The short version

On July 23, 2026, the Texas State Securities Board filed its response opposing our Motion for Summary Disposition in SOAH Docket No. 312-26-14427. It runs 45 pages.

Here is the single most important thing to understand about it: the TSSB does not argue that we are wrong on the law. It argues that the judge is not allowed to decide the law yet.

The TSSB filed 45 pages opposing our Motion for Summary Disposition. They do not argue we are wrong on the law — they argue the judge cannot decide it yet. Here is the full breakdown, including the parts that cut against us.

That is a meaningful distinction, and it shapes everything below.

What they actually asked for

Nothing dramatic. They asked the Administrative Law Judge to deny our motion and let the four-day hearing proceed on August 17–20 as scheduled.

Their theory is procedural. Under Section 155.505 of the Texas Administrative Code, summary disposition is only available when there is no genuine dispute about any material fact. The TSSB's position is that this case is full of disputed facts — what purchasers were told, what they expected, what role they thought MineTXC would play — and that those questions can only be answered by putting purchasers on the witness stand.

They also lean on a procedural rule that cuts against us: Section 155.505(a) forbids granting summary disposition on the ground that the other side has no evidence of an essential element when that side carries the burden of proof. The TSSB carries the burden here. So they argue our "they can't prove it" framing is off the table by rule.

The Texas-law pivot

Our motion leaned heavily on federal authority: Howey, Audet v. Fraser, and the SEC's March 2026 interpretive release on crypto assets.

The TSSB's answer is to change the map. They argue Texas doesn't apply Howey — it applies Life Partners, Inc. v. Arnold, a 2015 Texas Supreme Court decision. Under Life Partners, an investment contract exists where someone pays money into a common venture expecting profits that come predominantly from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others.

Crucially, Life Partners instructs Texas courts to construe "security" broadly and to look at the economic realities of a transaction regardless of the labels the parties used. The TSSB uses that line hard. Their argument, essentially: calling something "proof-of-work mining," "hash power," or "a digital commodity" doesn't settle anything. What settles it is what actually happened.

They also point out that Texas has been issuing cease-and-desist orders on cloud-mining offerings since 2018, citing the BTCrush matter from that year, while acknowledging the underlying digital assets themselves weren't securities.

Our own SEC guidance, turned around

This is the sharpest part of their filing and we're not going to pretend otherwise.

We cited SEC Release No. 11412 for its conclusion that when miners pool computational resources, they have no expectation of profit from the managerial efforts of others. That's real, and it's in the guidance.

The TSSB went to the footnotes.

Footnote 105 limits that conclusion to situations where miners receive a pro rata share based on their own contribution of computational power — and expressly excludes arrangements where non-miners can purchase interests in the pool, or where participants can pay for more than a pro rata share.

Footnote 106 goes further, distinguishing miners who contribute resources expecting their own equipment to earn from those who "passively rely on the pool operator to provide the computational resources." In that second scenario, the SEC says the pool operator's activities are essential managerial efforts.

The TSSB's argument is that our offering sits in the carve-out, not the safe harbor — because not every purchaser took possession of hardware, and because hash power could be acquired both by purchase and by recruiting others.

We disagree with how they characterize the facts. But it is an argument that engages with the guidance rather than ignoring it, and we'd rather tell you that than spin it.

The two declarations

For the first time, the TSSB has named names — well, two of them.

They intend to present testimony from at least two mining package purchasers, identified in the filing as the Hesse and Webb declarations. Both, according to the TSSB, believed they were making an investment, were motivated by passive return, were told only that equipment sat "somewhere in the Texas mine," and never learned the specific location.

We do not recognize these names from the community. When we published the redacted witness list back in June, we said the same thing. That hasn't changed.

The welcome letter

The TSSB quotes our own onboarding email back at us. The second paragraph tells new purchasers they have their seat on the rocket ship and can sit back and enjoy the ride, with everything after that being optional.

Their argument is that this language encouraged purchasers into a passive role while relying on us to run the operation.

Context matters — that letter was written to reassure people who'd just joined a community project that they weren't obligated to do sales, recruiting, or evangelism. But we'll be candid: marketing copy written in a friendly register reads differently in a securities brief than it did on the day it was drafted. That is a lesson worth naming out loud.

Where they say we didn't answer

The TSSB makes a technical point that deserves attention. The original Order alleges fraud in six separate ways. Our motion addressed five of them — all omission-based.

The sixth allegation concerns statements about bonuses and commissions paid to people who sold packages and recruited others. The TSSB says we didn't challenge it at all, and that an unchallenged independent basis for the fraud claim is by itself enough to defeat summary disposition on fraud.

That's a procedural argument our team will address in reply.

The Mulligan Mint timeline

A large section of their brief is devoted to when the 2013 Mulligan Mint bankruptcy was disclosed.

Their reconstruction, using our own exhibits: MineTXC began operating in Texas around late March or early April 2024. On a November 26, 2024 Zoom call, Bobby described leaving the U.S. in November 2013 during a bankruptcy — but did not name Mulligan Mint. On an August 19, 2025 call, he described starting a minting business in 2012 and going bankrupt in 2013 — again without naming it. The first call where the company is named, per the TSSB, is September 2, 2025, and it came in response to an attendee's question.

Their legal point: disclosure after the sale doesn't cure an omission at the time of sale. And they note that no reference to Mulligan Mint appears in the whitepaper, the websites, the Mission Control Manual, or any offering document.

They also introduce a case we hadn't seen cited before — SEC v. Haarman, a 2025 Western District of Texas decision where organizers highlighted their professional experience in offering documents while omitting a prior bankruptcy. The court found that materially misleading as a matter of law. That's the closest analogue they've found, and it's a more relevant one than most of what's in the Order.

Finally, they push back on our "investors could have looked it up" argument, noting that the bankruptcy filings name "Rob Gray" and "Mulligan Mint" — not "Bobby Gray" and not TEXITcoin — so an investor wouldn't know what to search for.

On intent

We argued the Order fails to allege the intent required for securities fraud. The TSSB's answer is that Texas doesn't require an intent to defraud — only intent as to the circumstances of the conduct itself. Under Section 4001.058(a), the intentional failure to disclose a material fact is enough. No scienter in the common-law sense required.

That's a genuine legal dispute, and it's one the ALJ will have to resolve.

What this doesn't change

A few things worth keeping in view.

The TSSB reaffirms, in writing, that the Order does not allege TEXITcoin itself is a security. TXC the currency is not what's on trial. That has been true from day one and it remains true in their own filing.

They have still not alleged investor losses. They have still not alleged misappropriation of funds. They have still not alleged a Ponzi structure. Forty-five pages, and none of that appears.

And the network keeps producing blocks. Miners keep mining. Nothing about this filing touches the chain.

What happens next

Our team at Quinn Emanuel will file a reply. The ALJ then rules on the motion. If she denies it — which is the ordinary outcome for summary disposition motions, and something we've said from the start — we go to hearing on August 17–20 in Austin, in person, as planned.

That was always the likely path. The motion was worth filing because winning it would have ended this in July. Losing it costs us nothing except the filing.

And that's not a loss. The motion did its real work: it forced the TSSB to commit to a legal theory in writing, months early. We now know exactly what they'll argue in August — footnotes 105/106, two investor witnesses, "sit back and enjoy the ride," and the Life Partners economic-realities frame. That's a gift for hearing prep.

Our honest read

This is a competent brief. It's better lawyering than the original Order.

But read it closely and notice what's missing: they do not tell the judge that mining packages are securities. They tell the judge she can't rule that they aren't — not yet, not on paper. The entire document is an argument for delay dressed as an argument about procedure.

That may well work at this stage. Summary disposition is a high bar and it usually fails.

August is where the actual argument happens. That's where the purchasers testify, where our expert testifies, and where the on-chain record either supports what we've said for two years or it doesn't. We've never been afraid of that hearing.

Read the full TSSB response (45 pages, PDF on IPFS)

The filing is pinned to IPFS at the link above. Read it yourself. We're not going to characterize a document we're also handing you.