I’ve now gone through @bitcoinhodlco audited FY2026 accounts, and as a shareholder with over 10% of the company, I think it’s time for the board to confront some very uncomfortable numbers. At 30 June 2026, B HODL had £8.5m in assets, including £7.36m of Bitcoin. Its entire annual revenue was £34,781. Not profit. Revenue. Of that, £20,598 came from the CoinCorner Rewards Account. The supposedly value-adding Lightning business generated just £14,183. That equates to total revenue of approximately 0.47% of the year-end Bitcoin treasury, with Lightning contributing only 0.19%. For perspective, US 13-week Treasury bills currently yield 4.15%. That’s nearly nine times the total revenue ratio and over 21 times the Lightning component when measured against the full Bitcoin treasury. Not a like-for-like investment comparison, but an extraordinary illustration of how little income this business has generated. Meanwhile, B HODL’s own stated operating costs are approximately £46,000 per month, or £550,000 annually. Almost sixteen times its reported annual revenue. The accounts also disclose £93,000 in administrative support charges to CoinCorner, plus approximately £11,000 in financing and direct costs. CoinCorner is a significant shareholder with representatives on the board. The charges involving CoinCorner alone were nearly three times the company’s entire revenue. The company can point to more encouraging unaudited weekly Lightning yields since the year end, but a handful of weekly results on a small fraction of the treasury is not proof of sustainable economics. I recognise that Lightning launched in May. But shareholders are entitled to question whether this structure will ever produce sufficient returns to justify its costs. The underlying Bitcoin is liquid. The shares are not. In my opinion, this business model has not worked financially to date, and shareholders should not be expected to continue funding an expensive listed-company structure indefinitely. I believe the board should put an orderly winding-up and return-of-capital proposal to shareholders. Settle the liabilities, realise or distribute the residual Bitcoin value, and return it to shareholders. And remarkably, while we are challenging the conditions imposed on our request to inspect the company’s books, the board is now proposing to narrow shareholder inspection rights under Article 141. No amount of glossy investor presentations changes the arithmetic. This isn’t compounding Bitcoin for shareholders. It’s compounding overhead. It’s time to face reality. @freddienew