The most-charitable interpretation I can think of is that the company never sells shares outright (preventing speculation on their value) but only uses them as collateral when borrowing cash from a lender... But that raises questions about why the lender would agree:
* If there's no competitive market to sell them on, how does the lender recoup its losses by selling the shares?
* If the company is in such a bad place that it can't repay the cash loan, why would the shares retain any value?
* Even if the shares entitle you to some portion of the capital that was purchased with the missing cash (e.g. a mine and mining machines) then getting your cash back means you have to work fighting against other shareholders who might not want to liquidate anything.
* If there's no competitive market to sell them on, how does the lender recoup its losses by selling the shares?
* If the company is in such a bad place that it can't repay the cash loan, why would the shares retain any value?
* Even if the shares entitle you to some portion of the capital that was purchased with the missing cash (e.g. a mine and mining machines) then getting your cash back means you have to work fighting against other shareholders who might not want to liquidate anything.