Welcome to the webinar. Please stand by. The webinar will begin shortly. Please remain on the line. The webinar will begin shortly. Please remain on the line. The webinar will begin shortly. Please remain on the line. The webinar will begin shortly. Please remain on the line. The webinar will begin shortly. Please remain on the line. The webinar will begin shortly. Please remain on the line. The webinar will begin shortly. Please remain on the line. The webinar will begin shortly. Please remain on the line. The broadcast is now starting. All attendees are in listen-only mode. Good afternoon, everyone. This is Thérèse Byars speaking, and I'm the Corporate Secretary of FRMO Corp. Thank you for joining us today. The statements made on this call apply only as of today. The information on this call should not be construed to be a recommendation to purchase or sell any particular security or investment fund. The opinions referenced on this call are not intended to be a forecast of future events or a guarantee of future results. It should not be assumed that any of the security transactions referenced today have been or will prove to be profitable, or that future investment decisions will be profitable or will equal or exceed the past performance of the investments. For additional information, you may visit the FRMO Corp website at FRMOcorp.com. Today's discussion will be led by Murray Stahl, chief executive officer, and Steven Bregman, president and chief financial officer. They will review key points related to the fiscal 2026 second quarter earnings. Now I'll turn the discussion over to Mr. Stahl. Okay. Thank you, Therese, and thank you everybody for joining us today. First let me apologize for delayed filing and therefore delayed meeting. You may be aware we had to we had a little dispute about what our tax liability might be if we were to sell certain securities. That required a recalculation, and we're in a not too distant future 'cause we're now past the February quarter end. We're gonna have another meeting in about 6 weeks to discuss the February results. You know what? We're gonna have a different tax number as well for the simple reason that the market value of the assets have changed. We'll talk about that then. My apologies, but such is life. In any event, I'll do some key points right now. Just tell you some things that are happening or happened very recently, we can go to questions. One thing that I think is important, you may recall we have an interest in a company called HashMaster, and we own the building or we owned the building in which HashMaster was located. We sold that recently and part of the proceeds were used to prepaid a mortgage, or I should say the buyer was a company called Syntech, prepaid our mortgage to 0. Now we are once again debt-free and the rest of the proceeds we took in Syntech stock. We're now a proud owner of a small interest in this company, Syntech, which is involved in all things supporting, A, the cryptocurrency industry, and B, the emerging data center industry. We are a proud owner of that. Now we should point out that that doesn't mean we're getting out of mining. Quite the contrary. We have in the last year or so preferred to do our mining through a publicly traded company called Winland. You might have observed we made a number of investments in Winland. At the moment, we own approximately 45% of Winland. If and when we cross the 50% barrier, we'll be consolidating Winland, our financial statements will have a different look and character. However, you can tell a few things right now. We have not bought mining rigs in a little while. If you look at the line on the balance sheet, Digital mining assets and an appreciation, you'll see a de minimis sum of about $31,000. I think you'll find this rather interesting. If you go to Digital assets. Digital assets, we didn't buy any Digital assets during the quarter, as such. We, however, in the half month period of time, if you were to look on our balance sheet, you compare the Digital assets cost basis in May versus the cost basis in December. In round numbers, the cost basis is higher by $36,000. That $36,000 are the Digital assets that we mined during this six-month reporting period. We mined those Digital assets with $31,000 worth of equipment. There's significance to that. Before I go into the significance, I just want to point out, we say the cost of the Digital assets are $36,000. The cost of Digital assets are the market value that existed on the day we mined them. That doesn't mean it actually cost us $36,000 to mine the assets or create the assets, if you like. That's just what the value would be if we were to sell those assets. $36,000 of assets on $31,000 of value should tell you something. It tells you that one of the important variables in mining are the longevity of your assets. It's not something that people talk about a lot. Longevity assets is not the exact same thing as the life in an appreciation sense. We depreciate the assets generally over three years. That doesn't mean they last three years. Lately, last year and a half or two, we've confined our mining interests in terms of newly purchased equipment to a so-called Scrypt mining. Scrypt mining is spelled with a Y, so it's S-C-R-Y-P-T. The idea is that we make a higher return Scrypt mining and using some of the revenues to buy Bitcoin than you would if we actually mined the Bitcoin itself. The more important point is that Scrypt mining, since most of the revenues come from Dogecoin, has unique features. Scrypt mining has no halving. It does have a halving in relation to the Litecoin assets that are mined. Scrypt mining, for those who aren't familiar with the term, Scrypt mining is basically merged mining. You can mine two coins with one electric current. That's what makes it interesting. We mine Litecoin and Dogecoin. We keep the Litecoin, we sell Dogecoin. We use some of Dogecoin to pay our electricity charges. We use some of Dogecoin to actually buy some Bitcoin. That's how we increase our Bitcoin. Because Dogecoin represents the bulk of the assets, there is no halving in Dogecoin. Halving, H-A-L-V-I-N-G, is central to understanding of Bitcoin. Every four years, the block reward is reduced in half or by 50%. That's why they call it the halving. One of the most important things, arguably the most important thing you can do in cryptocurrency mining, is to prepare for the halving. It's my personal observation that, A, very few people prepare for the halving, and B, very few people even talk about the halving, and C, many people are unaware that there is such a thing as a halving. When we get close enough to the halving, and various participants become aware there is such a thing as a halving, and preparations have to be made for the halving, well, it has a tendency, for reasons maybe I'll get some questions, have an opportunity to expand on this at length, to be very disruptive to the Bitcoin markets. In principle, everything cryptocurrency, everything in Bitcoin should be completely and totally transparent to everybody. Why? Because everything one needs to know is contained in the original working paper, the protocol. There should be no surprises. However, very few people are aware of the protocol and are aware of the halving, and therefore, there are surprises. Surprises, typically tend to happen about more or less about two years before the next halving. The next halving is going to occur in approximately April 18th, 2028. This is March 2026. Let's say crudely speaking, we're about two years away from the halving. Disruption is right on schedule. Ultimately, the market will sort it out and Bitcoin will continue as it always has. It won't be a big issue. Until such time, it's an issue. Essentially what people have to do is there has to be a changeover in equipment. The equipment you have today, unless you're doing Scrypt mining equipment where there's no halving, you're gonna have to get new equipment. You're gonna have to get new equipment. How are you gonna pay for the equipment? The practice of many people is to sell some of, in some cases, a lot of the Bitcoin they accumulated during the prior period. Since everybody has to prepare for the halving more or less simultaneously, that cryptocurrency comes on the market and it's a seasonal phenomenon, so to speak. Eventually, I think people will master the reality and prepare gradually or prepare to do something else where there's not a halving. Eventually it'll work its way out. In the meantime, it's just something we have to live with it. Some other points of interest. Liquidity. You'll observe the liquidity, not just the cash on the balance sheet, but in fact, we have no debt. I believe this is the most liquid we've ever been. On the balance sheet. We have a lot of borrowing power that we really have never used. We could use it if we have to, but it's worthwhile reflecting on how much liquidity we really have if we choose to use it. It's the best position we've ever had in our history. Another one point that I'd like to make that's not germane to the subject of crypto is exchanges. It's another big focus of ours. You might have noticed that in the summer, MIAX came public. MIAX was a private investment. MIAX, for those that are new to FRMO, its origin is we were at one time the largest holder of two exchanges, one being the Minneapolis Grain Exchange, the other being the Bermuda Stock Exchange. We merged those in exchange for an interest in MIAX. MIAX is not our only exchange investment. We have some other small exchange investment, but largely we're in MIAX. The IPO was, I think, extremely successful, and that required a markup in value, and I commend MIAX to your attention. I think it's well worthwhile following. Rather than go into what they're doing, I'll let the company speak for itself and just relate to you. Couldn't be more pleased what's going on at MIAX. I'm really proud of everybody in the team and all they've been able to accomplish in what is really a short period of time. That's what I had in terms of general remarks. Now, I think it'd be great if we could take some questions. Therese, if you'd be so kind as to read them, I'd be delighted to respond. I'll be glad to do so. The first is, "First of all, congratulations on your call regarding Zcash, which has performed exceptionally well in 2025. As you previously explained, a key driver of its success has been its monetary policy, which is similar to Bitcoin's. Could you share your thoughts on Litecoin, particularly in light of the recent launch of the first Litecoin ETF? What potential trigger points do you see for Litecoin that could lead to a similar performance pattern as Zcash? While Litecoin has the privacy upgrade, MWEB, it seems that Zcash may have an edge in certain aspects. Additionally, Ethereum appears to be attempting to capitalize on the same anonymity trend. Would you elaborate on FRMO's broader altcoin strategy and what shareholders might expect in this regard? First of all, the idea of operating completely anonymously, that idea is diametrically opposed to the idea of having broad-based global usage of a given cryptocurrency. If a given cryptocurrency community, I should say, is interested in maximizing anonymity, it's just not gonna be one of the leading coins. The reason for that is it's just too dangerous to allow complete anonymity for a lot of reasons. One obvious reason is just taxation. The governments have to be able to collect taxation. You couldn't have a situation in which people can escape taxation by anonymity. You could have a small community that's able to do it, but government's gonna make rules about whether or not you can use a given currency. That's the thrust of the currency. It's interesting, but it's only interesting for a small community of users that governments in the world. I say governments in the plural, I don't mean any particular government. You're not gonna create the next Bitcoin if you're gonna create a wholly anonymous currency. That's one thing. With Litecoin, you will observe if you go to a website called BitInfoCharts, which I'm actually gonna do it just so I can speak intelligently. Give me just one second, and I'm gonna get there, and I'm gonna show you something. The thing about Litecoin that's intriguing is the amount of measured dollars, of course, so it's comparable. The amount of dollars or amount of coins measured in dollars that traded in the last 24 hours. This is off this website, BitInfoCharts, which is reading it off the blockchain. It's accurate. In Bitcoin, I'm gonna round. In the last 24 hours, the Bitcoin volume, so to speak, is $18.7 billion. That's billion with a B. Litecoin volume in the same period of time, last 24 hours, is, round numbers, $10 billion. I should point out to you the market capitalization of Litecoin is only $4.2 billion. There's a lot of trading volume in Litecoin. You can do a lot with Litecoin. Litecoin has more or less the same monetary policy as Bitcoin. Litecoin is not really anonymous. It may have a small subset of it that's going to become anonymous or that is currently has the faculty of being anonymous. You can do a lot with it. Among the things you might be able to do with it, you might be able to use it if it has these liquidity characteristics for instantaneous settlement of certain types of securities. You might be aware that the world is moving to instantaneous settlement. One of the reasons the world is moving to instantaneous settlement is because markets globally, as they get connected, are moving to 24/7 trading. If we're gonna have 24/7 trading, one of the problems in 24/7 trading is the banks. The banks aren't open 24/7. What would happen if it were, as an example, Sunday and you saw in a market that happens to be open on Sunday, you saw enormous opportunity to buy something and you have no access to your cash. The market has created a solution for that, or at least an interim solution, called stablecoins. Stablecoins trade 24/7. The stablecoin market is now approaching in terms of the assets of stablecoins, half a trillion dollars. Stablecoin market is largely dollar-based. If this continues, and I personally think it will, it's a way of bypassing banks as payment modalities. As a matter of fact, if it were Sunday and you want to buy something, speaking purely theoretically, you could give someone X dollars worth of your money market fund if your money market fund were shares and were transferable. Just your money market fund is not transferable. What is transferable is you can withdraw money from your money market fund and transfer the money, but you only withdraw the money during banking hours. Stablecoin, if you want to analogize it to something, make it easy to understand, it's like being able to trade on a 24/7 basis or being able to use on a 24/7 basis your money market fund. Okay. If you can do that and you're able to pay for things every 24 hours, then, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, then you might wanna settle them. The new trend is settle them either instantaneously or virtually instantaneously. We don't have that yet in the United States, but we're moving to that. We're gonna have an instantaneous settlement system, and you wanna track things. A pretty good, redundant device is to use a mined cryptocurrency. It might be Litecoin. In theory, you could divide Litecoin into enough pieces that each individual share could be tracked by a fraction of a Litecoin. It's possible. If it's gonna have $10 billion of volume a day, if you then divide it up into small enough pieces, you could use Litecoin for instantaneous settlement. You could, in theory, use Dogecoin for instantaneous settlement. Litecoin has much more volume than Dogecoin. Dogecoin, just as a matter of interest, is only $161 million of volume versus $10 billion. The only cryptocurrency that I'm aware that has that type of volume during the day is Litecoin. Incidentally, the Litecoin volume is, in round numbers, almost three times the Ethereum volume. I can see a possible use case. Whether that's going to happen or not, time will tell. That's my simplistic view of Litecoin. The next question, if you're ready for it, is also related to tokenization. Would you please comment on how the tokenization and movement On-chain of financial assets will affect the securities exchanges held by FRMO and various HK funds? What are your thoughts about the school of thought circulating recently, this is kind of related, recently that Bitcoin is no longer a fixed asset due to the ability of the markets to create synthetic supply? Those are two separate questions, which we can reread the second one later. Okay. Okay. Well, I'll do them both. Let's do the first part first. I'm gonna interpret the first part this way. Is tokenization a threat to exchanges? Not at all. Tokenization is one of the greatest things that could ever happen to exchanges. The reason you need an exchange is because no one, including the securities participants, want to have what's called naked access. How do you guarantee that your counterparty is legitimate? That's why you need intermediaries. Much more important than that. In electronic trading, there are all sorts of things people can do to disturb the market. Here's an obvious thing, what's called spoofing. Spoofing involves you put bids and offers out there, you being some person out there in cyberspace. They're putting bids and offers for a given security, and you'll say, "Okay, so Trader A and Trader B can come together and agree on a price." What do you need, what do you need a security exchange for? Well, how do you, if you happen to be either Trader A or Trader B, know that your counterparty is even giving you proper information? Your counterparty will say, "I'm willing to... I'm offering so many shares of something or other at a given price." Of course, it's all electronic, and you or maybe your computer becomes aware of it and says, "Yes, I would like to buy some or all those securities at that price," except it's not a real offer or it might not be a real bid. The other side has gotten information about what your buy point is. If there's no intermediary, that's the way securities markets would evolve. As a matter of historical interest, the London Stock Exchange was originally a coffee house in London. People met there, so they didn't call it London Stock Exchange. People would say all kinds of things in negotiating securities transactions, much of which was false. Even with the technology of the 18th century, everyone realized you need an intermediary to enforce some rules. Similarly, New York Stock Exchange, originally it was the Buttonwood Agreement, where people who met under a tree with the view to exchanging securities, why did they all need to get together and have a certain rules-based system? Of course, they had no computers, not the technology we have today, but they needed a rules-based system. They needed it. It had to be enforced. If someone did something, that person could be banned from trading, and the person would be identified as such. It happened in many, many instances. Of course, you can move to the world of tokenization. That'll lead to either virtually instantaneous or maybe even instantaneous settlement. You're not gonna eliminate the need for exchanges. Some entity has to collect the data, meaning the aggregate data. There are people very interested in how many shares traded, what shares traded, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Somebody has to pool all that. There has to be an interconnect point where the, everyone's trades are going to be monitored, not for tax purposes or anything, just to keep everybody honest. That's why trading floors evolved. Everybody is gonna be on the same floor. You could have said, 150 years ago when they had the first trading floors, "Why do we need a trading floor? Why do Trader A and Trader B need to transact on this floor? Why can't they be half a mile away and transact?" Because if they're half a mile away, they're not subject to scrutiny, and we don't know if one of the counterparties is being honest. All it takes is a few people that are not honest, and you destroy the confidence everyone has in securities markets, and you can really hurt, possibly even destroy an economy. There are all sorts of other things. I won't go into it, but you get the idea, how important it is. Why don't you repeat, the second part so I make sure I get this question right? Thérèse, what's the second part of the question? I just wanna get it right. I think I know where it is. The second part is, what are your thoughts about the school of thought circulating recently that Bitcoin is no longer a fixed unit asset due to the ability of the markets to create synthetic supply? Okay, I think it's ridiculous. The reason it's ridiculous, there is no such thing as synthetic supply other than the word synthetic supply. You could talk about synthetic supply. It could be a derivative or an option. All those things are is a bet on what the future price of Bitcoin is going to be. It's not Bitcoin. I could buy or sell a future on Bitcoin, and I could do it in any amount. If the market capitalization of Bitcoin were, as it is now, somewhere between $1.3 trillion and $1.4 trillion, could you create, in principle, $2 trillion or $3 trillion or $4 trillion worth of futures? Yes, you can. All it is people who are making a bet with you on the future price of Bitcoin. It's not Bitcoin. The supply of Bitcoin is fixed. Doesn't matter how many options you have, how many futures you have, how many other types of exotic derivative contracts you have. There's right now almost 20 million Bitcoin. It's only gonna be 21 million, and that's it. There is no such thing as synthetic supply. It doesn't exist other than in the vocabulary of people who wish to make an assertion that is not correct. Okay. The next question has to do with on the Q2 2025 conference call, Abaxx Technologies Abaxx was mentioned in the Q&A, and Murray was not familiar with it. He said he wasn't familiar with it, but would look into it for future discussions. I'm curious if he looked into it and what his thoughts are. Okay. Just so you know what it is, Abaxx is, speaking loosely, the commodities exchange or a commodity exchange based in Singapore. Spent a lot of their time developing the trading systems. Not that many months ago, I don't remember how many months ago, but not that many months ago, it commenced trading, obviously from a very low level. As far as I can tell, recently, from a very low level, their volume is up a lot. They're trading gold. They're trading natural gas. There's some other commodities. The volume is up a lot. It could possibly emerge as a rival to the Multi Commodity Exchange of India. It's possible. Just too early to tell. It trades, and as far as I can determine, it seems to have a market capitalization already of $1.4 billion. I have to verify that, but I think I tried the other day to verify it, and it looked like it was $1.4 billion. I want to check the number of shares outstanding to make sure I didn't make a mistake, but that's what it looks like in any event. That's a lot of market value for the level of trading they have. On the other hand, I don't want to say it's outlandish because their growth rate, albeit from a very low base, is not far from 100%. There's a lot of, in the Far East, a lot of underlying demand for commodity futures, particularly in natural gas and particularly in gold. It's an interesting company to follow, but I haven't bought any. Next is why do the condensed consolidated statements of income have the 3 months ending November 30th, 2024, and the 6 months ending November 30th, 2024, have different amounts for the diluted shares? It just seemed to me that if it's the same date, the number of shares should be the same. Well, it seems that way to me. Yes. You said... I don't want to cut the question off. I can answer it. Nope. That's it. read the rest of the question. That's it. That's it? Okay. Okay. Well, it seems that way to me, too, but, there's, like there is in everything in accounting, a little bit of a wrinkle. I'll explain the wrinkle. Our directors are paid a certain number of options instead of cash, and, we have the... Or they were paid that. Those options are still outstanding. If the stock price rises and those options are in the money, well, they make it to fully lose shares outstanding because they can, in theory, be exercised. If the stock price goes down, well, then they're out of money and no reasonable human is gone exercise them, and the shares outstanding go down. It's not a big amount, and it's not going to, change the valuation of the company, but that's why we have that, fluctuation. Good argument for paying directors in cash, not options. Please provide an update on direct and indirect holdings of MIAX, including warrants. I think we have the quarterly statement of holdings. Does it include MIAX in there? Do you know, Therese? I'm not 100% sure. Let me see. In the. In that table. In the table. That's on the website. Yeah. Is it not there? I believe it says, I'm reading from the table. I didn't want to just quote a number. Right In reading from the table, this is as of November thirtieth, calculated by people other than myself. I'll read from the table. I'll just give these numbers. Restricted shares, 935,202. These are publicly available shares, 11,441, for a grand total of, in round numbers, 946,000 and some hundreds of shares. That's reading from the table. I'll have to review how that's calculated, if they include warrants or not. I don't remember if they include warrants or not. The warrants are in the money. The warrants are in the money. You know what we're going to do. Okay. Our last question is: What are Mr. Stahl and Mr. Bregman's biggest regrets after 25 years of managing FRMO? You wanna talk about your biggest regrets, Steve? I guess he doesn't have any. I'm just, I'm muting myself here. Sure. Oh, okay. I didn't know you had regrets. Well, for some reason, this came to mind. I don't know how relevant it is to the intent of the question, but what came to mind was, anybody seen a movie that's beloved by some called Peggy Sue Got Married, which probably came out just a few years before, the inception of FRMO. If you don't know the story, the basic conceit of it is that this grown woman, she's a mother, and somehow she wakes up, and she's a teenager again. She's got her own memory issues. She's open ahead. Somehow she went back to her high school years, and she's lost. The only person she can really, she really trusts, who she sees there, she wakes up in her, in her bedroom, was her grandfather. At a certain point, she's asking him. She's kinda feeling out. They're about to go outside. It's fall, it's cold. He's adjusting his scarf and mirror. I think she asked him something like, "Grandpa, if you had a chance to go back and do it all differently, what would you change?" He says, "Well, I would have taken better care of my teeth." My teeth are more or less okay, but there might have been other things I wish I would've taken better care of. With respect to managing FRMO, I think personally that we've done a marvelous job over a changeable environment. A number of environments. Of course, that's the way the market's always been. In one sense, I think it's been kind of a, an experiment and a method of investing consistent with our investment process, which Murray has kind of hewed to with great consistency and receptiveness. Anyway, that's my answer. Here's mine. If you see in the beginning all the way at the top of the entire earnings release, the so-called quarterly report, you'll see that I personally own a little bit over 8 million shares. My great regret is I should have bought more during the windows. Of course, I can only buy during an open window. I should have bought more, I didn't. I regret that because the way FRMO and Winland and Consensus Mining and Horizon Canex, the way they're positioned... I'm not saying this cause you know I don't say things to be boastful or be promoting the companies. We've never been as well-positioned as we are now. I'm more confident in it than I've ever been. I've always been confident in it. We're just extremely well-positioned for the future, and I think a lot of great things are about to happen. A lot of great things are actually happening as we speak. Some of them are obvious. When you look back, some people say, "Well, did you think it would take a long time to happen?" Actually, it didn't. If you look back, it actually in the scheme of things, when you look at the magnitude of some of the achievements, it didn't even take that long. It obviously couldn't happen a day or a week. My big regret, should have bought more stock, and I didn't. I did buy some, and now I have over 8 million shares. Wish I would've bought more. I just... I'm not saying it just to promote the stock or anything. I really... That is my regret. Should have bought more, should have been more aggressive at, and I just wasn't, for whatever the reason was. That's my regret. Well, that was our last question. Okay. I'll let you wrap it up. in that case, I'll wrap it up by saying thanks so much for joining us, and thanks for your support. Normally I say we're gone reprise this in 90 days, but now I can't say that because we're gone reprise this in, I think, about 6 weeks, maybe a little bit less than 6 weeks. You have about that period of time to present more questions that we'd like to answer. If the interim, if in the interim, things occur to you that you didn't pose right now, don't hesitate to give us a call, and we'll get you an answer. Thanks again for joining us, and I'll just say good afternoon and signing off. Thanks so much. The conference has now ended. You may disconnect.