This is exceptional work and a masterclass in describing how far short of the mark Metaplanet's CEO @gerovich has let himself reach.
It is not terminal, nor need be. Gerovich needs to have full and complete disclosure to rectify things.
And since gerovich went to HBS, he will surely remember all the cases we studied there of corporations trying to hide difficult subject matter. the lesson was always the same. hiding things, or just being silent NEVER EVER was a strategy that worked.
A reply to Simon's post on transparency
@gerovich, thank you for posting [1]. You asked for engagement, so here is mine, with the sources linked below so anyone can check.
On MMXX. Your post says you are a "significant but non-majority shareholder" of MMXX's parent, with no role in its decisions. Metaplanet's securities report filed 26 March 2026 says you "indirectly hold a majority of the voting rights" of MMXX Ventures and classifies it as a company whose voting majority is held by officers and their close relatives [2]. The FY2024 report says the same [3]. The December 2022 allotment notice says MMXX Ventures is 100% owned by MMXX Capital Limited and that you and Mark Reinecke are its shareholders [4]. Your own large-holding report of 25 August lists your wife as your only joint holder [5], and MMXX's reports list none [6]. A company whose votes you control would be a deemed joint holder under the FIEA. So either the securities reports are wrong, or the large-holding filings are, or "close relatives" is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence. Which is it, and who owns MMXX Capital Limited?
While on filings: your initial 5% report, due within five business days of 8 February 2023, was filed on 10 April 2025, together with four catch-up change reports for events in 2024 [7]. Twenty-six months. That is the CEO's own disclosure record on the company's own stock.
On the 10th series. The 18 August notice, in the company's words, says the adjustment clause "amplifies the dilution borne by existing shareholders" and raised "concerns regarding the relationship between capital-raising decisions and the interests of the SAR holders" [8]. I agree with every word. A clause that was misaligned on 18 August 2026 was misaligned on 8 April 2024 and on every raise in between; nothing about it changed except that shareholders read it. It took the pool from 46 million shares to 319 million, a claim on 7,207 BTC. On the September 2025 offering alone it handed the holders 2,068 BTC of claim against 277 BTC for the shareholders who funded the deal [9]. Ten days after fixing it forward you exercised 92,000 units into 64 million shares for ¥640 million [10]. Admitting the structure was wrong and keeping what it produced is a contradiction, and no amount of communication resolves it. The consistent position is: the pool ends at 46 million.
One more date. On 26 August 2025 all five holders signed an undertaking capping the pool at 25% of issued shares [8]. On 27 August the board resolved the $1.4 billion international offering. The undertaking was never announced by the company. It appears in your 17 September 2025 filing, in the same paragraph as your lock-up agreement with Morgan Stanley and Cantor Fitzgerald, the offering's bookrunners [11]. Management bounded the pool the day before launching the largest raise in the company's history, said nothing to shareholders, and let it grow under the cap for twelve more months. Was the undertaking a condition of the offering, and did the offering circular disclose the adjustment clause to the institutions that bought 385 million shares?
On the rest of the record, which the post did not address. Who were the nine parties given 467,500 9th-series warrants for nothing on pivot day, the ones who exercised at ¥20 against a ¥19 close [12]? Why did the board route 1.7 million lapsed retail rights free to MMXX and to you in October 2024, and sell the other 4.9 million to EVO at ¥22.1 each when they were worth about ¥633 [13]? Who sold MMXX 2 million shares at ¥600 that same day, against a ¥1,188 close [14]? MMXX sold roughly 50 million shares into the 2024 rally while the company was raising equity from the public [15]; if you have no role in its trading, who does?
Many of us put our hard earned savings into this company. And while we do not fault you for the recent performance of the share price as there are factors outside of your control, we do hold you accountable for those that are within your control, especially when it comes to transparency and your fiduciary responsibility towards shareholders. As I'm sure you've seen over the past couple of years, I've spent countless hours advocating for Metaplanet and publishing my views + insights (with no obligation or financial return) to foster a community of die-hard fans (including myself). In return we ask for something ordinary: that management be aligned with us rather than positioned against us, and that material terms be explained in the language most of us shareholders read, especially when the terms favor the people writing them. And even more importantly, when serious questions are raised by the community, especially the difficult questions, that management respond with clarity and transparency around those issues, rather than ignore them in the hope they will be forgotten (the receipts are all there). We trusted the team as stewards of our capital.
The fix in August was a step in the right direction. But "we can do better" is a promise about the future, and the questions above are about what already happened. Answer them, name the owners of MMXX, and unwind the pool to where it stood at the pivot. That is what alignment looks like. Everything else is PR.
Satoshi created Bitcoin so that no one could print themselves a bigger share and the rules would be visible to all. You preach that Metaplanet's conviction in bitcoin has never wavered. Yet the vehicle you run printed its insiders a growing share, behind rules its shareholders never saw. That is not aligned with Bitcoin's values.
$MPJPY $MTPLF $DN3
Sources
[1] Simon Gerovich, 6 Sep 2026: xitter.cf/gerovich/status/209643…
[2] Metaplanet securities report FY2025, filed 26 Mar 2026, related-party note 4 (EDINET S100XTWY): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
[3] Metaplanet securities report FY2024, filed 24 Mar 2025, related-party note 4 (S100VG8G): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
[4] TDnet 28 Dec 2022, third-party allotment notice, allottee profiles (MMXX: 100% owned by MMXX Capital Limited; Gerovich and Reinecke shareholders): finance.stockweather.co.jp/c…
[5] Gerovich change report No.8, 25 Aug 2026 (S100YXY8): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
[6] MMXX Ventures large-holding filings (EDINET E38638), e.g. initial report 12 Apr 2023 (S100QL3V): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
[7] Gerovich initial large-holding report, obligation date 8 Feb 2023, filed 10 Apr 2025 (S100VL2I): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
[8] TDnet 18 Aug 2026, amendment to the 10th-series terms (section 4 "Reason for the Amendment"; 26 Aug 2025 undertaking): contents.xj-storage.jp/xcont…
[9] Effective Diluted Shares table, Metaplanet notice of 2 Apr 2026 (basis for the offering arithmetic): metaplanet.jp/disclosure/en/…
[10] TDnet 31 Aug 2026, partial exercise of the 10th series: contents.xj-storage.jp/xcont…
[11] Gerovich change report No.7, 17 Sep 2025, section 6 "important contracts" (Morgan Stanley / Cantor lock-up; 25% exercise undertaking) (S100WP31): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
[12] Extraordinary report of 24 Apr 2024 on the 9th-series transfers, reproduced in the Jan 2025 registration statement (S100V56J, pp. 57–58): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
[13] TDnet 21 Oct 2024, 11th-series results, transfers to MMXX and Gerovich, sale of 4,915,487 rights to EVO at ¥22.1: finance.stockweather.co.jp/c…
[14] MMXX change report No.19, 29 Oct 2024 (2,000,000 shares acquired off-market at ¥600 on 22 Oct 2024) (S100ULCZ): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
[15] MMXX change reports Nos. 5–14 and 17–19 (Apr–Oct 2024 disposals), e.g. No.14 (S100U4AU): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
JustinHT retweeted
A reply to Simon's post on transparency
@gerovich, thank you for posting [1]. You asked for engagement, so here is mine, with the sources linked below so anyone can check.
On MMXX. Your post says you are a "significant but non-majority shareholder" of MMXX's parent, with no role in its decisions. Metaplanet's securities report filed 26 March 2026 says you "indirectly hold a majority of the voting rights" of MMXX Ventures and classifies it as a company whose voting majority is held by officers and their close relatives [2]. The FY2024 report says the same [3]. The December 2022 allotment notice says MMXX Ventures is 100% owned by MMXX Capital Limited and that you and Mark Reinecke are its shareholders [4]. Your own large-holding report of 25 August lists your wife as your only joint holder [5], and MMXX's reports list none [6]. A company whose votes you control would be a deemed joint holder under the FIEA. So either the securities reports are wrong, or the large-holding filings are, or "close relatives" is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence. Which is it, and who owns MMXX Capital Limited?
While on filings: your initial 5% report, due within five business days of 8 February 2023, was filed on 10 April 2025, together with four catch-up change reports for events in 2024 [7]. Twenty-six months. That is the CEO's own disclosure record on the company's own stock.
On the 10th series. The 18 August notice, in the company's words, says the adjustment clause "amplifies the dilution borne by existing shareholders" and raised "concerns regarding the relationship between capital-raising decisions and the interests of the SAR holders" [8]. I agree with every word. A clause that was misaligned on 18 August 2026 was misaligned on 8 April 2024 and on every raise in between; nothing about it changed except that shareholders read it. It took the pool from 46 million shares to 319 million, a claim on 7,207 BTC. On the September 2025 offering alone it handed the holders 2,068 BTC of claim against 277 BTC for the shareholders who funded the deal [9]. Ten days after fixing it forward you exercised 92,000 units into 64 million shares for ¥640 million [10]. Admitting the structure was wrong and keeping what it produced is a contradiction, and no amount of communication resolves it. The consistent position is: the pool ends at 46 million.
One more date. On 26 August 2025 all five holders signed an undertaking capping the pool at 25% of issued shares [8]. On 27 August the board resolved the $1.4 billion international offering. The undertaking was never announced by the company. It appears in your 17 September 2025 filing, in the same paragraph as your lock-up agreement with Morgan Stanley and Cantor Fitzgerald, the offering's bookrunners [11]. Management bounded the pool the day before launching the largest raise in the company's history, said nothing to shareholders, and let it grow under the cap for twelve more months. Was the undertaking a condition of the offering, and did the offering circular disclose the adjustment clause to the institutions that bought 385 million shares?
On the rest of the record, which the post did not address. Who were the nine parties given 467,500 9th-series warrants for nothing on pivot day, the ones who exercised at ¥20 against a ¥19 close [12]? Why did the board route 1.7 million lapsed retail rights free to MMXX and to you in October 2024, and sell the other 4.9 million to EVO at ¥22.1 each when they were worth about ¥633 [13]? Who sold MMXX 2 million shares at ¥600 that same day, against a ¥1,188 close [14]? MMXX sold roughly 50 million shares into the 2024 rally while the company was raising equity from the public [15]; if you have no role in its trading, who does?
Many of us put our hard earned savings into this company. And while we do not fault you for the recent performance of the share price as there are factors outside of your control, we do hold you accountable for those that are within your control, especially when it comes to transparency and your fiduciary responsibility towards shareholders. As I'm sure you've seen over the past couple of years, I've spent countless hours advocating for Metaplanet and publishing my views + insights (with no obligation or financial return) to foster a community of die-hard fans (including myself). In return we ask for something ordinary: that management be aligned with us rather than positioned against us, and that material terms be explained in the language most of us shareholders read, especially when the terms favor the people writing them. And even more importantly, when serious questions are raised by the community, especially the difficult questions, that management respond with clarity and transparency around those issues, rather than ignore them in the hope they will be forgotten (the receipts are all there). We trusted the team as stewards of our capital.
The fix in August was a step in the right direction. But "we can do better" is a promise about the future, and the questions above are about what already happened. Answer them, name the owners of MMXX, and unwind the pool to where it stood at the pivot. That is what alignment looks like. Everything else is PR.
Satoshi created Bitcoin so that no one could print themselves a bigger share and the rules would be visible to all. You preach that Metaplanet's conviction in bitcoin has never wavered. Yet the vehicle you run printed its insiders a growing share, behind rules its shareholders never saw. That is not aligned with Bitcoin's values.
$MPJPY $MTPLF $DN3
Sources
[1] Simon Gerovich, 6 Sep 2026: xitter.cf/gerovich/status/209643…
[2] Metaplanet securities report FY2025, filed 26 Mar 2026, related-party note 4 (EDINET S100XTWY): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
[3] Metaplanet securities report FY2024, filed 24 Mar 2025, related-party note 4 (S100VG8G): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
[4] TDnet 28 Dec 2022, third-party allotment notice, allottee profiles (MMXX: 100% owned by MMXX Capital Limited; Gerovich and Reinecke shareholders): finance.stockweather.co.jp/c…
[5] Gerovich change report No.8, 25 Aug 2026 (S100YXY8): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
[6] MMXX Ventures large-holding filings (EDINET E38638), e.g. initial report 12 Apr 2023 (S100QL3V): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
[7] Gerovich initial large-holding report, obligation date 8 Feb 2023, filed 10 Apr 2025 (S100VL2I): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
[8] TDnet 18 Aug 2026, amendment to the 10th-series terms (section 4 "Reason for the Amendment"; 26 Aug 2025 undertaking): contents.xj-storage.jp/xcont…
[9] Effective Diluted Shares table, Metaplanet notice of 2 Apr 2026 (basis for the offering arithmetic): metaplanet.jp/disclosure/en/…
[10] TDnet 31 Aug 2026, partial exercise of the 10th series: contents.xj-storage.jp/xcont…
[11] Gerovich change report No.7, 17 Sep 2025, section 6 "important contracts" (Morgan Stanley / Cantor lock-up; 25% exercise undertaking) (S100WP31): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
[12] Extraordinary report of 24 Apr 2024 on the 9th-series transfers, reproduced in the Jan 2025 registration statement (S100V56J, pp. 57–58): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
[13] TDnet 21 Oct 2024, 11th-series results, transfers to MMXX and Gerovich, sale of 4,915,487 rights to EVO at ¥22.1: finance.stockweather.co.jp/c…
[14] MMXX change report No.19, 29 Oct 2024 (2,000,000 shares acquired off-market at ¥600 on 22 Oct 2024) (S100ULCZ): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
[15] MMXX change reports Nos. 5–14 and 17–19 (Apr–Oct 2024 disposals), e.g. No.14 (S100U4AU): disclosure2dl.edinet-fsa.go.…
I wanted to take a moment to post about communications and transparency.
Over the past week, my colleagues and I have spent a lot of time reading the questions, feedback, and criticism that you have shared. Thank you for your passion, and for your belief in Metaplanet.
One thing that has become clear is that we have not done a good enough job of explaining how our structure and decisions are designed to create long-term value for all shareholders. We can do better, and we will.
It has also become clear that while opinions differ, we all want the same thing: for company leadership and shareholder interests to be aligned in creating as much long-term value as possible, and for Metaplanet to operate with the highest standards of transparency and governance.
Through this lens, we announced several significant changes to the 10th Series stock acquisition rights on August 18, including eliminating the adjustment provision, fixing the share count, and implementing additional alignment measures. We are continuing to review our governance and compensation policies and will share any updates when that work is complete.
Separately, I’d like to clarify details regarding the structure of MMXX Ventures. The basic facts are these: MMXX is a shareholder in Metaplanet, and I am a significant but non-majority shareholder of its parent company. I am neither a director nor officer of MMXX, and have no role in its investment or trading decisions. What I can speak to, and will, are the decisions made at Metaplanet.
Bottom line: going forward, you should expect to hear more from us around the decisions we make and how they shape the future of the company.
Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to engage.
Metaplanet has amended its 10th Series stock acquisition rights.
This is a meaningful governance improvement. It directly addresses questions numerous shareholders raised publicly. The board appears to have agreed.
Now for questions that remains unanswered….the Cayman Islands litigation.
The public record, in sequence:
27 November 2025: Stahl Capital Ltd. (Bermuda) filed a winding-up petition against Red Planet Hotels Limited in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. The allegation, verbatim: "millions of dollars of assets transferred out of the company without authorization." Gerovich is named as a last-known director of the respondent company.
16 January 2026: Grand Court granted the order. Joint Official Liquidators from R&H Restructuring appointed — with compulsory legal powers to demand documents from former directors and entities they control. That includes MMXX Ventures, which holds 42.47 million Metaplanet shares.
26 March 2026: Gerovich signs Metaplanet's FY2025 Annual Securities Report. Zero reference to these proceedings anywhere in the 160-page document.
20 February 2026 — 35 days after the Grand Court made its winding-up order — @gerovich wrote on X: "We are one of the most transparent listed companies in the world. I take full public responsibility for every statement and action."
I have checked every Cayman Gazette issue through 3 August 2026. There is no termination notice and no settlement notice. The proceedings remain on the public record as active.
One possibility: perhaps the Cayman proceedings have been settled and not yet reported in the Cayman Gazette.
If so, that does not eliminate the disclosure question — it deepens it. A settlement of an allegation that "millions of dollars of assets were transferred without authorization" from a company Gerovich directed would itself be a material fact requiring disclosure — to TSE shareholders under Japanese securities law and to Super League shareholders under SEC rules. The source of any settlement funds, the terms of resolution, and the connection to entities Gerovich controls including MMXX Ventures would all be material. Settlement resolves the litigation. It does not resolve the disclosure obligation.
Now it has crossed into the United States.
On 18 August 2026, Metaplanet announced it is acquiring 95.7% of Super League Enterprise Inc. (Nasdaq: SLE) for 2,100 BTC (~$132M) plus $2.5M cash. Upon closing, Super League becomes Superplanet. Gerovich becomes Chairman.
Six days earlier — on 12 August 2026 — Super League filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement with the SEC. The proxy describes Metaplanet's history including its Red Planet Japan era. It does not disclose the Cayman Grand Court winding-up order anywhere in the document.
The SEC will review this preliminary proxy before the definitive version is cleared. US securities rules require proxy statements to disclose material legal proceedings involving officers and controlling persons of the acquirer.
[Source: SEC PRE 14A, Super League Enterprise, 12 August 2026]
sec.gov/Archives/edgar…
The questions that need answering:
[1] What contact have the Joint Official Liquidators made with Gerovich or MMXX Ventures?
[2] Does MMXX's Metaplanet shareholding feature in the Joint Official Liquidators ' investigation?
[3] What was the ultimate source of MMXX's ¥542M (~$3.6M) founding investment in Metaplanet?
[4] Did the Metaplanet board consider whether the Cayman order required disclosure to TSE shareholders?
[5] Why is the Cayman proceeding absent from the FY2025 Annual Securities Report signed by Gerovich on 26 March 2026?
[6] Will it be disclosed in the definitive Superplanet proxy filed with the SEC?
These questions I think deserve answers. They are not allegations. They are questions arising from public records.
Metaplanet has amended its 10th Series stock acquisition rights.
This is a meaningful governance improvement. It directly addresses questions numerous shareholders raised publicly. The board appears to have agreed.
Now for questions that remains unanswered….the Cayman Islands litigation.
The public record, in sequence:
27 November 2025: Stahl Capital Ltd. (Bermuda) filed a winding-up petition against Red Planet Hotels Limited in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. The allegation, verbatim: "millions of dollars of assets transferred out of the company without authorization." Gerovich is named as a last-known director of the respondent company.
16 January 2026: Grand Court granted the order. Joint Official Liquidators from R&H Restructuring appointed — with compulsory legal powers to demand documents from former directors and entities they control. That includes MMXX Ventures, which holds 42.47 million Metaplanet shares.
26 March 2026: Gerovich signs Metaplanet's FY2025 Annual Securities Report. Zero reference to these proceedings anywhere in the 160-page document.
20 February 2026 — 35 days after the Grand Court made its winding-up order — @gerovich wrote on X: "We are one of the most transparent listed companies in the world. I take full public responsibility for every statement and action."
I have checked every Cayman Gazette issue through 3 August 2026. There is no termination notice and no settlement notice. The proceedings remain on the public record as active.
One possibility: perhaps the Cayman proceedings have been settled and not yet reported in the Cayman Gazette.
If so, that does not eliminate the disclosure question — it deepens it. A settlement of an allegation that "millions of dollars of assets were transferred without authorization" from a company Gerovich directed would itself be a material fact requiring disclosure — to TSE shareholders under Japanese securities law and to Super League shareholders under SEC rules. The source of any settlement funds, the terms of resolution, and the connection to entities Gerovich controls including MMXX Ventures would all be material. Settlement resolves the litigation. It does not resolve the disclosure obligation.
Now it has crossed into the United States.
On 18 August 2026, Metaplanet announced it is acquiring 95.7% of Super League Enterprise Inc. (Nasdaq: SLE) for 2,100 BTC (~$132M) plus $2.5M cash. Upon closing, Super League becomes Superplanet. Gerovich becomes Chairman.
Six days earlier — on 12 August 2026 — Super League filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement with the SEC. The proxy describes Metaplanet's history including its Red Planet Japan era. It does not disclose the Cayman Grand Court winding-up order anywhere in the document.
The SEC will review this preliminary proxy before the definitive version is cleared. US securities rules require proxy statements to disclose material legal proceedings involving officers and controlling persons of the acquirer.
[Source: SEC PRE 14A, Super League Enterprise, 12 August 2026]
sec.gov/Archives/edgar…
The questions that need answering:
[1] What contact have the Joint Official Liquidators made with Gerovich or MMXX Ventures?
[2] Does MMXX's Metaplanet shareholding feature in the Joint Official Liquidators ' investigation?
[3] What was the ultimate source of MMXX's ¥542M (~$3.6M) founding investment in Metaplanet?
[4] Did the Metaplanet board consider whether the Cayman order required disclosure to TSE shareholders?
[5] Why is the Cayman proceeding absent from the FY2025 Annual Securities Report signed by Gerovich on 26 March 2026?
[6] Will it be disclosed in the definitive Superplanet proxy filed with the SEC?
These questions I think deserve answers. They are not allegations. They are questions arising from public records.