SkyAI shareholder Bastion Trading Limited said in an SEC filing that it plans to vote against all five current directors at the company’s annual shareholder meeting on September 18, escalating a governance dispute at the listed company behind a Solana treasury strategy.

Bastion said its opposition centers on what it described as amendments to SkyAI’s bylaws that weaken shareholder rights, the board’s adoption of a poison pill plan without shareholder approval, and related-party transactions. The filing frames the September 18 annual meeting as a direct test of the current board’s mandate.

The company is the former Sharps Technology. According to the disclosed details, it raised more than $400 million through PIPE financing in August 2025 to establish a Solana treasury. The company currently holds about 2 million SOL, valued at roughly $59 million based on the figures cited in the filing summary.

The governance dispute follows an earlier board-level rupture. Independent director Annemarie Tierney resigned in December 2025 after raising concerns with management over potential conflicts of interest and related-party transaction issues, according to the disclosed account. That resignation adds weight to Bastion’s argument that the concerns are not limited to a single dissatisfied shareholder.

The filing also arrives with the company under heavy pressure in public markets. SkyAI’s stock has fallen about 86% over the past year, based on the figures cited in the report. While the current dispute is centered on board oversight and shareholder rights, the company’s crypto-treasury positioning is likely to keep the situation on the radar of investors tracking listed firms with token-linked balance sheets.

Why It Matters

This dispute goes beyond a routine board challenge because it touches a broader issue in crypto-linked equities: whether public companies adopting token treasury strategies can maintain the governance standards expected by traditional shareholders. A company may attract attention through a large digital-asset treasury, but board process, shareholder protections and conflict management still determine whether that strategy is credible in public markets.

The case also highlights a structural risk in listed crypto exposure. Investors looking at treasury-driven equity stories are not only taking asset exposure indirectly; they are also taking company-level governance risk. When questions emerge over poison pills, bylaw changes or related-party dealings, those issues can quickly become as important as the underlying crypto allocation.