The recent fight between Riot Platforms and Bitfarms has intrigued me. It is like a high-stakes chess game in real time, except that the moves are not just about numbers but about the power, strategy, and corporate governance of the future.
Image source
Riot Platforms recently made an unsolicited offer to buy Bitfarms for about $950 million by way of background information. But Bitfarms refused because it has undervalued their company. That’s where things started to get spicy. Instead of merely saying “No thanks” and moving on with their lives, what they did was adopt something known as a poison pill strategy. As it turns out, when anyone tries to take over 15 percent or more of their company, Bitfarms has plans to issue additional shares to dilute that stake. Classic play in corporate defense mechanism against hostile takeovers; however, this didn’t please Riot.
Riot’s Chief Executive Officer, Jason Les, has stated his opinion that this poison pill plan is inappropriate and not in favor of shareholders. He believes it is a sign of poor corporate governance and he's advocating for major changes in the leadership of Bitfarms. Riot has proposed that Bitfarms should do away with Nicolas Bonta, who is currently its chairman and interim CEO and have at least two independent directors be appointed. This act by Riot shows their seriousness and an opinion that they think Bitfarms’ management does not work to maximize shareholder value.
At first glance, this seems like ordinary corporate wrangling; however, it underscores a bigger problem about how businesses are run mainly within the fast-changing world of cryptocurrencies. A sound corporate governance structure is very important as it guarantees transparent management practices within the company where all stakeholder interests are guarded ethically. Sometimes when a company adopts a poison pill strategy it may mean that existing leadership is more interested in self-preservation than in what might be best for the corporation and its stakeholders over time.
Image source
From my perspective, I find this perceptible effort by Riot a step in the right direction for enhanced governance within Bitfarms. In any sector but particularly in one that is driven by digital currencies and is still relatively new, it is mandatory to have robust autonomous oversight. This is because every organization should not only be interested in earning profits within a short period but also in building an entity that can withstand market vagaries while continuing to innovate. With independent directors as its main agenda, Riot pushes for a structure that increases decision representativeness on behalf of all shareholders and not just a few on the top.
Note too that despite the present strains, Riot and Bitfarms both had a bleak year in the stock market. Their prices went down considerably even when there was much excitement about what Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies could potentially achieve. This adds another twist because it shows how each company comes under pressure to perform well to convince investors of its value. During such moments, a firm’s governance framework heavily determines whether or not it will emerge stronger out of challenges and take advantage of new opportunities.
Riot’s actions could be a blessing in disguise for Bitfarms shareholders. If the firm takes its recommendations into consideration and remedies this issue and builds more transparency and better decision-making, it may enhance performance over time to produce high shareholder value. Nonetheless, if Bitfarms remains obstinate as it is now doing, there are risks of alienating its shareholders while denying itself an opportunity to take advantage of the benefits that come with adopting a more balanced leadership approach.