I had the same question myself. The article notes that most of the first tranche of warrants went unpurchased which makes sense. However, the article also says

I had the same question myself. The article notes that most of the first tranche of warrants went unpurchased which makes sense. However, the article also says that some of the portfolio went on to have an exit or raise later funding or something (the article mentions some company in Australia that seems to be a going concern, but they're claiming that the warrants are invalid). My take is that whoever is overseeing the portfolio has determined that the likely aggregate value of all the warrants > 0 so they are trying to sell them to recover something. In practice most of the warrants are indeed are worth 0 so it's actually not as a big of an issue as this is made out to be.