• Metaplanet CEO rejects claims it hid details of Bitcoin trades Metaplanet’s Simon Gerovich addressed critics who accused the company of hiding losses and key details of its Bitcoin bets, as investor anger over leveraged Bitcoin treasuries spreads. • Cointelegraph in your social feed Metaplanet CEO Simon Gerovich pushed back against accusations from what he called “anonymous accounts” that the company misled investors about its Bitcoin strategy and disclosures. • Critics on X havearguedthat Metaplanet delayed or withheld price‑sensitive information about large Bitcoin (BTC) purchases and options trades funded with shareholder capital, obscured losses from its derivatives strategy and failed to fully disclose key terms of its BTC‑backed borrowings. • In a detailed Xposton Friday, Gerovich argued that Metaplanet promptly reported all Bitcoin purchases, option strategies and borrowings, and that critics were misreading its financial statements rather than uncovering misconduct. • September buys and disclosures Gerovich said that Metaplanet made four Bitcoin purchases in September 2025 and “promptly announced” each, rejecting claims that the company secretly bought at the local peak without disclosure. • Related:Metaplanet sticks to Bitcoin buying plan as crypto sentiment hits 2022 lows Metaplanet’s real-time public dashboard corroborates the buys,showingit purchased 1,009 BTC on Sept.
Article Summaries:
- Metaplanet CEO Simon Gerovich denied accusations that the company concealed Bitcoin‑related trades and disclosures. In a detailed X post, he said the firm promptly reported all Bitcoin purchases, option strategies, and BTC‑backed borrowings, arguing critics misread its financial statements. Gerovich highlighted four September 2025 Bitcoin buys-1,009 BTC on Sept 1, 136 on Sept 8, 5,419 on Sept 22, and 5,268 on Sept 30-each announced publicly and reflected on public trackers. He also defended the company’s use of options to acquire BTC below spot and cited a 738 % revenue rise in FY 2025, noting that net losses stem from accounting for asset value declines rather than strategic failure.
Sources: