Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	11. Commitments and Contingencies Incentive Bonus Payable In March 2023 we entered into a license agreement with a merchant pursuant to which we agreed to develop software for our Payouts product, which provides that we will convert amounts deposited in dollars with us into USD Coin (USDT) or another stablecoin. The license fee was $100,000, payable at the signing of the agreement. The merchant agreed to pay us a fee of 0.35% of each fiat deposit made, plus wire charges and ither direct expenses. We also agreed to pay the merchant a $110,000 incentive bonus payable when the merchant’s aggregate payouts made during the initial 24-month of the license equals or exceeds $3,000,000. Legal Proceedings On October 8, 2020, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Joseph Page, our former director and chief technology officer. On January 13, 2021, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas Division. The causes of action include securities fraud under Federal and California law; fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment under California law; and violation of California Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq. We were seeking injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages of at least $5.1 million. On May 29, 2019, Mr. Page resigned from our board. After his resignation, we retained independent patent counsel to review our patent applications. In connection with this review, we discovered certain deficiencies in some of the applications and in their assignments to us. We determined that all of the applications had been abandoned. Based on this review, we decided to refile three of our applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which we did in May 2020. It is our belief that the three newly filed patent applications cover and/or disclose the same subject matter as we disclosed in the five original patent applications. In this case, our rights may be subject to any intervening patent applications made after the dates of the original applications. In the lawsuit, we were alleging that Mr. Page was aware of the abandonments when he assigned the patents to RocketFuel Blockchain Company (“RBC”), a private corporation that he controlled, and that he failed to disclose to us the abandonments when the Company acquired RBC in exchange for shares of the Company’s Common Stock. Mr. Page filed an answer denying the Company’s claims and asserted cross- and counterclaims against the Company and several of the Company’s shareholders alleging breach of contract and fraud. In September 2021, Mr. Page voluntarily dismissed all of the counterclaims against the shareholders. On June 7, 2022, RBC entered into a settlement agreement in the legal proceedings between the Company as plaintiff, and Joseph Page as defendant, whereunder Page surrendered 3,600,394 shares of the Company’s common stock, and kept 1,500,000 shares. Mr. Page represents and warrants that he has not filed or assisted anyone else in filing any patent applications that would preempt or infringe upon the Company’s patent applications. Plaintiff and defendant have each released their claims against each other and covenanted not to sue the other, including related parties and stakeholders, with the exclusion of current or future claims against EGS. The parties agreed to a Stipulated Dismissal of the Action with Prejudice filed with the court. On March 2, 2021, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP (“EGS”) for negligence and legal malpractice, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. EGS had represented RBC prior to the Business Combination and represented us after the closing of the Business Combination through August 2019. In the litigation against Mr. Page, he has alleged that he provided information to an EGS partner that the patent applications had been abandoned and that EGS failed to inform RBC and us of the fact. We are seeking damages and the return of legal fees previously paid. In January 2022, the Company terminated its agreement with Scarola Schaffzib Zubatov PLLC (“SSZ”), which the Company had retained to represent it in litigation against Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP. The reason for the termination was that the Company believed that SSZ had overcharged for legal services provided. Subsequent to the termination, SSZ sent the Company additional invoices, to which the Company also objected. In August 2022 SZZ filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, claiming it is owed approximately $120,000 in legal fees. The Company disputed that this amount was owed and contended that a portion of the legal fees previously paid should have been refunded. On July 11, 2023 the Court granted SSZ’s motion for summary judgement on its account stated cause of action and denied the Company’s cross-motion for an adjournment of the motion pending discovery. The Company has filed a notice of appeal and has accrued approximately $120,000 in accounts payable. Other than as set forth below, we are not the subject of any pending legal proceedings; and to the knowledge of management, no proceedings are presently contemplated against us by any federal, state or local governmental agency. Further, to the knowledge of management, no director or executive officer is party to any action in which any has an interest adverse to us.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

11. Commitments and Contingencies

Incentive Bonus Payable

In March 2023 we entered into a license agreement with a merchant pursuant to which we agreed to develop software for our Payouts product, which provides that we will convert amounts deposited in dollars with us into USD Coin (USDT) or another stablecoin. The license fee was $100,000, payable at the signing of the agreement. The merchant agreed to pay us a fee of 0.35% of each fiat deposit made, plus wire charges and ither direct expenses. We also agreed to pay the merchant a $110,000 incentive bonus payable when the merchant’s aggregate payouts made during the initial 24-month of the license equals or exceeds $3,000,000.

Legal Proceedings

On October 8, 2020, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Joseph Page, our former director and chief technology officer. On January 13, 2021, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas Division. The causes of action include securities fraud under Federal and California law; fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment under California law; and violation of California Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq.

We were seeking injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages of at least $5.1 million. On May 29, 2019, Mr. Page resigned from our board. After his resignation, we retained independent patent counsel to review our patent applications. In connection with this review, we discovered certain deficiencies in some of the applications and in their assignments to us. We determined that all of the applications had been abandoned. Based on this review, we decided to refile three of our applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which we did in May 2020. It is our belief that the three newly filed patent applications cover and/or disclose the same subject matter as we disclosed in the five original patent applications. In this case, our rights may be subject to any intervening patent applications made after the dates of the original applications. In the lawsuit, we were alleging that Mr. Page was aware of the abandonments when he assigned the patents to RocketFuel Blockchain Company (“RBC”), a private corporation that he controlled, and that he failed to disclose to us the abandonments when the Company acquired RBC in exchange for shares of the Company’s Common Stock. Mr. Page filed an answer denying the Company’s claims and asserted cross- and counterclaims against the Company and several of the Company’s shareholders alleging breach of contract and fraud. In September 2021, Mr. Page voluntarily dismissed all of the counterclaims against the shareholders.

On June 7, 2022, RBC entered into a settlement agreement in the legal proceedings between the Company as plaintiff, and Joseph Page as defendant, whereunder Page surrendered 3,600,394 shares of the Company’s common stock, and kept 1,500,000 shares. Mr. Page represents and warrants that he has not filed or assisted anyone else in filing any patent applications that would preempt or infringe upon the Company’s patent applications. Plaintiff and defendant have each released their claims against each other and covenanted not to sue the other, including related parties and stakeholders, with the exclusion of current or future claims against EGS. The parties agreed to a Stipulated Dismissal of the Action with Prejudice filed with the court.

On March 2, 2021, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP (“EGS”) for negligence and legal malpractice, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. EGS had represented RBC prior to the Business Combination and represented us after the closing of the Business Combination through August 2019. In the litigation against Mr. Page, he has alleged that he provided information to an EGS partner that the patent applications had been abandoned and that EGS failed to inform RBC and us of the fact. We are seeking damages and the return of legal fees previously paid.

In January 2022, the Company terminated its agreement with Scarola Schaffzib Zubatov PLLC (“SSZ”), which the Company had retained to represent it in litigation against Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP. The reason for the termination was that the Company believed that SSZ had overcharged for legal services provided. Subsequent to the termination, SSZ sent the Company additional invoices, to which the Company also objected. In August 2022 SZZ filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, claiming it is owed approximately $120,000 in legal fees. The Company disputed that this amount was owed and contended that a portion of the legal fees previously paid should have been refunded. On July 11, 2023 the Court granted SSZ’s motion for summary judgement on its account stated cause of action and denied the Company’s cross-motion for an adjournment of the motion pending discovery. The Company has filed a notice of appeal and has accrued approximately $120,000 in accounts payable.

Other than as set forth below, we are not the subject of any pending legal proceedings; and to the knowledge of management, no proceedings are presently contemplated against us by any federal, state or local governmental agency. Further, to the knowledge of management, no director or executive officer is party to any action in which any has an interest adverse to us.