According to Woofun AI, SkyAI (SKYA.US) has encountered obstacles in advancing its $201 million tender offer, as investment firm Bastion Trading has suspended its participation after discovering that the holdings disclosed in the Form 8-K were 400,000 fewer than previously reported, and is demanding a formal explanation from management regarding the asset discrepancy.
The underlying reason lies in the drastic fluctuations disclosed in the balance sheet. According to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, SkyAI's (SKYA.US) SOL reserves plummeted from over two million on September 14 to approximately 600,000 in the latest disclosed data.
Notably, in mid-September, management claimed to hold approximately $207 million worth of Solana assets through an active custody mechanism; however, on October 11, 2026, SkyAI (SKYA.US) announced it had liquidated nearly 1 million tokens, despite the balance sheet still showing a significant amount of similar tokens. The Form 8-K filed on October 13 further confirmed that the actual remaining amount was only approximately 600,000 SOL.
Woofun AI's compiled data shows that this recent trading activity has significantly deviated from the original digital asset reserve strategy, leading investors to question the execution of these trades.
The博弈 escalated, with focus shifting to the details of the buyback and pricing disagreements. SkyAI (SKYA.US) originally intended to use funds to repurchase approximately 95% of its outstanding shares and warrants at a cost of around $200 million, with an initial price of $3.00 per share.
However, Bastion Trading believes this valuation harms minority shareholders and argues that the minimum compensation price per share should be set at $3.50 to accurately reflect the value of funds raised from the asset disposal. More critically, the firm demands that warrants granted to entities affiliated with the brother of SkyAI (SKYA.US)’s Chief Investment Officer be excluded from the repurchase scope, and requires full disclosure of the specific sale date, quantity, transaction price, and internal decision-making body involved.
Since the end of the third quarter of 2026, tensions between shareholders and the board have intensified. At the annual general meeting held in September, each of the company’s five directors received more opposing votes than supporting votes; however, they retained their seats due to the absence of a removal mechanism in the company’s articles of incorporation. As the offer acceptance period approaches, the board must formally respond to the audit and pricing demands raised by major institutional shareholders, or the acquisition process risks stalling.