Company: CNCKW
Filing Date: 2025-09-10
Form Type: 424B3
Source: 0001213900-25-086398
Chunk: 56

Company: Coincheck Group N.V.
Filing Date: 2025-09-10
Form: 424B3
Chunk 56
---
 disputes, damage to our brand and reputation, legal claims against us, and financial liabilities, any of which could adversely affect our business. A temporary or permanent blockchain “fork” to any supported crypto asset could adversely affect our business. Blockchain protocols, including Bitcoin and Ethereum, are open source. Any user can download the software, modify it, and then propose that Bitcoin, Ethereum or other blockchain protocols users and miners adopt the modification. When a modification is introduced and a substantial majority of users and miners consent to the modification, the change is implemented and the Bitcoin, Ethereum or other blockchain protocol networks, as 30 applicable, remain uninterrupted. However, if less than a substantial majority of users and miners consent to the proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the software prior to its modification, the consequence is called a “fork” (i.e., “split”) of the impacted blockchain protocol network and respective blockchain, with one prong running the pre -modifiedsoftware and the other running the modified software. The effect of a fork is the existence of two parallel versions of the Bitcoin, Ethereum or other blockchain protocol network, as applicable, running simultaneously, but with each split network’s crypto asset lacking interchangeability. Both Bitcoin and Ethereum protocols have been subject to “forks” that resulted in the creation of new networks, including Bitcoin Cash ABC, Bitcoin Cash SV, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Gold, Ethereum Classic, and others. Some of these forks have caused fragmentation among platforms as to the correct naming convention for forked crypto assets. Due to the lack of a central registry or rulemaking body, no single entity has the ability to dictate the nomenclature of forked crypto assets, causing disagreements and a lack of uniformity among platforms on the nomenclature of forked crypto assets, and which results in further confusion to users as to the nature of assets they hold on platforms. In addition, several of these forks were contentious and, as a result, participants in certain communities may harbor ill will towards other communities. As a result, certain community members may take actions that adversely impact the use, adoption, and price of Bitcoin, Ethereum, or any of their forked alternatives. Hard forks can also lead to new security concerns. For instance, when the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks split in July 2016, replay attacks, in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast on the other network to achieve “double -spending,” plagued platforms that traded Ethereum through at least October 2016, resulting in significant losses to some crypto asset platforms.