Pretty funny—calling out the journalist for being inaccurate and saying it’s 'malicious slander,' but the explanation given is: Because Brevan Howard’s investment entity is a new fund that only invests in liquidity, in order to align with the liquidity strategy investment standards of this entity, both parties created a supplementary agreement. In this supplementary agreement, additional commercial arrangements were promised (aka the so-called refund clause). According to Berachain, this clause was set up to 'guard against the possibility that Berachain fails to complete the TGE or cannot go public' (note, this is the key point!). But wait a second, if the refund clause that was posted is real, it clearly states that Brevan Howard’s investment entity has the right to request a refund *within one year after the TGE*. Since the clause explicitly says the refund right is *after the TGE*, meaning even after completing the TGE, a refund can still be requested, doesn’t this contradict the official explanation that was emphasized above? So, who’s lying? Also, if you want to refute the journalist’s claims, the strongest rebuttal would probably be: the agreement posted is forged or fake. (Have seen shameless people before, but never this shameless.)