US Retail Giant Overstock Lost $117,000 On Its Investments In Crypto Currencies During Q1 2015.On 31st December the company listed its crypto currency holdings as valued at $233,000 down from $340,000.

The corporation noted that it receives all bitcoin payments via a third party denominated in US dollars in its latest SEC filing.The company wrote: "At present we do not accept bitcoin payments directly, but use a third party vendor to accept bitcoin payments on our behalf.That third party vendor then immediately converts the bitcoin payments into US dollars so that we receive payment for the product sold at the sales price in US dollars."Overstock also holds almost $10m in gold and silver as well as interest and equity in businesses that will help to build a decentralized stock market besides crypto currency.Judd Bagley, who happens to be the Overstock crypto currency group general manager, pointed out that the loss was principally due to the company’s investment in certain altcoin markets which suffered a result of declines.

He stated: "The swing in the value of our cryptocurrency holdings is attributable to the sale of some of our non-bitcoin cryptocurrencies, the use of some of our bitcoin to pay for services including our membership in the Chamber of Digital Commerce, and changes in the market,".Bagley also stated: "We’ve invested in other cryptocurrencies over time, and for the purposes of the SEC filing, we lump them all together”.However, crypto currencies are listed as a possible legal risk for the company. The filing however, suggests that Overstock will continue to be long on its investment in bitcoin as a rough asset despite the risks.They went on adding, "In the future, we may transact in cryptocurrency directly or increase our cryptocurrency holdings," the filing states.

"This will subject us to additional exchange risk and other risks as described above, which may have an adverse effect on our results."Overstock was also blunt about its decentralized stock market project, Medici, and the risks it faces, going on to state that the company does not have an important inside experience with this type of project and that it may be “expensive” or “ultimately unsuccessful”.