Company: TLGYF
Filing Date: 2025-09-29
Form Type: S-4
Source: 0001213900-25-092592
Chunk: 189

Company: TLGY ACQUISITION CORP
Filing Date: 2025-09-29
Form: S-4
Chunk 189
---
 (such as denial -of -serviceor key exfiltration), and exploits or bugs in the underlying blockchain network or smart contract code. Any such event could result in partial or total loss of staked assets, prolonged service outages, reputational harm, or legal liability. Further, threats can come from a variety of sources, including criminal hackers, hacktivists, state -sponsoredintrusions, industrial espionage and insiders. In addition, certain types of attacks could harm us even if our systems are left undisturbed. For example, certain threats are designed to remain dormant or undetectable, sometimes for extended periods of time or until launched against a target and we may not be able to implement adequate preventative measures. 64 The risk of cyberattacks could also be increased by cyberwarfare in connection with the ongoing Russia -Ukraineand Israel -Hamasconflicts, or other future conflicts, including potential proliferation of malware into systems unrelated to such conflicts. Any future breach of our operations or those of others in the digital asset industry, including third -partyservices on which we rely, could materially and adversely affect our business. Our ENA treasury and validator business may be adversely affected by fraud, manipulation, and other abusive practices in ENA trading markets. While we anticipate that we will, at least initially, acquire most of our additional ENA Token after the Closing directly from the Ethena Foundation in accordance with the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, we may, in the ordinary course of our business acquire ENA Tokens through centralized and decentralized trading venues. Unlike traditional securities exchanges, many of these venues are subject to limited regulation, oversight, and transparency. As a result, trading in ENA Tokens may be more susceptible to fraud and market manipulation. Digital asset markets have historically experienced practices such as wash trading, spoofing, pump -and -dumpschemes, and front -running, which can distort reported trading volumes, mislead market participants, and artificially influence token prices. These practices may be especially prevalent in tokens with relatively limited trading history and liquidity, such as ENA Token. Because ENA Token’s market capitalization and trading volume are significantly smaller than those of larger digital assets such as Bitcoin or Ethereum, even small amounts of manipulative activity could have an outsized effect on the price of ENA Token. Further, front -runningand other manipulative trading strategies have been documented in decentralized exchange environments, where bots exploit knowledge of pending transactions by paying higher gas fees to execute ahead of other participants. Such practices could