Jay File, CEO & CFO, Lite Strategy, Inc. (Nasdaq: LITS) – Interview Series

Jay File, CEO & CFO of Lite Strategy, Inc. (Nasdaq: LITS), brings more than three decades of leadership experience spanning public accounting, corporate finance, capital markets, and publicly traded companies. A Certified Public Accountant by training, he began his career at Arthur Andersen before serving as a Senior Manager at KPMG, where he specialized in SEC reporting across technology, software, biomedical, and defense sectors. He later held senior finance roles at Sequenom, overseeing approximately $400 million in equity financings, a $130 million convertible notes offering, and management of a $100 million cash position. As CFO of Nasdaq-listed Evofem Biosciences, he led financial reporting, investor relations, and capital-raising initiatives for eight years before joining Lite Strategy. Under his leadership, the company has transitioned into a pioneering digital asset treasury business, becoming the first publicly traded company to adopt Litecoin as its primary reserve asset while working alongside digital asset market maker GSR and Litecoin creator Charlie Lee, who also serves on the company’s board.

Lite Strategy is a Nasdaq-listed company that has repositioned itself as the world’s largest Litecoin treasury company, providing investors with regulated exposure to Litecoin through the public equity markets. Formerly known as MEI Pharma, the company transformed its business model in 2025 by making Litecoin its primary treasury reserve asset and implementing an active treasury management strategy designed to increase Litecoin exposure per share rather than simply holding the cryptocurrency passively. In addition to accumulating Litecoin, Lite Strategy generates yield through covered call strategies and has expanded its role within the broader Litecoin ecosystem through strategic investments such as LitVM, a Layer-2 platform designed to bring smart contracts and decentralized finance capabilities to the Litecoin network. The company aims to bridge traditional capital markets with digital assets by offering institutional and retail investors a transparent, SEC-regulated vehicle for gaining exposure to Litecoin without the complexities of direct cryptocurrency custody

After decades leading finance functions at public companies including Evofem Biosciences, Sequenom, KPMG, and Arthur Andersen, what convinced you to pivot into leading Lite Strategy and build the first Nasdaq-listed company with Litecoin as its primary treasury reserve asset? How did your experience navigating SEC reporting, capital markets, and public company governance shape that decision?

It was really during the capital raise process.  Being able to have four days of back-to-back meetings from five to six in the morning through late afternoon and seeing just how enthusiastic people were to talk to Charlie and the opportunity for Litecoin with a DAT, and then Litecoin in general.  The reception was nothing like I’ve seen in all my years as a biotech CFO.  Raising $100m especially during a year where other industries were hard pressed to raise even a third or half of that amount really spoke volumes.  It made it very tangible, this was the real deal and a calculated pivot operationally.  

I’ve around 25 years navigating regulated public markets and during that time accumulated a significant amount of capital markets exposure, M&A, working with institutional stakeholders, board governance, alongside disciplined and proven fiscal responsibility and oversight. That experience is exactly what a DAT needs and my time in the c-suite prepared me for running a regulated crypto treasury company like Lite Strategy.  Ultimately my years as a CFO in the biotech market helped to build a skill set that transfers nicely into our operations, capital allocation, risk management, investor relations, cash management, and corporate compliance.  Alongside a well rounded and experienced board of directors, we have all the necessary tools in place to execute Lite Strategy’s approach. 

The Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) stablecoin regulations came into effect on 30 juni 2026. From your perspective, what are the most significant implications for stablecoin issuers, institutional investors, and the broader digital asset ecosystem?

While Lite Strategy itself doesn’t hold or issue stablecoins, we operate in this ecosystem so a more regulated, institutionally credible digital asset environment benefits everyone building serious infrastructure within it. 

What I’ll add from my perspective is that I do think that MiCA’s full enforcement deadline could be considered a watershed moment since it converts years of regulatory discussion into hard outcomes. After 1 juli 2026, any entity serving EU clients without a MiCA license must cease operations, and the market will feel that somewhat immediately. For institutional investors, MiCA should be a net positive as it provides exactly the regulatory clarity they’ve been waiting for before deploying serious capital into digital asset infrastructure.  Overall, it should give long-term institutional holders more confidence in the durability of the asset class.  Especially when paired with the GENIUS Act (and if a minor miracle happens in the next month or so, perhaps Clarity as well).

Many commentators believe MiCA will become a global benchmark for crypto regulation. Do you expect other major jurisdictions, including the United States, to adopt similar regulatory frameworks, or will they pursue a different path?

What I would say is – it does appear that major economies are moving toward formal regulatory frameworks for digital assets, and MiCA is the most comprehensive one on the table right now. Whether other jurisdictions adopt it as a template or build their own architecture.  Obviously, the U.S. is trying to take its own path with the GENIUS Act being the first serious federal framework for stablecoins, and broader market structure legislation is attempting to get through DC with the Clarity Act.  The goal of which is to position the U.S. as a crypto leader and driver of innovation and acceptance. Combine all the regulatory action throughout the world though, the overall trajectory is toward legitimacy, clarity and institutional access.  That’s a win for crypto and for those operating within the industry.

The CLARITY Act aims to establish clearer regulatory boundaries for digital assets in the United States. Which provisions do you believe could have the greatest impact on institutional adoption if enacted?

I’ll answer this from a practical standpoint as someone running a digital asset company versus a securities lawyer or someone who lives directly within the regulatory space.  I’d say the single most impactful provision would be the clear jurisdictional split between the SEC and CFTC. The overlapping authority between those two agencies has contributed to uncertainty in the U.S. crypto market for years, and the CLARITY Act’s framework of placing digital commodities under CFTC oversight while maintaining SEC jurisdiction over investment contract assets would, if enacted, give companies a defined regulatory home for the first time. That clarity could very well unlock institutional capital that has been sitting on the sidelines. 

A second area worth noting is what happens to assets like Litecoin under this framework. Digital commodities tied to decentralized blockchains like Bitcoin, would fall under CFTC oversight. In our view, Litecoin fits that category, and having that view codified in statute, rather than left to enforcement discretion or case-by-case agency interpretation, would meaningfully change the risk narrative for institutions considering exposure to LTC. More broadly, regulatory clarity, institutional scaling, and tokenization growth are all key drivers or catalysts for digital assets. For a company like Lite Strategy, a more certain regulatory environment isn’t a headwind, it’s a tailwind.

Having spent much of your career raising capital and managing publicly traded companies, how do institutional investors evaluate digital asset treasury companies differently from traditional operating businesses?

A good question and definitely one that has required a bit of change in thought for me to a certain degree.  Traditional metrics that operating businesses get evaluated on do not apply, earnings, revenue growth, margins, e.g. your standard income statement metrics.  Instead, digital asset treasury companies require a fundamentally different approach because the value isn’t being created through operations, it’s being created through disciplined accumulation of an appreciating asset. For Lite Strategy, the metrics that matter are NAV per share, LTC holdings per share, the premium or discount at which the stock trades relative to those holdings, and the trajectory of per-share accumulation over time. You’ll miss the point if you apply a traditional P/E framework to a company like Lite Strategy. 

Beyond that though are considerations such as the underlying quality of the treasury strategy itself and potential catalysts.  What are the active treasury management strategies that could potentially take us beyond a passive spot ETF:  yield generation, operating revenue streams and for us, specific strategic investments in the Litecoin ecosystem.  These all represent potential paths toward a fintech-oriented valuation multiples rather than a simple NAV only assessment.  This is why our active treasury management programs and especially our recently announced investment in LitVM, the first zero-knowledge Layer 2 built on Litecoin, is important.  It represents a capital efficient entry into a network that could materially expand LTC’s utility and, by extension, the value of Lite Strategy’s entire treasury. You can’t measure that from financial statements data.

Lite Strategy chose Litecoin as its primary reserve asset rather than Bitcoin or Ethereum. What characteristics made Litecoin the right long-term strategic choice for your treasury strategy?

For us, it really comes down to Litecoin’s latent onchain value – the potential built into the network that hasn’t been fully tapped yet. It’s proven itself for 14+years of 100% uptime.  It’s secure, reliable, and scalable with lower transaction fees and faster settlement than Bitcoin. Plus, Litecoin has the privacy options users want to have.

Also look at the track record of LTC as a long-term store of value that hasn’t been fully materialized in market cap (especially compared to just 5 years ago), this all makes Litecoin a very exciting narrative.  

Especially when positioned in an entity like Lite Strategy that can take advantage of those opportunities.   Not to mention having Charlie Lee, the creator of Litecoin, join us as a board member and provide his thoughts and guidance provide a level of validity and insight other crypto currencies don’t have.  We’ve been an “n of one” since the start regarding a digital asset approach with Litecoin on Nasdaq and the largest public company holder of LTC from a pure position basis even when compared to ETFs.  I believe that makes Lite Strategy a great alternative to anyone looking to diversify and take advantage of Litecoin’s aspects.

Treasury strategies involving digital assets are becoming increasingly popular among public companies. What common mistakes do you see executives making when evaluating cryptocurrencies as balance sheet assets?

This is an interesting question and I think it comes down to the underlying conviction of the investment.  Specifically, is it a “marketing” decision or a capital allocation decision.  I think we’ve seen companies announce crypto treasury plans that appear designed more to generate a potential stock price bump with no underlying framework for which asset to hold, why, or how to communicate it to shareholders over a multi-year horizon. That’s not a treasury strategy, that’s a press release. Another mistake seen is an overall lack of conviction in asset selection. Companies holding a basket of cryptocurrencies, a little Bitcoin, a bit of Ethereum, a little of whatever is trending, is signaling no ultimate digital asset treasury focus.  I’d say too much diversification dilutes the thesis and confuses investors about what they’re actually getting. The companies that have created the most shareholder value in this space made a focused, differentiated bet and held it through volatility. That requires genuine conviction, not consensus. This is why our focus on Litecoin and the underlying ecosystem is such a strong statement.  We know what our focus and strength is; the growth in Litecoin directly impacts our treasury approach.  

Additionally, speaking from my direct experience over the last year since we implemented our digital asset strategy in Litecoin, do not underestimate the infrastructure requirements. Custody, internal controls, audit readiness, tax compliance, regulatory disclosure, and board-level governance around digital assets are genuinely complex for a public company. Executives who treat custody as an afterthought, or haven’t carefully considered how digital asset holdings affect their financial reporting obligations, are creating material risk for their shareholders. Acquiring the asset itself isn’t the hard part, building responsible institutional infrastructure around it is where most companies stumble. We made that a design priority from day one and our infrastructure and supporting treasury management consultants speak to that commitment.

As regulatory clarity improves around digital assets, how do you see the relationship between traditional capital markets and blockchain-based financial infrastructure evolving over the next five years?

You will see the line between traditional capital markets and blockchain-based infrastructure coming together even faster over the next five years and regulatory clarity is the primary catalyst.  As we get more frameworks like MiCA, the GENIUS Act, and at some point the CLARITY Act in place so we have enforceable standards, I think you’ll see institutional participants who were either prohibited or reluctant to engage now being able to move forward; especially in banking. Traditional banks are now actively exploring digital asset custody, tokenized deposits, and blockchain-based settlement but now as core infrastructure investments. I think over the next five years the primary question to be addressed is not whether traditional finance and blockchain infrastructure will converge, but how quickly and on whose terms.  I believe this is where Litecoin has an advantage as being a reliable, decentralized financial infrastructure for over fourteen years.  As the broader financial system moves toward that model, the long-term value of assets with that track record becomes increasingly compelling.

Your career spans public accounting, biotech, corporate finance, and now digital assets. Which financial principles have remained constant regardless of the industry, and which assumptions have been completely rewritten by blockchain technology?

I’d say that the principles that never change are the ones that matter most and center around capital discipline, fiduciary responsibility, transparent financial reporting, and the fundamental relationship between risk and return. Those hold true in biotech, in corporate finance, and now in digital assets just as they would in any industry. I think the biggest change that blockchain has genuinely rewritten is the assumption that you need a trusted intermediary to verify and settle transactions, and the assumption that scarcity has to be enforced by a central authority.  If you look back at traditional capital fundraising history, trust was institutional; you needed a bank, a clearinghouse, or a regulator to validate that an asset exists and that a transaction occurred. Blockchain makes scarcity and verification mathematical rather than institutional and a foundational shift in how value can be stored and transferred and using technology that makes those properties cryptographically enforceable for the first time ever. 

Looking ahead, what developments in digital asset regulation, institutional adoption, or capital markets are you watching most closely over the next 12 to 24 months that you believe investors are currently underestimating?

Two things:  the speed at which regulatory clarity will free up institutional capital that has been sitting on the sidelines and then the ETF approval cycle for altcoins and what it signals about Litecoin specifically.

I’ve mentioned the CLARITY Act already, but its framework, if enacted, definitively answers the SEC versus CFTC question that has kept compliance departments at major institutions from greenlighting digital asset exposure. Paired with the GENIUS Act’s stablecoin infrastructure and MiCA’s enforcement baseline in Europe, we’re approaching a moment where the regulatory risk that perhaps caused institutional hesitation is being removed. A lot of discussion centers around a slow, incremental adoption curve post regulatory guidelines being clarified, however, I don’t think you can dismiss the actual curve looking more like a step function once the legal framework snaps into place.  Time will tell.

Regarding ETF approval, keep in mind that Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF approvals fundamentally changed the institutional accessibility of those assets.  I think you could see that dynamic working its way through the broader digital asset landscape. Litecoin ETF approvals only serve to validate the asset class for an entirely new category of allocator and would likely drive meaningful price appreciation that directly benefits Lite Strategy’s balance sheet. Every approval expands the universe of institutions that can participate, and that compounding effect on demand for a fixed-supply asset is something I don’t believe the market hasn’t fully priced and could be a really big signal to investors overall.

Thank you for the great interview, readers who wish to learn more should visit Lite Strategy.