SharpLink Gaming, Inc.

Current report

Legislative or regulatory change regarding the regulation of“commodities”by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and the potential regulation of digital assets as“digital commodities”could subject us to additional regulatory burdens and oversight by the CFTC and could adversely affect the market price of ETH and the market price of our listed securities.

Current report

The CFTC has stated it believes, and judicial decisions involving CFTC enforcement actions have confirmed, that at least some digital assets fall within the definition of a “commodity” under the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act of 1936 (the “CEA”) and the rules promulgated by the CFTC thereunder (“CFTC Rules”). While the CFTC has enforcement authority to police against fraud and manipulation in spot commodity markets (including the spot market for digital assets that are commodities), the CFTC only has regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction with respect to “commodity interest” transactions, such as futures, options, and swaps on a commodity (including a digital asset commodity) and certain leveraged, margined, or financed transactions in commodities involving retail customers. Accordingly, we are not currently regulated or supervised by the CFTC and are not subject to the legal and regulatory obligations that are applicable to CFTC-registered entities under the CEA and CFTC Rules.

Current report

The regulation of digital assets in the U.S. is subject to change because of the enactment and adoption of new laws and regulations. For example, the proposed CLARITY Act recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and other draft digital asset market structure and regulation bills have proposed granting the CFTC additional regulatory and supervisory powers with respect to spot digital assets as “digital commodities.” While it is not possible to predict if and in what form such proposals will be adopted, if any, changes to or expansion of the jurisdiction of the CFTC with respect to activities in spot digital assets could result in the imposition of additional regulatory obligations and burdens, which could include registration, disclosure, reporting, and business conduct requirements. For example, it is possible that if the CLARITY Act were to become law as currently proposed, our ETH Treasury Management strategy could cause us to be deemed a “commodity pool” under the CEA such that our operators and advisors may need to register with the CFTC as commodity pool operators and comply with other CFTC regulations as well as the rules of the National Futures Association. Such additional regulatory burdens and oversight could materially increase the cost of our business, could adversely affect the market price of ETH, and in turn could adversely affect the market price of our listed securities.

Current report

We may be subject to regulatory developments related to digital assets and digital asset markets, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Current report

On January 23, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology” (the “Executive Order”) aimed at supporting “the responsible growth and use of digital assets, blockchain technology, and related technologies across all sectors of the economy.” The Executive Order also established an interagency working group that is tasked with “proposing a Federal regulatory framework governing the issuance and operation of digital assets” in the United States. Pursuant to this Executive Order, the working group released a report in July 2025 outlining the administration’s recommendations to Congress and various agencies reflecting the administration’s “pro-innovation mindset toward digital assets and blockchain technologies.” In particular, the report recommends that Congress enact legislation regarding self-custody of digital assets, clarifying the applicability of Bank Secrecy Act obligations with respect to digital asset service providers, granting the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) authority to regulate spot markets in non-security digital assets, prohibiting the adoption of a central bank digital currency (“CBDC”), and clarifying tax laws as relevant to digital assets. In addition, the report recommends that agencies reevaluate existing guidance on digital asset activities, use existing authorities to enable the trading of digital assets at the federal level, embrace DeFi, launch or relaunch digital asset innovation efforts, and promote U.S. private sector leadership in the responsible development of cross-border payments and financial markets technologies, among others.

Current report

There have also been several bills introduced in Congress that propose to establish additional regulation and oversight of the digital asset markets. For example, the CLARITY Act was passed by the House of Representatives in July 2025, which would, if enacted, regulate digital asset markets and digital asset trading platforms in the United States. In addition, also in July 2025, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act of 2025 (the “GENIUS Act”) became the first federal law specifically regulating the issuance, custody and other stablecoin-related matters in the United States. It is difficult to predict whether, or when, the CLARITY Act or another bill that would regulate digital asset markets and digital asset trading platforms may become law or what any such bill may entail.

Current report

Our Common Stock may not always trade at a premium to the value of the digital assets we hold, and may trade at a discount thereto.

Current report

Although our common stock, par value $0.0001 per share has, and may in the future trade at a premium to the value of our holdings of Ether (“ETH”), to the extent investors view our Common Stock as providing exposure to ETH, it is possible that the price of our Common Stock may not always trade at such a premium, and may trade at a discount thereto. This may occur due to the rise in other traditional investment vehicles providing exposure to digital assets, including ETH, as well as the increase in the number of investors who may wish to purchase digital assets, including ETH, directly, among other reasons. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has recently provided guidance that will allow broker-dealers to custody digital assets on behalf of investors. The SEC has also rescinded Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 which, by forcing public companies to include on their balance sheets digital assets custodied on behalf of third parties, effectively prevented publicly traded banks from providing digital asset custodial services. Any movement of investor funds to such other sources, or a change in the market’s perception of digital asset treasury vehicles or in investor sentiment generally, could result in a decrease in price of our Common Stock and may impair our ability to engage in future financings.

Current report

Moreover, the risks of engaging in an ETH Treasury Management strategy could create complications due to the lack of experience that third parties have with companies engaging in such a strategy, such as increased costs of director and officer liability insurance or the potential inability to obtain such coverage on acceptable terms in the future.

Current report

Our shift towards an ETH-focused treasury strategy requires substantial changes in our day-to-day operations and exposes us to significant operational risks.

Current report

Our shift towards an ETH-focused treasury strategy, including staking, restaking, liquid staking, and other decentralized finance activities, exposes us to significant operational risks.

Current report

Staking ETH involves holding a certain amount of ETH in a smart contract and running a piece of software known as a “validator node.” Validators are randomly selected to propose a new block of transactions to be added to the Ethereum blockchain. When an Ethereum participant attempts a transaction, that participant is required to pay a minimum “gas” fee. A participant can opt to pay an additional fee to ensure that its transaction is added to the blockchain more quickly. These fees are denominated in ETH. The validator chosen to propose a block will (when that block is successfully confirmed by the other validator nodes) receive the gas fees for all transactions in the block (known as “execution layer rewards”). In addition, the Ethereum blockchain automatically issues ETH as rewards to validators who successfully propose a block, known as “consensus layer rewards.” The Ethereum network also automatically imposes penalties on validators that experience downtime or that propose incorrect blocks. These penalties are known as “slashing” and will reduce the number of ETH that are “staked” to the validator node.

Current report

Although we currently do not operate any validators, we may choose to operate our own validator services, or we may seek to continue to “delegate” our ETH to third party validation service providers. If we choose to use a third-party validation service, we will have to share our staking rewards with that third-party validator, but that third-party validator may have more sophisticated technology which would enable those rewards to be greater. In either case, staking increases the risk of loss of ETH, including through slashing penalties and through increasing vulnerabilities to hacking in the staking smart contracts. Validators also need to maintain uptime to maximize their rewards. Further, the ETH ecosystem rapidly evolves, with frequent upgrades and protocol changes that may require significant adjustments to our operational setup. The upgrades and protocol changes may require that we incur unanticipated costs, and it could cause temporary service disruptions. Technical failures or operational errors could impact our ability to obtain ETH rewards or gas fees, which could result in our failure to meet our financial projections.

Current report

Staked ETH is also subject to lock-up periods during which it cannot be withdrawn or sold. This lack of liquidity could limit our ability to respond to market changes or our financial needs. We may seek to mitigate this risk through so-called “liquid staking” arrangements, where we deposit ETH into a smart contract and receive in exchange a “liquid staking token” which would allow us, or any person to whom we transfer that liquid staking token, to later withdraw our ETH and associated rewards. The smart contract would then automatically delegate our ETH to a third-party staking service provider. We could engage in other DeFi activities with liquid staking tokens. While we anticipate that the price of liquid staking tokens will correlate to ETH itself, there is a possibility that prices will diverge. This could especially happen if the validators deployed by the liquid staking contract are subject to slashing penalties, in which case we may be able to withdraw fewer ETH than we originally deposited.

Current report

Any of these operational risks could materially and adversely affect our ability to execute our ETH Treasury Management strategy and may prevent us from realizing positive returns and could severely hurt our financial condition.

Current report

We plan to purchase additional digital assets using primarily proceeds from equity and debt financings, but we may be unable to obtain such financings on favorable terms.

Current report

Our ability to achieve the objectives of our digital asset acquisition strategy depends in significant part on our ability to obtain equity and debt financing. The terms of debt or equity securities that we issue may require us to make periodic payments to the holders of those securities. If we are unable to obtain equity or debt financing on favorable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully execute on our digital asset acquisition strategy.

Current report

Our ability to obtain equity or debt financing may in turn depend on, among other factors, the value of our digital asset holdings, investor sentiment and the public perception of ETH and other digital assets, our strategy and our value proposition. Accordingly, a significant decline in the market value of our digital asset holdings, our inability to monetize our ETH through staking, decentralized finance or other yield-generating activities, or a negative shift in these other factors may create liquidity and credit risks, as such a decline or such shifts may adversely impact our ability to secure sufficient equity or debt financing.

Current report

ETH constitutes the vast bulk of assets on our balance sheet. If we are unable to secure equity or debt financing in a timely manner, on favorable terms, or at all, we may be required to sell ETH to satisfy our financial obligations, and we may be required to make such sales at prices below our cost basis or that are otherwise unfavorable. Any such sale of ETH may have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition and could impair our ability to secure additional equity or debt financing in the future. Our inability to secure additional equity or debt financing in a timely manner, on favorable terms or at all, or to sell our ETH in amounts and at prices sufficient to satisfy our financial obligations, including any debt service and cash dividend obligations, could cause us to default under such obligations. Any default on our future indebtedness or any newly issued preferred stock could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. Such actions could cause significant variation in our operating results in any quarter.

Current report

There are also volatility risks related to stablecoins, which are designed to have a relatively stable price relative to an underlying physical asset, most commonly a fiat currency, such as U.S. dollars, or an exchange-traded commodity. The stability of a stablecoin results from the underlying assets backing the stablecoin that are held by the stablecoin’s issuer in reserve accounts, among other factors such as the ability of a holder to redeem the stablecoin from its issuer at par. The issuers of certain stablecoins currently retain broad discretion to determine the composition and amounts of assets held in the issuers’ accounts backing those stablecoins, and to substitute assets other than the fiat currency that is initially deposited. The composition of backing assets varies considerably across popular stablecoins, with some stablecoins backed entirely by off-chain assets including cash or short-term, highly liquid assets, and others backed by assets significantly less liquid than cash or cash equivalents. For example, Circle, which issues USDC, reports that it holds cash and short-term cash equivalents to back its USDC stablecoins. We regularly transact in and hold stablecoins; as of September 30, 2025, USDC is the only stablecoin that we held. A lack of applicable law and regulation has afforded discretion to certain stablecoin issuers to determine the composition and amounts of assets backing those stablecoins. There is a risk that an issuer may be unable to liquidate enough backing assets if it were to face mass redemptions ofits stablecoin, which could cause the price of the stablecoin to deviate from the price of the underlying fiat currency or other asset with which the stablecoin is designed to align in price. In extreme cases, such as a request to immediately redeem all or substantially all of a particular stablecoin in circulation, even stablecoins backed by reserves comprised primarily of cash and cash equivalents may be subject to instability or an inability of the stablecoin issuer to meet all redemption requests, as the market for short-dated U.S. government obligations might not be sufficiently price stable. Market participants have increasingly shown concern about the actual underlying liquidity and reserves for dollar stablecoins such as USDC. For example, according to reports, Circle had more than $3 billion of its USDC reserve funds on deposit at SVB which became temporarily inaccessible when SVB was placed into FDIC receivership in March 2023. Although these funds were ultimately made available, concerns related to Circle’s access to these funds caused USDC to temporarily fall below its$1.00 peg, and the total market capitalization of USDC decreased following this temporary depegging. If a stablecoin issuer were to fail to honor its redemption obligations, this could undermine public confidence in stablecoins and in digital assets more broadly, which could have a widespread impact on the crypto economy, causing the prices o…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current report

Volatility in stablecoins, operational issues with stablecoins (for example, technical issues that prevent settlement), concerns about the sufficiency of any reserves that support stablecoins, or regulatory concerns about stablecoin issuers or intermediaries ,such as crypto asset spot markets, that support stablecoins, could have a significant impact on the global crypto market and may adversely affect our business.

Current report

Blockchain technology may expose us to sanctioned or blocked persons or may result in unintentional or inadvertent violations of economic sanctions and anti-money laundering laws and regulations.

Current report

We are subject to the rules enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“OFAC”), including prohibitions on conducting direct or indirect business with persons named on, or owned by persons named on, OFAC’s various sanctions lists, including the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons list (“SDN List”). We are also prohibited from direct or indirect dealings with persons located, organized, or resident in jurisdictions subject to comprehensive U.S. economic sanctions (as of today, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic, the so-called Luhansk People’s Republic, and the Crimea region of Ukraine), and may be prohibited from dealing with persons in other jurisdictions subject to targeted U.S. sanctions such as Venezuela, Russia, and Belarus.

Current report

U.S. sanctions compliance obligations apply to all U.S. persons and cover transactions in digital assets. U.S. sanctions authorities and law enforcement have, in recent years, directed significant attention to sanctions compliance among the digital assets industry. For example, OFAC has issued updated advisories regarding the use of virtual currencies, added a number of digital asset exchanges and service providers to the SDN List, and engaged in several enforcement actions, including a series of enforcement actions that have either shut down or significantly curtailed the operations of several smaller digital asset exchanges associated with Russian and/or North Korean nationals.

Current report

Because of the pseudonymous nature of blockchain transactions and decentralized applications, we may inadvertently and without knowledge, directly or indirectly engage in transactions with or for the benefit of prohibited persons under U.S. sanctions regulations, especially when engaging in DeFi activities where it may be impossible for us to determine the identity of our counterparties. OFAC may impose civil penalties for sanctions violations on a “strict liability” basis, meaning we may be held responsible for transacting with prohibited parties even if we have no knowledge that a particular counterparty is a prohibited person under U.S. sanctions regulations. In addition, we may be subject to non-U.S. economic sanctions laws and regulations to the extent we conduct activity within the jurisdiction of other sanctions regimes, including those of the European Union and United Kingdom.

Current report

OFAC and other governmental authorities have significant discretion in the interpretation and enforcement of U.S. economic sanctions laws and regulations. Moreover, economic sanctions laws and regulations continue to evolve, often with little or no notice, which could raise operational or compliance challenges. If it is determined that we have transacted with prohibited persons under U.S. sanctions regulations, even inadvertently, this could result in substantial reputational harm, fines or penalties, and costs associated with governmental inquiries and investigations. Despite our compliance efforts and activities we cannot assure compliance by our employees or representatives for which we may be held responsible, and any or all of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, operations or financial condition.

Current report

In addition, there has been increasing focus on the extent to which digital assets can be used to launder the proceeds of illegal activities or fund criminal or terrorist activities. This misuse, or the perception of such misuse, could lead to greater regulatory oversight of ETH and ETH platforms, and there is the possibility that law enforcement agencies could close or blacklist ETH platforms or other ETH-related infrastructure with little or no notice and prevent users from accessing or retrieving ETH held via such platforms or infrastructure.

Current report

We have recently implemented policies and procedures reasonably designed to promote compliance with applicable anti-money laundering laws and regulations and take care to only acquire our ETH through entities subject to anti-money laundering regulation and related compliance rules in the United States, if we are found to have purchased any of our ETH from bad actors that have used ETH to launder money or otherwise engage in illicit financial activity, we may be subject to regulatory proceedings and further transactions or dealings in ETH may be restricted or prohibited.

Current report

Changes in regulatory interpretations could require us to register as a money services business or money transmitter, leading to increased compliance costs or operational shutdowns.

Current report

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department (“FinCEN”) regulates providers of certain services with respect to “convertible virtual currency,” including ETH. Businesses engaged in the transfer of convertible virtual currencies are subject to registration and licensure requirements at the U.S. federal level and also under U.S. state laws. While FinCEN has issued guidance that cryptocurrency mining, without engagement in other activities, does not require registration and licensure with FinCEN, FinCEN has not made similar pronouncements with respect to the operation of Ethereum validators. In addition, our engaging in decentralized finance activities could expose us to further risk in this regard.

Current report

If regulatory changes or interpretations require us to register as a money services business with FinCEN under the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act, or as a money transmitter under state laws, we may be subject to extensive regulatory requirements—including those that would mandate us to implement anti-money laundering programs meeting certain requirements, make certain reports to FinCEN or state regulators, and maintain certain records—resulting in significant compliance costs and operational burdens.

Current report

We may incur extraordinary expenses to meet these requirements or, alternatively, may determine that continued operations are not viable. Further, we may not be capable of complying with certain federal or state regulatory obligations applicable to “money services businesses” and “money transmitters,” such as monitoring transactions and blocking transactions, because of the nature of the Ethereum blockchain. If we are deemed to be subject to and determine not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, we may act to dissolve and liquidate. If we decide to cease certain operations in response to new regulatory obligations, such actions could occur at a time that is unfavorable to investors. Note – pretty small risk here. If this is a normal CYA then fine but if this causes any concern we should discuss.

Current report

We may engage in decentralized finance transactions and deploy ETH using liquid staking protocols, which present additional risk as opposed to simply holding our digital assets.

Current report

We intend to invest and deploy ETH using one or more decentralized finance protocols. All trading and investment activity involves risk, which is heightened in the case of decentralized finance due to the irrevocable nature of blockchain transactions and the possibility of errors in smart contracts. Decentralized finance protocols also attract hackers and persons looking to exploit flaws in or the ability to misuse smart contracts. We also may incur losses in connection with our decentralized finance activity due to human error or our inability to predict future price movements. Any losses we sustain in connection with decentralized finance activities could cause an adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations, and the market price of our Common Stock.

Current report

Decentralized finance protocols also pose heightened regulatory concerns even beyond those that face digital asset networks and digital assets generally. The U.S. financial system is extensively regulated at both the federal and state level with a particular focus on intermediaries such as banks, broker-dealers, futures commission merchants, investment funds, investment advisers, financial asset exchanges, trading platforms, clearinghouses and custodians. U.S. laws and regulations impose specific obligations on financial services intermediaries both for the protection of their customers and for the protection of the U.S. financial system as a whole. These include, among others, capital requirements, activities restrictions, reporting and disclosure requirements and obligations to monitor the activities of their customers and to ensure that the intermediaries’ activities and the activities of their customers are conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Non-U.S. laws and regulatory requirements may impose similar obligations. By seeking to eliminate or substantially limit the role of traditional financial services intermediaries in lending, brokering, advisory, trading, clearing, custody and other financial services activities, DeFi protocols pose numerous challenges to the longstanding oversight framework developed under U.S. law and used by U.S. and other regulators. Legislative bodies and regulators may be required to adapt their regulatory models to accommodate decentralized financial activities, or take novel steps to supervise, limit or even prohibit decentralized financial activities. It is not possible to predict how or when these challenges will be resolved or what the impact on specific decentralized finance protocols will be, and it is likely that the decentralized finance industry will face a prolonged period of regulatory uncertainty. It is possible that some decentralized finance protocols will be subjected to costly and burdensome compliance regimes or even prohibited outright.

Current report

We have also deployed ETH using liquid staking protocols. Liquid staking protocols are even newer than many decentralized finance protocols and are a novel and evolving technology. Although the staff of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance has provided a statement that the staff does not generally believe liquid staking services are securities offerings, and that it does not believe receipt tokens obtained through such liquid staking services are generally securities, there is no guarantee that courts agree. It is also possible that the liquid staking protocols we use do not fit the specific scope of the staff statement. If it is determined that the liquid staking protocols we use, or the receipt tokens we receive, are securities offerings, the providers of liquid staking protocols may be required to pay fines or be subject to other third-party claims, and the ETH we have deposited with them may be available to their creditors to fulfill those claims. See “Our shift towards an ETH-focused treasury strategy requires substantial changes in our day-to-day operations and exposes us to significant operational risks”and“We face risks relating to the custody of our digital assets, including the loss or destruction of private keys required to access our digital assets and cyberattacks or other data loss relating to our digital assets and insolvency of our custodians.” There is also ongoing uncertainty as to the regulatory treatment of liquid staking services from other regulators and agencies.

Current report

Both decentralized finance protocols and liquid staking protocols typically rely on the use of smart contracts. Smart contracts are computer programs that run on a digital asset network or related protocol that execute automatically when certain conditions are met. Because smart contract functions typically cannot be stopped or reversed, vulnerabilities in or unforeseen consequences of their programming can have damaging effects for the underlying digital asset network or protocol and the value of digital assets that use or interact with such smart contracts. For example, in June 2016, a vulnerability in the smart contracts underlying a protocol that was deployed on the Ethereum network, The DAO, a distributed autonomous organization for venture capital funding, allowed an attack by a hacker to syphon approximately $60 million worth of ETH from The DAO into a separate account. In the aftermath of the theft, certain developers of and core contributors to the Ethereum network pursued a “hard fork” of the Ethereum network in order to erase any record of the theft. Despite these efforts, the price of ETH dropped approximately 35% in the aftermath of the attack and subsequent hard fork. In addition, in July 2017, a vulnerability in a smart contract for a multi-signature wallet software developed by Parity led to a $30 million theft of ETH, and in November 2017, a new vulnerability in Parity’s wallet software led to roughly $160 million worth of ETH being indefinitely frozen in an account.

Current report

Other smart contracts, such as bridges between separate digital asset networks have also been manipulated, exploited or used in ways that were not intended or envisioned by their creators. Initial problems and continued problems with the development, design and deployment of smart contracts may have an adverse effect on the value of protocols, including liquid staking and decentralized finance protocols, built on smart contract platforms or other digital assets that rely on smart contract technology, including any liquid staking tokens such as LsETH. If any of the smart contracts with which we interact, whether decentralized finance, liquid staking, or otherwise, suffer from such manipulation or exploit, or otherwise do not function as intended or as we anticipate, our ETH and any LsETH or similar tokens we hold may be exposed.

Current report

Changes in the governance of a digital asset network or protocol may not receive sufficient support from users and validators, which may negatively affect that digital asset network’s or protocol’s ability to grow and respond to challenges.

Current report

The governance of some digital asset networks and protocols, such as the Ethereum Network, is generally by voluntary consensus and open competition. For such networks and protocols, there may be a lack of consensus or clarity on that network’s or protocol’s governance, which may stymie such network’s or protocol’s utility, adaptability and ability to grow and face challenges. The foregoing notwithstanding, the underlying software for some digital asset networks and protocols, such as the Ethereum Network, is informally or formally managed or developed by a group of core developers that propose amendments to the relevant network’s or protocol’s source code. Core developers’ roles may evolve over time, generally based on self-determined participation. If a significant majority of users and validators were to adopt amendments to a decentralized network based on the proposals of such core developers, such network would be subject to new source code that may adversely affect the value of the relevant digital asset. As a result of the foregoing, it may be difficult to find solutions or marshal sufficient effort to overcome any future problems, especially long-term problems, on digital asset networks.

Previous report

Due in part to the volatility of ETH, we incurred $87.7 million of cumulative impairment on our LsETH holdings (a receipt token from ETH liquid staking) through June 30, 2025, which losses were reflected in the financial statements for the respective period in which the losses were incurred.

Previous report

None.

Current report — wording carried from elsewhere

As digital assets are relatively novel and the application of state and federal securities laws and other laws and regulations to digital assets are unclear in certain respects, it is possible that regulators in the United States or foreign countries may interpret or apply existing laws and regulations in a manner that adversely affects the price of digital assets. The U.S. federal government, states, regulatory agencies, and foreign countries may also enact new laws and regulations, or pursue regulatory, legislative, enforcement or judicial actions, that could materially impact the price of digital assets or the ability of individuals or institutions such as us to own or transfer digital assets.

Current report — wording carried from elsewhere

It is difficult to predict whether, or when, as a result of these developments, Congress will grant additional authorities to the SEC or other regulators, what the nature of such additional authorities might be, how additional legislation and/or regulatory oversight might impact the ability of digital asset markets to function, the willingness of financial and other institutions to continue to provide services to the digital assets industry, or how any new regulations or changes to existing regulations might impact the value of digital assets generally and ETH held by the Company specifically. The consequences of increased federal regulation of digital assets and digital asset activities could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects, as well as the market price of ETH, which in turn could adversely affect the market price of our listed securities.

Current report — wording carried from elsewhere

As of the date of this filing, the insurance that covers losses of our ETH holdings may cover none or only a small fraction of the value of the entirety of our ETH holdings, and there can be no guarantee that such insurance will be maintained as part of the custodial services we have or that such coverage will cover losses with respect to our ETH. The insurance policies maintained by our custodians are shared among all of such custodian’s customers and are not specific to us and may not be available or sufficient to protect us as a result. Moreover, our use of custodians exposes us to the risk that the ETH our custodians hold on our behalf could be subject to insolvency proceedings and we could be treated as a general unsecured creditor of the custodian, inhibiting our ability to exercise ownership rights with respect to such ETH. Any loss associated with such insolvency proceedings is unlikely to be covered by any insurance coverage we maintain related to our ETH. The legal framework governing digital asset ownership and rights in custodial or insolvency contexts remains uncertain and continues to evolve, which could result in unexpected losses, protracted recovery processes or adverse treatment in insolvency proceedings.

Previous report — wording carried elsewhere

Our ETH strategy exposes us to various risks, including the following: