The hype around the once-imminent\u00a0Bitmain IPO\u00a0has died down to a wash of awkward whispers as Hong Kong financial regulators have proven reluctant to move forward. The world\u2019s biggest supplier of mining hardware is now contemplating its next steps. But what about the world\u2019s largest blockchain payment provider? BitPay hasn\u2019t publicly discussed any kind of IPO but according to documents exclusively obtained by CoinGeek, it is suffering from some of the same problems as Bitmain. One problem is determining valuation. Due to the structure of BitPay\u2019s balance sheet and other problems inherent in the volatility of BTC and BCHABC, the two coins the processor works with exclusively, assigning a value to BitPay is next to impossible. Don\u2019t take our word for it though. This assessment comes from a document dated April 2018 recently leaked to CoinGeek in the form of a fair market value assessment for BitPay compiled by Adams Capital Valuation Services. Adams Capital does succeed in pinning a value for BitPay, but doesn\u2019t seem too sure about it. Before we get to the number though, it seems that the main reason Bitmain wanted to do an IPO was that it needed capital to expand, but its balance sheet was clogged with BTC and not enough fiat currency. If it had wanted to raise capital, it would have to sell BTC in large amounts and that would work against its own balance sheet by pushing the price down. So it needed to raise money another way. An IPO would be a good way of accomplishing that. Now, it appears BitPay is suffering from a similar problem, though not as acute. On BitPay\u2019s balance sheet, we know the following. The original BTC spike to $1,150 at the end of 2013 was followed by a fall to around $300 by the end of 2014, a collapse of about 75%. That initial collapse brought down BitPay\u2019s annual revenue from $6.23M in 2013 to a revenue loss of $35,000 in 2014. Bet you didn\u2019t think a company could actually make negative revenues, but if you\u2019ve got accounting issues it\u2019s possible. Again in the words of Adams Capital, \u201cBitPay\u2019s revenue dropped from $6,229,163 to $-35,677 between 2013 and 2014. However, the majority of the revenue in 2013 was related to a realized gain on bitcoin market value.\u201d All isn\u2019t lost though because according to BitPay\u2019s projections for 2018 revenue, they\u2019re looking at $6.75M, which takes into account a projected loss on BTC operations trading of $1.87M, and somehow, a gain of about $328,000 on BCHABC operations trading. Yet, these projections were issued by BitPay back in June, when BTC was trading at about twice its current USD value. BCHABC has been doing much worse, trading at only 15% of its value since those projections were issued back in June. Likely then, these projections significantly overestimate revenues and underestimate trading losses. With BitPay\u2019s revenues highly dependent on BTC and BCHABC trading operations, and the price of BTC and BCHABC both extremely volatile, it was a herculean task to pin a stable value on the company. Here\u2019s how Adams Capital put it: he Company\u2019s net realized gain on bitcoin market prices included in revenue was $16,226,402, meaning that EBITDA from operations remained negative. The lack of meaningful earnings parameters from operations makes comparing the Company to other market companies or transactions difficult. Adams continued: The outlook for bitcoin , and consequently BitPay, is highly unknown as the price of bitcoin is highly volatile. Moreover, regulatory risk remains as some countries such as China have implemented measures to restrict bitcoin usage. This uncertainty is a significant risk factor for the Company. Furthermore\u2026the rise of other cryptocurrencies poses a threat to BitPay\u2019s growth. Consequently, the outlook for the Company remains uncertain. In the end the firm does try to pin a value on\u00a0BitPay\u00a0of $274,750,000, or $2.64 a share, but with all the equivocation this hardly seems a firm number. There are other red flags, particularly from recent interviews conducted by its Chief Commercial Officer Sonny Singh, who last\u00a0November on Bloomberg\u00a0pinned the survival of the entire cryptocurrency industry on the survival of BTC. \u201cNone of them are going to survive unless BTC survives first.\u201d Further, he made several implicit contradictions in the interview. First, he emphasized the importance of\u00a0mass adoption\u00a0of blockchain and cryptocurrencies as a form of payment in order to stabilize the industry, and that relying on speculation to fuel the advance was unsustainable. That certainly makes a bit of sense. However, later in that same interview, he emphasized repeatedly that the main catalyst for what would cause BTC to increase in value in 2019 would be the securitization of BTC in the form of ETFs, mutual funds, or other trading vehicles. These, obviously, are not used as payment, but for the purposes of speculation. So on the one hand he\u2019s saying that relying on speculation is unhealthy for the industry, and on the other hand he\u2019s relying on an increase in speculation to push BTC higher, indeed to $15,000 \u2013 $20,000 if financial institutions were to launch BTC-backed securities. CEO Steven Pair was a little more level-headed in his own interviews, to his credit. In speaking with CNBC, he\u00a0said\u00a0that his working theory is that most digital assets will be issued on a blockchain. That may be true, eventually. But which blockchain, is the question? Obviously they are banking on the BTC or BCHABC blockchains, but if they\u2019re wrong, they lose out. In the meantime, BTC has fallen below the cost of mining it,\u00a0according to Bloomberg\u00a0research. This is a serious problem for the BTC blockchain because as mining difficulty increases, so does the cost of mining, potentially pushing mining profitability further down in a positive feedback loop that could hurt the price even further, with effects compounded on BitPay itself in the future.