Showing a bitcoin balance and being able to withdraw it are two different things. The Datavault AI case illustrates this with a very concrete consequence: the US company has announced that it must correct four sets of accounts after reviewing how a cryptocurrency-funded transaction was treated.
In a regulatory filing submitted on 26 October 2026, Datavault says that a withdrawal request sent to Biconomy in June had still not been completed by the date of filing. Beyond the share-price reaction reported by Decrypt, the issue is an accounting one: what can a company actually count among its assets and available resources?
A $150 million transaction at the heart of the case
It began with an agreement concluded on 25 September 2025 with Scilex. This provided for the acquisition of Datavault shares and rights to buy more, for consideration of $150 million payable in bitcoins. The exchange rate set out in the agreement corresponded to approximately 1 328,43 BTC.
The filing distinguishes this contractual amount from the amount credited to Datavault’s Biconomy account: 1 309,04 BTC, after cash advances had been deducted. The credits were made in two stages, in September and November 2025, through so-called “off-chain” transfers.
This distinction is essential. A transfer of this kind changes the records kept by an intermediary without necessarily corresponding to a transaction recorded on Bitcoin’s public blockchain. The amount shown in an account therefore does not, on its own, reveal all the conditions that would allow its holder to move the funds.
Datavault also says that it resold to Scilex 491,431 BTC credited to this account between September 2025 and January 2026, in exchange for approximately $40.5 million in cash. The initial $150 million should therefore not be treated as a sum that has remained fully available and unchanged since the agreement was signed.
What is established about the withdrawal — and what is not
Datavault says it requested a transfer to an external account in June 2026. The 26 October filing states that the withdrawal could not be completed. It does not give the precise reason why.
This lack of explanation limits the conclusions that can be drawn. The filing proves neither theft, nor the permanent disappearance of the bitcoins, nor a failure of the Bitcoin network itself. It describes a withdrawal problem in the relationship between a company and an intermediary. Presenting the episode as a cryptocurrency outage would confuse the protocol with the services that use it.
Conversely, reducing the problem to a mere technical detail would miss its significance. Datavault had regarded these balances as a source of liquidity. A resource that cannot be used as expected does not play the same role in financing the company’s expenses and commitments.
Why the accounts must be corrected
After reviewing the transaction, Datavault considers that the bitcoins in question did not meet the conditions for recognition as its digital assets. The company plans instead to record a subscription receivable: an amount owed by Scilex in connection with the issuance of securities.
This replacement does not amount to mechanically moving a sum from one asset category to another. Under the announced treatment, the receivable is presented as a reduction in equity. Cash already received in connection with transactions with Scilex must reduce the outstanding amount.
On 20 October, the audit committee and management concluded that four sets of financial statements should no longer be relied on as they stood: those for September 2025, the annual accounts for December 2025, and then those for March and June 2026. The 26 October filing makes this decision public and describes the planned corrections.
The estimated reductions in assets include $92.2 million as at 31 December 2025 and $49 million as at 30 June 2026. These figures relate to balance-sheet snapshots taken on different dates. Adding them together to announce a total loss would be wrong. Datavault also says that its assessments remain preliminary and unaudited at this stage.
Availability matters as much as the stated value
The case highlights three distinct questions. The first concerns value: how much is an asset worth on a given date? The second concerns accounting recognition: can it be included in this company’s accounts under the applicable rules? The third concerns availability: can it be transferred or used when the company needs it?
A rise in the price of bitcoin would not, on its own, answer the last two questions. Likewise, a receivable from a business partner is not automatically as readily available as a sum already received. The terms and prospects of its collection must also be known.
Datavault says that collection from Scilex is uncertain. Management is consequently reassessing its evaluation of the company’s ability to continue as a going concern for certain periods in question. This reassessment signals a funding issue; it does not, in itself, amount to a declaration of bankruptcy.
Information still needed
In the 26 October filing, the company had not set a date for publishing its corrected accounts. It was also continuing to assess the implications for its internal controls and did not rule out identifying further errors. These are outstanding issues in the filing, not results already known.
The next decisive information will therefore be the actual correction of the accounts, further details about the withdrawal and collection, and the consequences for resources that can be mobilised. This will make it possible to understand what stems from a past presentation error and what continues to weigh on the company’s operations.
Illustrative photograph: a medallion bearing the Bitcoin symbol in a wallet, unrelated to Datavault’s assets. Photo: CryptoWallet.com Images, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0.
