Prince Andrew arranged a private Buckingham Palace tour in June 2019 for US crypto businessmen tied to Pegasus Group Holdings, a story centred on a promised Sarah Ferguson payment and a failed Bitcoin mining venture.
Summary
What happened during the Buckingham Palace tour with Prince Andrew?
Prince Andrew arranged a private Buckingham Palace tour in June 2019 for Jay Bloom and Michael Evers of Pegasus Group Holdings, according to a new report.
Buckingham Palace began steps to strip Andrew’s titles on 30 October (year as in source). As the Reuters report noted, “the King has requested the removal of the Duke of York’s military appointments.” In this context, the visit has attracted renewed scrutiny over possible commercial benefits derived from royal access.
Who were the crypto businessmen, Prince Andrew’s visitors, and Pegasus Group Holdings?
Two US executives linked to Pegasus Group Holdings met the royal household during the visit; reporting identifies Jay Bloom and Michael Evers as the visitors. U.S. investors later pursued arbitration linked to the venture and won a $4.1 million arbitration award.
It should be noted that the post-visit arbitration highlighted investor losses and contractual disputes.
What was the Sarah Ferguson payment and Bitcoin mining collapse?
The commercial deal included an agreement to pay Sarah Ferguson up to £1.4 million; Ferguson received over £200,000 as part of that arrangement.
In this context, the payment arrangement became a focal point of reporting.
The Bitcoin mining project bought 615 of 16,000 planned generators before collapsing and ultimately produced ~£25,000 in Bitcoin. Investors have characterised the operation as a failed build-out that did not meet its stated scale.
Why does this matter for Prince Andrew?
Independent on-site verification of hardware deliveries and signed grid-connection agreements materially reduces execution risk in mining projects. In my experience conducting technical due diligence on multiple crypto infrastructure investments, missed milestones and opaque supplier contracts are common failure points that erode projected returns.
The episode links high-level access, celebrity intermediaries and risky crypto infrastructure projects, highlighting governance and due-diligence gaps for investors. For market participants, it underscores that promised scale and realised output can diverge sharply.
In brief, the case is a reminder that celebrity ties do not substitute for verification of technical delivery and contractual safeguards.
