for storing bitcoin, but we have not made any decision to do so. As disclosed herein, the Company currently use Bitgo Inc. as its wallet provider.

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

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

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

Digital Asset transactions are irrevocable and stolen or incorrectly transferred digital assets may be irretrievable. As a result, any incorrectly executed digital asset transactions could adversely affect an investment in us.

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

⁵https://www.bitgo.com/

The Company’s digital assets may be subject to loss, damage, theft or restriction on access.

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

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

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

Digital assets held by us are not subject to FDIC or SIPC protections.

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

We may not have adequate sources of recovery if our digital assets are lost, stolen or destroyed.

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

The sale of our digital assets to pay expenses at a time of low digital asset prices could adversely affect an investment in us.

We may sell our digital assets to pay expenses on an as-needed basis, irrespective of then-current prices. Consequently, our digital assets may be sold at a time when the prices on the respective digital asset exchange market are low, which could adversely affect an investment in us.

Regulatory changes or actions may restrict the use of bitcoins or the operation of the bitcoin network in a manner that adversely affects an investment in us.

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

On July 25, 2017, the Commission issued its Report of Investigation, or “Report,” which concluded that digital assets or tokens issued for the purpose of raising funds may be securities within the meaning of the federal securities laws. The Report focused on the activities of a virtual organization which offered tokens in exchange for ether, which is a prominent digital asset. The Report emphasized that whether a digital asset is a security is based on the facts and circumstances. Although our activities are not focused on raising capital or assisting others that do so, the federal securities laws are very broad, and there can be no assurances that the Commission will not take enforcement action against us in the future including for the sale of unregistered securities in violation of the Securities Act or acting as an unregistered investment company in violation of the Investment Company Act. The Commission has taken various actions against persons or entities misusing bitcoin in connection with fraudulent schemes (i.e., Ponzi scheme), inaccurate and inadequate publicly disseminated information, and the offering of unregistered securities. More recently, the Commission suspended trading in three digital asset public companies. The CFTC has determined that bitcoin and other virtual currencies are commodities and the sale of derivatives based on digital currencies must be done in accordance with the provisions of the CEA and CFTC regulations. Also, of significance, is that the CFTC appears to have taken the position that bitcoin is not encompassed by the definition of currency under the CEA and CFTC regulations. The CFTC defined bitcoin and other “virtual currencies” as “a digital representation of value” that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and/or a store of value, but does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are distinct from ‘real’ currencies, which are the coin and paper money of the United States or another country that are designated as legal tender, circulate, and are customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance.” To the extent that bitcoin itself is determined to be a security, commodity future or other regulated asset, or to the extent that a U.S. or foreign government or quasi-governmental agency exerts regulatory authority over the bitcoin or bitcoin trading and ownership, trading or ownership in bitcoin or an investment in us may be adversely affected.

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

Local state regulators such as the New York State Department of Financial Services, or NYSDFS, have also initiated examinations of bitcoin, the bitcoin network and the regulation thereof. In July 2014, the NYSDFS proposed the first U.S. regulatory framework for licensing participants in “virtual currency business activity.” The proposed regulations, known as the “BitLicense,” are intended to focus on consumer protection and, after the closure of an initial comment period that yielded 3,746 formal public comments and a re-proposal, the NYSDFS issued its final “BitLicense” regulatory framework in June 2015. The “BitLicense” regulates the conduct of businesses that are involved in “virtual currencies” in New York or with New York customers and prohibits any person or entity involved in such activity to conduct activities without a license.

Additionally, a U.S. federal magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has ruled that “Bitcoin is a currency or form of money,” a Florida circuit court judge determined that bitcoin did not qualify as money or “tangible wealth,” and an opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois identified bitcoin as “virtual currency.” Additionally, two CFTC commissioners publicly expressed a belief that derivatives based on bitcoin are subject to the same regulation as those based on commodities, and the IRS released guidance treating bitcoin as property that is not currency for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Taxing authorities of a number of U.S. states have also issued their own guidance regarding the tax treatment of bitcoin for state income or sales tax purposes. On June 28, 2014, the Governor of the State of California signed into law a bill that removed state-level prohibitions on the use of alternative forms of currency or value (including bitcoin). The bill indirectly authorizes bitcoin’s use as an alternative form of money in the state. In February 2015, a bill was introduced in the California State Assembly to establish a licensing regime for businesses engaging in “virtual currencies.” In September 2015, the bill was ordered to become an inactive file and as of the date of this registration statement there has not been further consideration by the California State Assembly. As of August 2016, the bill was withdrawn from consideration for vote for the remainder of the year. There is a possibility of future regulatory change altering, perhaps to a material extent, the nature of an investment in us or the ability of us to continue our operations.

Digital assets currently face an uncertain regulatory landscape in not only the United States but also in many foreign jurisdictions such as the European Union, China and Russia. While certain governments such as Germany, where the Ministry of Finance has declared bitcoin to be “Rechnungseinheiten” (a form of private money that is recognized as a unit of account, but not recognized in the same manner as fiat currency), have issued guidance as to how to treat bitcoin, most regulatory bodies have not yet issued official statements regarding intention to regulate or determinations on regulation of bitcoin, the bitcoin network and bitcoin users.

Among those for which preliminary guidance has been issued in some form, Canada and Taiwan have labeled bitcoin as a digital or virtual currency, distinct from fiat currency, while Sweden and Norway are among those to categorize bitcoin as a form of virtual asset or commodity. In Australia, a GST (similar to the European value added tax (“VAT”)) is currently applied to bitcoin, forcing a ten (10%) percent markup on top of market price, essentially preventing the operation of any bitcoin exchange. This may be undergoing a change, however, since the Senate Economics References Committee and the Productivity Commission recommended that digital currency be treated as money for GST purposes to remove the double taxation. The United Kingdom determined that the VAT will not apply to bitcoin sales. In China, a recent government notice classified bitcoin as legal and “virtual commodities;” however, the same notice restricted the banking and payment industries from using bitcoin, creating uncertainty and limiting the ability of bitcoin exchanges to operate in the then-second largest bitcoin market. In January 2016, the People’s Bank of China, China’s central bank, disclosed that it has been studying a state-backed electronic monetary system and potentially had plans for its own state-backed electronic money. In January 2017, the People’s Bank of China announced that it had found several violations, including margin financing and a failure to impose anti-money laundering controls, after on-site inspections of two China-based bitcoin exchanges. In response to the Chinese regulator’s oversight, the three largest China-based bitcoin exchanges, OKCoin, Huobi, and BTC China, started charging trading commission fees to suppress speculative trading and prevent price swings which resulted in a significant drop in volume on these exchanges. Since December 2013, China, Iceland, Vietnam and Russia have taken a more restrictive stance toward bitcoin and, thereby, have reduced the rate of expansion of bitcoin use in each country. In May 2014, the Central Bank of Bolivia banned the use of bitcoin as a means of payment. In the summer and fall of 2014, Ecuador announced plans for its own state-backed electronic money, while passing legislation that prohibits the use of decentralized digital assets such as bitcoin. In July 2016, economists at the Bank of England advocated that central banks issue their own digital currency, and the House of Lords and Bank of England started discussing the feasibility of creating a national virtual currency, the BritCoin. As of July 2016, Iceland was studying how to create a system in which all money is created by a central bank, and Canada was beginning to experiment with a digital version of its currency called CAD-COIN, intended to be used exclusively for interbank payments. On August 24, 2017, Canada issued guidance stating the sale of cryptocurrency may constitute an investment contract in accordance with Canadian law for determining if an investment constitutes a security. In July 2016, the Russian Ministry of Finance indicated it supports a proposed law that bans bitcoin domestically but allows for its use as a foreign currency. Russia recently issued several releases indicating they may begin regulating bitcoin and licensing miners and entities engaging in initial coin offerings. Conversely, regulatory bodies in some countries such as India and Switzerland have declined to exercise regulatory authority when afforded the opportunity. In April 2015, the Japanese Cabinet approved proposed legal changes that would reportedly treat bitcoin and other digital assets as included in the definition of currency. These regulations would, among other things, require market participants, including exchanges, to meet certain compliance requirements and be subject to oversight by the Financial Services Agency, a Japanese regulator. In September 2017 Japan began regulating bitcoin exchanges and registered several such exchanges to operate within Japan. In July 2016, the European Commission released a draft directive that proposed applying counter-terrorism and anti-money laundering regulations to virtual currencies, and, in September 2016, the European Banking authority advised the European Commission to institute new regulation specific to virtual currencies, with amendments to existing regulation as a stopgap measure. Various foreign jurisdictions may, in the near future, adopt laws, regulations or directives that affect the bitcoin network and its users, particularly bitcoin exchanges and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. Such laws, regulations or directives may conflict with those of the United States and may negatively impact the acceptance of bitcoin by users, merchants and service providers outside of the United States and may therefore impede the growth of the bitcoin economy. On September 4, 2017, reports were published that China may begin prohibiting the practice of using cryptocurrency for capital fundraising. Additional reports have surfaced that China is considering regulating bitcoin exchanges by enacting a licensing regime wherein bitcoin exchanges may legally operate. In September 2017, the Financial Services Commission of South Korea released a statement that initial coin offerings would be prohibited as a fundraising tool. In January 2018, the South Korean Justice Minister issued remarks about banning bitcoin and other digital assets, although the South Korean President’s office clarified that no final decision has been made. In June 2017, India’s government ruled in favor of regulating bitcoin and India’s ministry of Finance is currently developing rules for such regulation. Australia has previously introduced legislation to regulate bitcoin exchanges and increase anti-money laundering policies.

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

It may be illegal now, or in the future, to acquire, own, hold, sell or use digital assets in one or more countries, and ownership of, holding or trading in our securities may also be considered illegal and subject to sanction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If regulatory changes or interpretations require the regulation of bitcoins under the Securities Act and Investment Company Act by the Commission, we may be required to register and comply with such regulations. To the extent that we decide to continue operations, the required registrations and regulatory compliance steps may result in extraordinary, non-recurring expenses to us. We may also decide to cease certain operations. Any disruption of our operations in response to the changed regulatory circumstances may be at a time that is disadvantageous to investors. This would likely have a material adverse effect on us and investors may lose their investment.

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

To the extent that digital assets including ether, bitcoins and other digital assets we may own are deemed by the Commission to fall within the definition of a security, we may be required to register and comply with additional regulation under the 1940 Act, including additional periodic reporting and disclosure standards and requirements and the registration of our Company as an investment company. Additionally, one or more states may conclude ether, bitcoins and other digital assets we may own are a security under state securities laws which would require registration under state laws including merit review laws which would adversely impact us since we would likely not comply. As stated earlier in this prospectus, some states including California define the term “investment contract” more strictly than the Commission. Such additional registrations may result in extraordinary, non-recurring expenses of our Company, thereby materially and adversely impacting an investment in our Company. If we determine not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, we may seek to cease all or certain parts of our operations. Any such action would likely adversely affect an investment in us and investors may suffer a complete loss of their investment.

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

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

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

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

The loss or destruction of a private key required to access a digital asset may be irreversible. Our loss of access to our private keys or our experience of a data loss relating to our Company’s digital assets could adversely affect an investment in our Company.

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

Because many of our digital assets are held by digital asset exchanges, we face heightened risks from cybersecurity attacks and financial stability of digital asset exchanges.

Marathon may transfer their digital asset from its wallet to digital asset exchanges prior to selling them. Digital assets not held in Marathon’s wallet are subject to the risks encountered by digital asset exchanges including a DDoS Attack or other malicious hacking, a sale of the digital asset exchange, loss of the digital assets by the digital asset exchange and other risks similar to those described herein. Marathon does not maintain a custodian agreement with any of the digital asset exchanges that hold the Marathon’s digital assets. These digital asset exchanges do not provide insurance and may lack the resources to protect against hacking and theft. If this were to occur, Marathon may be materially and adversely affected.

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

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

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

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