Nobody is demanding anything except.

We just want are demanding to know what happened.

Pirate said he repaid Og in full. Og said he didn't.  Preponderance of evidence (if not beyond a reasonable doubt) blockchain evidence has been compiled and explained that supports Pirate's version of events rather than OG's.

Og is the only person who might be able to provide evidence of explanation that can answer if pirate's sworn testimony to the SEC and the supporting blockchain evidence is true or not might have some other explanation besides the most reasonable current inferences that OG took the money, which also might be justified as a fee or an expense, perhaps? if OG were to explain or provide any possible justification for any of that?