Galaxy Digital Holdings Recorded Over $270 Million in Losses Last Year, $70M BTC and $64M ETH
The recognized cryptocurrency hedge fund, Galaxy Digital Holdings,has informed that it lost $97 million the last quarter of 2018.
That means that during the whole year, the crypto merchant bank founded by Michael Novogratz lost $272.7 million.
The information was released by the company on Monday.
Galaxy Digital Registers Heavy Losses
According to the filing that was presented to the Canadian securities regulators, most of the losses came from selling digital assets at a loss. Specifically, they mentioned that this represented $101.4 million.
The company has also informed that $75.5 million were from paper losses on crypto, $8.5 in unrealized losses on investments in different companies and $88.4 million in operating expenses.
At the end of 2018, the company had 9,724 Bitcoin (BTC), 92,545 Ether (ETH), 2.4 million EOS and 60,227 of Monero (XMR). During the year, Galaxy increased the number of BTC and ETH it had, starting with 5,902 BTC and 57,000 ETH. That represents an increase of 64% and 62% respectively.
The firm also held some smaller virtual currencies such as Wax and BlockV, but they couldn’t reach the top tanks at the beginning of 2019. Galaxy Digital lost $70.3 million in BTC and $64.4 million ETH.
2018 was not a good year for digital currencies. Bitcon lost more than 80% of its value and other digital assets fell even further. This has affected many companies in the space, including hedge funds such as Galaxy Digital, which invested in virtual currencies.
Other investments of the company included Silvergate Capital Corporation, AlphaPoint, Templum, Pantera Venture Fund and many others.
The report explains that Galaxy has a larger risk due to the fact that the CEO of the platform is the major stakeholder with 71 percent of Galaxy. That means that Galaxy is highly dependant on Mike Novogratz and that the CEO’s interest could be different from shareholders.
The report informs about that:
“Mr. Novogratz’s public profile makes it more likely that GDH LP will attract material regulatory scrutiny, which would be costly and distracting regardless of whether GDHP LP has engaged in any unlawful conduct.”