Sharplink, Inc.

Previous report

If we were deemed to be an investment company under the Investment Company Act, applicable restrictions likely would make it impractical for us to continue segments of our business as currently contemplated.

Previous report

Under Sections 3(a)(1)(A) and (C) of the Investment Company Act, a company generally will be deemed to be an “investment company” if (i) it is, or holds itself out as being, engaged primarily, or proposes to engage primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting, or trading in securities or (ii) it engages, or proposes to engage, in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities and it owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of its total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities, shares of registered money market funds under Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act, and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. Rule 3a-1 under the Investment Company Act generally provides that notwithstanding the Section 3(a)(1)(C) test described in clause (ii) above, an entity will not be deemed to be an “investment company” for purposes of the Investment Company Act if no more than 45% of the value of its assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities, shares of registered money market funds under Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act, and cash items) consists of, and no more than 45% of its net income after taxes (for the past four fiscal quarters combined) is derived from, securities other than U.S. government securities, shares of registered money market funds under Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act, securities issued by employees’ securities companies, securities issued by qualifying majority owned subsidiaries of such entity, and securities issued by qualifying companies that are controlled primarily by such entity. We do not believe that we are an “investment company” as such term is defined in either Section 3(a)(1)(A) or Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act.

Previous report

Recently, we have begun focusing on pursuing opportunities to expand our portfolio into digital assets. With respect to Section 3(a)(1)(A), following the PIPE Offering, the proceeds of the PIPE Offering are expected to be used to acquire ETH, which will result in our ownership or holding of ETH in excess of 40% of our total assets. Since we believe ETH is not an investment security, we do not hold ourselves out as being engaged primarily, or propose to engage primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting, or trading in securities within the meaning of Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act.

Previous report

With respect to Section 3(a)(1)(C), we believe we satisfy the elements of Rule 3a-1 and therefore are deemed not to be an investment company under, and we intend to conduct our operations such that we will not be deemed an investment company under, Section 3(a)(1)(C). We believe that we are not an investment company pursuant to Rule 3a-1 under the Investment Company Act because, on a consolidated basis with respect to wholly-owned subsidiaries but otherwise on an unconsolidated basis, no more than 45% of the value of the Company’s total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities, shares of registered money market funds under Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act, and cash items) consists of, and no more than 45% of the Company’s net income after taxes (for the last four fiscal quarters combined) is derived from, securities other than U.S. government securities, shares of registered money market funds under Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act, securities issued by employees’ securities companies, securities issued by qualifying majority owned subsidiaries of the Company, and securities issued by qualifying companies that are controlled primarily by the Company.

Previous report

ETH and other digital assets, as well as new business models and transactions enabled by blockchain technologies, present novel interpretive questions under the Investment Company Act. There is a risk that assets or arrangements that we have concluded are not securities could be deemed to be securities by the SEC or another authority for purposes of the Investment Company Act, which would increase the percentage of securities held by us for Investment Company Act purposes. The SEC has requested information from a number of participants in the digital assets’ ecosystem, regarding the potential application of the Investment Company Act to their businesses. For example, in an action unrelated to the Company, in February 2022, the SEC issued a cease-and-desist order under the Investment Company Act to BlockFi Lending LLC, in which the SEC alleged that BlockFi was operating as an unregistered investment company because it issued securities and also held more than 40% of its total assets, excluding cash, in investment securities, including the loans of digital assets made by BlockFi to institutional borrowers.

Previous report

If we were deemed to be an investment company, Rule 3a-2 under the Investment Company Act is a safe harbor that provides a one-year grace period for transient investment companies that have a bona fide intent to be engaged primarily, as soon as is reasonably possible (in any event by the termination of such one-year period), in a business other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities, with such intent evidenced by the company’s business activities and an appropriate resolution of its board of directors. The grace period is available not more than once every three years and runs from the earlier of (i) the date on which the issuer owns securities and/or cash having a value exceeding 50% of the issuer’s total assets on either a consolidated or unconsolidated basis or (ii) the date on which the issuer owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of such issuer’s total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. Accordingly, the grace period may not be available at the time that we seek to rely on Rule 3a-2; however, Rule 3a-2 is a safe harbor and we may rely on any exemption or exclusion from investment company status available to us under the Investment Company Act at any given time. Furthermore, reliance on Rule 3a-2, Section 3(a)(1) (C), or Rule 3a-1 could require us to take actions to dispose of securities, limit our ability to make certain investments or enter into joint ventures, or otherwise limit or change our service offerings and operations. If we were to be deemed an investment company in the future, restrictions imposed by the Investment Company Act — including limitations on our ability to issue different classes of stock and equity compensation to directors, officers and employees and restrictions on management, operations, and transactions with affiliated persons — likely would make it impractical for us to continue our business as contemplated, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects.

Previous 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.

Previous 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.

Previous report

The concentration of our ETH holdings enhances the risks inherent in our ETH Treasury Management strategy.

Previous report

While ETH concentration is monitored as the total number of ETH units (including native-staked and liquid-staked ETH) held by us divided by 1,000 assumed diluted shares outstanding and is used to evaluate our capital allocation strategy and digital asset leverage on a per-share basis, significant swings in the price of ETH may lead to increased risks in our ETH Treasury Management strategy.

Previous report

ETH and other digital assets are novel assets, and are subject to significant legal, commercial, regulatory and technical uncertainty.

Previous report

It is not possible to predict whether, or when, new laws will be enacted that change the legal framework governing digital assets or provide additional authorities to the SEC or other regulators, or whether, or when, any other federal, state or foreign legislative bodies will take any similar actions. It is also not possible to predict the nature of any such additional laws or authorities, how additional legislation 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 laws or regulations, or changes to existing laws or regulations, might impact the value of digital assets generally and ETH specifically. The consequences of any new law or regulation relating to digital assets and digital asset activities could adversely affect the market price of ETH, as well as our ability to hold or transact in ETH, and in turn adversely affect the market price of our listed securities.

Previous 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.

Previous report

The growth of the digital assets industry in general, and the use and acceptance of ETH in particular, may also impact the price of ETH and is subject to a high degree of uncertainty. The pace of worldwide growth in the adoption and use of ETH may depend, for instance, on public familiarity with digital assets, ease of buying, accessing or gaining exposure to ETH, institutional demand for ETH as an investment asset, the participation of traditional financial institutions in the digital assets industry, consumer demand for ETH as a store of value or means of payment, and the availability and popularity of alternatives to ETH. Even if growth in ETH adoption occurs in the near or medium-term, there is no assurance that ETH usage will continue to grow over the long-term.

Previous report

Because ETH has no physical existence beyond the record of transactions on the Ethereum blockchain, a variety of technical factors related to the Ethereum blockchain could also impact the price of ETH. For example, malicious attacks, inadequate staking fees to incentivize validating of ETH transactions, and advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry, and quantum computing could undercut the integrity of the Ethereum blockchain and negatively affect the price of ETH. The liquidity of ETH may also be reduced and damage to the public perception of ETH may occur if financial institutions were to deny or limit banking services to businesses that hold ETH, provide ETH-related services or accept ETH as payment, which could also decrease the price of ETH.

Previous 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.

Previous 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.

Previous 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.

Previous 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.

Previous 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.

Previous report

ETH is created and transmitted through the operations of the peer-to-peer Ethereum network, a decentralized network of computers running software following the Ethereum protocol. If the Ethereum network is disrupted or encounters any unanticipated difficulties, the value of Ethereum could be negatively impacted.

Previous report

If the Ethereum network is disrupted or encounters any unanticipated difficulties, then the processing of transactions on the Ethereum network may be disrupted, which in turn may prevent us from depositing or withdrawing ETH from our accounts with our custodian or otherwise effecting ETH transactions. Such disruptions could include, for example: the price volatility of ETH; the insolvency, business failure, interruption, default, failure to perform, security breach, or other problems of participants, custodians, or others; the closing of ETH trading platforms due to fraud, failures, security breaches, or otherwise; or network outages or congestion, power outages, or other problems or disruptions affecting the Ethereum network.

Previous report

In addition, although we do not currently intend to mine ETH, digital asset validating operations can consume significant amounts of electricity, which may have a negative environmental impact and give rise to public opinion against allowing, or government regulations restricting, the use of electricity for validating operations. Additionally, validators may be forced to cease operations during an electricity shortage or power outage.

Previous report

Our ETH Treasury Management strategy exposes us to various risks, including risks associated with ETH, which include the following:

Previous report

ETH is a highly volatile asset. ETH is a highly volatile asset that has traded below $1,500 per ETH and above $4,000 per ETH on the Coinbase exchange in the 12 months preceding the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. The trading price of ETH decreased following the launch of our ETH Treasury Management strategy to the end of this quarter, and such declines may occur again in the future.

Previous report

Our ETH holdings significantly impact our financial results and the market price of our listed securities. Our ETH holdings could significantly affect our financial results and if we continue to increase our overall holdings of ETH in the future, they will have an even greater impact on our financial results and the market price of our listed securities.

Previous report

Our assets are concentrated in ETH. The vast majority of our assets are concentrated in our ETH holdings or receipt tokens (i.e., LsETH) from liquid staking of ETH. The concentration of our assets in ETH limits our ability to mitigate risk that could otherwise be achieved by holding a more diversified portfolio of treasury assets. If there is a significant decrease in the price of ETH, we may experience a more pronounced impact on our financial condition than if we invested our cash in a more diverse portfolio of treasury assets.

Previous report

We primarily purchase ETH using proceeds from equity financings. Our ability to achieve the growth objectives of our ETH Treasury Management strategy depends in significant part on our ability to continue raising capital to purchase ETH. If we are unable to obtain equity, equity-linked or debt financing on favorable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully execute on our ETH Treasury Management strategy.

Previous report

Our ETH Treasury Management strategy has not been tested over an extended period of time or under different market conditions. We are continually examining the risks and rewards of our strategy to acquire and hold ETH and to stake such ETH to generate staking rewards. This strategy has not been tested over an extended period of time or under different market conditions. For example, although we believe ETH has the potential to serve as a hedge against inflation in the long term, the short-term price of ETH declined in recent periods during which the inflation rate increased. If ETH prices were to decrease or our ETH Treasury Management strategy otherwise proves unsuccessful, our financial condition, results of operations, and the market price of our listed securities would be materially adversely impacted.

Previous report

Our ETH staking activities could result in “slashing risks” and loss of staked ETH. ETH staking exposes us to slashing risks, defined as a punitive mechanism built into the Ethereum network, designed to penalize validators and their delegators for misbehavior or failing to follow network rules, which could result in the loss of our staked ETH.

Previous report

*We are subject to provider and counterparty risks, including risks relating to our custodians.*Although we have implemented various measures that are designed to mitigate our counterparty risks, including by storing substantially all of the ETH and LsETH we own in custody accounts at U.S.-based, institutional-grade custodians and negotiating contractual arrangements intended to establish that our property interest in custodially-held ETH and LsETH is not subject to claims of our custodians’ creditors, applicable insolvency law is not fully developed with respect to the holding of digital assets in custodial accounts. If our custodially-held ETH were nevertheless considered to be the property of our custodians’ estates in the event that any such custodians were to enter bankruptcy, receivership or similar insolvency proceedings, we could be treated as a general unsecured creditor of such custodians, inhibiting our ability to exercise ownership rights with respect to such ETH, or delaying or hindering our access to our ETH holdings or LsETH holdings, and this may ultimately result in the loss of the value related to some or all of such ETH and LsETH, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition as well as the market price of our listed securities.

Previous report

The broader digital assets industry is subject to counterparty risks, which could adversely impact the adoption rate, price, and use of ETH. A series of recent high-profile bankruptcies, closures, liquidations, regulatory enforcement actions and other events relating to companies operating in the digital asset industry have highlighted the counterparty risks applicable to owning and transacting in digital assets. Although these bankruptcies, closures, liquidations and other events have not resulted in any loss or misappropriation of our ETH or LsETH, nor have such events adversely impacted our access to our ETH or LsETH, they have, in the short-term, likely negatively impacted the adoption rate and use of ETH. Additional bankruptcies, closures, liquidations, regulatory enforcement actions or other events involving participants in the digital assets industry in the future may further negatively impact the adoption rate, price, and use of ETH, limit the availability to us of financing collateralized by ETH, or create or expose additional counterparty risks.

Previous report

Changes in the accounting treatment of our ETH holdings or LsETH holdings could have significant accounting impacts, including increasing the volatility of our results. We have adopted ASU 2023-08 as of January 1, 2025, which requires us to measure our ETH holdings at fair value in our statement of financial position, and to recognize gains and losses from changes in the fair value of our ETH in net income each reporting period beginning January 1, 2025. ASU 2023-08 also requires us to provide certain interim and annual disclosures with respect to our ETH holdings. Due in particular to the volatility in the price of ETH, we expect the measurement at fair value to have a material impact on our financial results in future periods, increase the volatility of our financial results, and affect the carrying value of our ETH on our balance sheet. ASU 2023-08 could also have adverse tax consequences. In addition, on September 30, 2025, the Treasury and the IRS issued interim guidance (the “Interim Guidance”) which, in relevant part, clarifies that a corporation may disregard unrealized gains and losses on its digital asset holdings when computing AFSI for purposes of determining whether it is subject to the 15% CAMT under the Inflation Reduction Act. The Treasury and IRS intend to issue revised proposed regulations similar to this Interim Guidance. These impacts could in turn have a material adverse effect on our financial results and the market price of our listed securities. Additionally, our LsETH holdings as of December 31, 2025 are accounted for at cost-less-impairment. Significant declines in the price of LsETH may result in material impairment within our financial results.

Previous report

ETH is a highly volatile asset, and fluctuations in the price of ETH are likely to influence our financial results and the market price of our listed securities.

Previous report

ETH is a highly volatile asset, and fluctuations in the price of ETH are likely to influence our financial results and the market price of our listed securities. Our financial results and the market price of our listed securities would be adversely affected, and our business and financial condition would be negatively impacted, if the price of ETH decreased substantially (as it has in the past), including as a result of:

Previous report

The Ethereum network operates using open-source protocols, meaning that any user can become a node by downloading the Ethereum Client and participating in the Ethereum network, and no permission of a central authority or body is needed to do so. In addition, anyone can propose a modification to the Ethereum network’s source code and then propose that the Ethereum network community support the modification. These proposed modifications to the Ethereum network’s source code, if adopted, can lead to forks.

Previous report

A “fork” in the Ethereum protocol could adversely affect the value of the Company’s shares.

Previous report

Forks in the Ethereum protocol may lead to disruptions, security risks or declines in ETH value and therefore the value of the Company’s common stock. A “fork” occurs when a change to the Ethereum network’s source code creates two incompatible versions of the blockchain, resulting in separate networks. Forks may be planned (e.g., upgrades to the Ethereum protocol like the Merge or Dencun) or unplanned (e.g., due to software bugs or validator disagreement). Planned forks are designed to improve performance or introduce new features, but they may introduce bugs, security vulnerabilities, or unexpected economic consequences. Unplanned forks can arise from client software inconsistencies or protocol failures, causing network instability or fragmentation. In either case, forks may result in operational outages, user confusion, replay attacks and reduced validator participation, all of which could undermine confidence in the Ethereum network and adversely affect the price of ETH. Our ETH holdings, staking activities and related treasury strategy could be materially negatively impacted in the event of such a fork.

Previous 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.

Previous 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.

Previous report — wording carried elsewhere

ETH and other digital assets are relatively novel and are subject to significant uncertainty, which could adversely impact their price. The application of state and federal securities laws and other laws and regulations to digital assets is unclear in certain respects, and 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 ETH or the ability of individuals or institutions such as us to own or transfer ETH.

Previous report — wording carried elsewhere

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 ETH or the ability of individuals or institutions such as us to own or transfer ETH.

Previous report — wording carried elsewhere

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

Previous report — wording carried 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.