Datavault AI Shares Fall as Bitcoin Withdrawal Problems Force Financial Restatement

Table of Contents

• You might want to know


• Main Topic


• Key Insights Table


• Afterwards...

You might want to know

• Why did Datavault AI’s shares fall sharply after the company discussed its bitcoin holdings?


• How could an inaccessible exchange balance affect the company’s financial statements and its assumptions about available cash?

Main Topic

Datavault AI (DVLT) shares fell nearly 50% on Tuesday after the company disclosed that it had been unable to withdraw bitcoin from the Biconomy exchange since June. The company also said it would restate its financial results. The disclosure raised concerns about whether bitcoin shown in its exchange account was accessible and whether it had been recorded appropriately in the company’s accounts.

The stock closed at $0.067, down 49.55%, with roughly 244 million shares traded. The sharp move followed a filing that connected the withdrawal issue to a funding arrangement involving Scilex Holding Company. Datavault’s announcement concerns both the availability of digital assets and how those assets should be reflected in its financial statements.

The arrangement dates to a September 2025 agreement. Scilex agreed to purchase $150 million of Datavault shares and warrants using bitcoin. Under the arrangement, 1,309.04 BTC was credited to Datavault’s account at Biconomy. The transfers were described as off-chain: account balances changed within the exchange rather than through transactions recorded on Bitcoin’s blockchain.

Datavault later sold 491.4 BTC back to Scilex for about $40.5 million in cash. When Datavault requested that bitcoin be withdrawn to an external account in June, however, the transfer could not be completed. The company said the withdrawal remained incomplete as of Monday’s filing. The disclosure does not establish why the transfer was unsuccessful, nor does it independently resolve the question of what assets were available to Datavault.

Biconomy also featured in the reported path of the bitcoin used in the investment. Scilex’s June financial report says it sold $200 million of shares in its subsidiary Semnur to Biconomy for bitcoin, and then used $150 million to buy Datavault securities. This account describes the companies’ reported transactions; it does not, by itself, confirm the present location or withdrawal status of the bitcoin.

The withdrawal issue prompted Datavault to reconsider how it classified bitcoin credited through Scilex’s investment. The company now says the amount should have been recorded as an amount owed by Scilex for the shares, rather than as cryptocurrency assets held by Datavault. In accounting terms, the correction would reduce shareholders’ equity instead of leaving the amount among the company’s reported digital assets.

The company expects the correction to reduce reported assets by $92.2 million at the end of 2025 and $49 million as of June 2026. These are the figures stated in the filing’s account of the expected restatement. They illustrate why the distinction between a balance displayed by an exchange and an asset that can be withdrawn may matter to financial reporting.

Datavault had treated the bitcoin balances as funding it could use to sustain operations. With the withdrawal unresolved and the accounting treatment under review, it must revisit that assumption. The issue is not simply whether a bitcoin balance appeared in an account; it is whether the company could access and use the asset, and whether its financial statements represented the associated rights and obligations accurately.

The central point is that an exchange balance that cannot be withdrawn may not provide the same practical liquidity as bitcoin held in a wallet the company controls. That distinction can be important when a business counts digital assets as resources available for operating expenses. It also helps explain why the company is reassessing its earlier treatment, though the filing alone does not determine the final outcome of the withdrawal request.

Restating financial results can affect how investors evaluate a company’s assets, equity, and liquidity. In this case, Datavault’s revised figures are expected to remove substantial amounts from reported assets at the stated dates. The impact on investors’ assessments will depend on the completed restatement and any further information about the status of the bitcoin, the relevant agreements, and the company’s ability to fund operations.

CoinDesk contacted Biconomy about the withdrawal request and the bitcoin backing Datavault’s account. It had not received a response as of Asian afternoon hours Wednesday. Without a response from the exchange or additional information, the reported facts leave key questions about the withdrawal unresolved.

More broadly, this episode illustrates several challenges that can arise when companies use cryptocurrency in financing arrangements. Off-chain transfers depend on exchange records and account processes rather than direct blockchain transactions. As a result, an account credit may be visible to its holder without providing the same transparency or direct control associated with an on-chain transaction to a wallet controlled by the company.

For readers assessing similar announcements, it is useful to distinguish among three ideas: a balance recorded on an exchange, an asset that can actually be withdrawn, and an asset that is correctly classified in financial statements. They may overlap, but they are not interchangeable. A company’s filings, the terms of its agreements, and confirmation of custody or transfer status can all shape how these issues are ultimately understood.

Key Insights Table

Afterwards...

The next important developments will be the completion of Datavault’s restatement and any new information about the requested withdrawal. Clear disclosures about custody arrangements, account access, the rights attached to the bitcoin, and the accounting basis for the revised figures would help investors understand the company’s position. The exchange’s response, if provided, could also clarify the status of the account and the transfer process.

This case also points to a broader need for stronger, more consistent practices in digital-asset custody and reporting. Companies that rely on exchange-held assets may benefit from documenting who controls the assets, what withdrawal conditions apply, and what evidence supports their availability. Reliable verification of custody and access is an important area for further work, particularly when cryptocurrency is used in corporate financing or counted as a source of operating liquidity.

Future tools and standards could make it easier to reconcile exchange records with blockchain activity and financial statements, while preserving appropriate security and confidentiality. Further research into independent custody verification, transparent transaction records, and accounting guidance could help companies and investors distinguish between assets that are merely displayed in an account and those that are demonstrably under a company’s control. Until such practices are broadly established, careful reading of filings and cautious interpretation of reported exchange balances remain essential.