The Blockstream Mining Note Accusations

On 8 June 2026, the below article was published. It contains various accusations or implied accusations against Blockstream.

https://natinfosec.substack.com/p/adam-backs-blockstream-borrows-billions

In this short piece, we review some of the accusations against Blockstream. It should be noted that we are not experts on this topic, we have not interviewed anyone and we have not reviewed the material in detail. We are not responsible for any conclusions anyone reaches as a result of reading this article. We recommend readers do their own research.

The main accusations are against a Mr Chris Cook. Mr Cook, was the head of Blockstream's mining business, that has now spun out into a separate entity, as far as we can tell. The article alleges that Mr Cook has a criminal conviction. Our understanding is that it is indeed true that Mr Cook has a criminal conviction and that the author of the piece has correctly identified the same Mr Cook.

The Inappropriate Accusations

In our view, there are a number of accusations or implied accusations, in the article, that are not merited or are false. Some of these are outlined below:

The Christopher Cook fraud conviction does not appear in the registration filings

The article is referring to the SEC fillings for BSTR, the Bitcoin Treasury Company that is expected to shortly list on the NASDAQ. As far as we can tell, it is true that there is no mention of Mr Cook’s criminal conviction in the mentioned SEC fillings. However, as far as we can tell, Mr Cook isn’t a director of the new pubco. In addition, as far as we can tell, the mining business is not expected to be part of the pubco. Therefore, in our view, there is no particular reason that this should be disclosed in the fillings. In our view, this implied accusation is therefore largely unmerited.

Neither do the massive BMN obligations of Blockstream show up in the BSTR filings

The massive Bitcoin obligations Blockstream is carrying in the form of BMNs we feel should be disclosed to BSTR investors

From briefly reviewing the BMM (Blockstream Mining Note) presentations and offering documents, our understanding is that there is no mention of a group guarantee from Blockstream or BSTR. Our basic understanding is that these notes were a high-risk investment. It shouldn’t show up as a BSTR obligation in the fillings, because as far as we can tell it’s not a BSTR obligation. Therefore, this accusation is also unmerited or somewhat misleading.

we believe Komainu is compromised

The article makes the above accusation against the crypto custody provider Komainu. While the above accusation could be true, we did not see any evidence of this mentioned in the article. It is not clear what the article means by "compromised" and therefore we would say that this accusation is largely unsubstantiated.

On Liquid, that trail breaks, outsiders can’t verify how much L-BTC is flowing from Blockstream’s wallets to investors. And in January 2026, the Mempool.space dashboard briefly showed L-BTC only 82.4% collateralized 3,463 actual Bitcoin backing 4,199 L-BTC in circulation before going blank with “Indexing in progress.”

The article also alleges or implies that Blockstream’s Liquid Bitcoin (L-BTC) is potentially undercollateralized. The article alleges, that the Mempool.space dashboard showed that L-BTC had insufficient collateral. As far as we can tell, there was never a Mempool.space dashboard, but the The Mempool Open Source Project did have a bug in there code for the liquid.network website, that showed L-BTC as insolvent. This bug was quickly fixed and liquid.network now shows L-BTC as solvent. Therefore, it appears as if the implicit allegation here may be largely false or somewhat misleading.

Source: https://x.com/wiz/status/2069045380243931284

Did Mr Cook Steal From The Fund?

The article indicates that perhaps the BMN’s are a Ponzi scheme and that Mr Cook may have stolen investor money from the fund, which contributed to the deficit. For instance there is a paragraph entitled “Where The Money Might Be Going” and it outlines some of Mr Cooks alleged spending habits below.

In December 2025 Cook paid nearly $29 million for a Penthouse at the UN Plaza in Manhattan. He owns two private planes, a Gulfstream G650ER and a Boeing 767 and has long term leased a third jet, a Gulfstream G550. He owns at least thirty separate apartments/units in the Bentley Bay development in Miami Beach. He bought a Las Vegas mansion formerly owned by Michael Jackson for $15 million. He paid over $15 million for an Orlando resort home. And Cook spent another $15 million on a Maui property that’s over 70 acres. He bid over $2.8 million on movie memorabilia at a London auction in December 2025

Whilst it may be true that Mr Cook has purchased many luxury items, this is not sufficient evidence to prove that he stole from the fund. In our view, Mr Cook may have stolen from the fund, but the article doesn’t contain any direct compelling evidence to support that claim. Mr Cook could just be wealthy and he could like expensive items. Of course, if Mr Cook did steal from the fund, this is likely to be extremely damaging to Blockstream and therefore perhaps to BSTR.

In our view, although it is possible that Cook stole from the fund, however another possibility, perhaps a more likely one, is that this high risk Bitcoin mining investment, that seems to potentially involve debt like instruments, may not have performed well and the fund could now be in financial trouble. This should not be that surprising to many Bitcoin mining industry analysts. The industry can be tough and with an ever rising network hashrate and falling Bitcoin price year to date, perhaps there was no theft, but the mining operations performed worse than expected.

Conclusion

While our view is that the article may contain some false and potentially misleading allegations, we still think its an interesting article and well worth a read. The article may contain information on some serious issues or failings from the company.

What we would say is that the supposed 20% yield on offer, which the article analysed in some depth, is a potential concern to us and perhaps requires further explanation from the issuer of the note. The Blockstream Mining Note and its possible financial difficulty, appears to be a topic that deserves further investigation and journalistic enquiry. However, the article may be too aggressive in linking the issue to BSTR.