SharpLink Gaming, Inc.

You should carefully consider the risks described below before making an investment decision. The risks and uncertainties described in this section may not be the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties that are not currently known to us, or that we currently deem immaterial, may also impair our business operations or financial condition. If any of the risks described below or any such additional risks actually occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and the market price of our securities could be materially adversely affected. In particular, because we have adopted a treasury strategy centered on acquiring and holding ETH, and a substantial portion of our assets are concentrated in ETH and related digital intangible asset holdings, our financial results and the market price of our securities are subject to significant volatility and may be adversely impacted by events affecting the price, perception, regulation, or technological underpinnings of ETH. The following risk factors highlight the material risks associated with our ETH strategy and related exposures.

The launch of central bank digital currencies (“CBDCs”) may adversely impact our business.

The introduction of a government-issued digital currency could eliminate or reduce the need or demand for private-sector issued crypto currencies, or significantly limit their utility. National governments around the world could introduce CBDCs, which could in turn limit the size of the market opportunity for cryptocurrencies, including ETH.

Absent federal regulations, there is a possibility that ETH may be classified as a“security.”Any classification of ETH as a“security”would subject us to additional regulation and could materially impact the operation of our business.

Neither the SEC nor any other U.S. federal or state regulator has publicly stated whether they agree that ETH is a “security.” Despite the Executive Order titled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology” which includes as an objective, “protecting and promoting the ability of individual citizens and private sector entities alike to access and … to maintain self-custody of digital assets,” ETH has not yet been classified with respect to U.S. federal securities laws. Therefore, while (for the reasons discussed below) we believe that ETH is not a “security” within the meaning of the U.S. federal securities laws, and registration of the Company under The Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”) is therefore not required under the applicable securities laws, we acknowledge that a regulatory body or federal court may determine otherwise. Our belief, even if reasonable under the circumstances, would not preclude legal or regulatory action based on such a finding that ETH is a “security” which would require us to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act.

We have also adapted our process for analyzing the U.S. federal securities law status of ETH and other cryptocurrencies over time, as guidance and case law have evolved. As part of our U.S. federal securities law analytical process, we take into account a number of factors, including the various definitions of “security” under U.S. federal securities laws and federal court decisions interpreting the elements of these definitions, such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in theHowey andReves cases, as well as court rulings, reports, orders, press releases, public statements, and speeches by the SEC Commissioners and SEC Staff providing guidance on when a digital asset or a transaction to which a digital asset may relate may be a security for purposes of U.S. federal securities laws. Our position that ETH is not a “security” is premised, among other reasons, on our conclusion ETH does not meet the elements of theHowey test. Among the reasons for our conclusion that ETH is not a security is that holders of ETH do not have a reasonable expectation of profits from our efforts in respect of their holding of ETH . Also, ETH ownership does not convey the right to receive any interest, rewards, or other returns.

We acknowledge, however, that the SEC, a federal court or another relevant entity could take a different view. The regulatory treatment of ETH is such that it has drawn significant attention from legislative and regulatory bodies, in particular the SEC which has previously stated it deemed ETH a security. Application of securities laws to the specific facts and circumstances of digital assets is complex and subject to change. Our conclusion, even if reasonable under the circumstances, would not preclude legal or regulatory action based on a finding that ETH, or any other digital asset we might hold is a “security.” As such, we are at risk of enforcement proceedings against us, which could result in potential injunctions, cease-and-desist orders, fines, and penalties if Ether was determined to be a security by a regulatory body or a court. Such developments could subject us to fines, penalties, and other damages, and adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Our ETH treasury strategy exposes us to various risks, including risks associated with ETH.

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

*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 (our principal market for ETH) 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 strategy to the end of this quarter, and such declines may occur again in the future.

*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.

*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.

We primarily purchase ETH using proceeds from equity financings.Our ability to achieve the growth objectives of our ETH 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 strategy.

*Our ETH 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 strategy otherwise proves unsuccessful, our financial condition, results of operations, and the market price of our listed securities would be materially adversely impacted.

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.

*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.

*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.

*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. 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 June 30, 2025 are accounted for as digital intangible assets within the scope of ASC 350-30 at cost-less-impairment. Significant declines in the price of LsETH may result in material impairment within our financial results.

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.

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:

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

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.

Forks in the Ethereum protocol may lead to disruptions, security risks or declines in ETH value. 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.

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

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 strategy.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Our historical financial statements do not reflect the potential variability in earnings that we may experience in the future from holding or selling significant amounts of ETH.

The price of ETH has historically been subject to dramatic price fluctuations and is highly volatile.

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.

Because we intend to purchase additional ETH in future periods and increase our overall holdings of ETH, we expect that the proportion of our total assets represented by our ETH holdings will increase in the future. As a result, and in particular due to our adoption of ASU 2023-08, volatility in our earnings may be significantly more than what we experienced in prior periods.

The availability of spot ETPs for ETH and other digital assets may adversely affect the market price of our listed securities.

Although ETH and other digital assets have experienced a surge of investor attention since ETH was invented in 2015, until recently investors in the United States had limited means to gain direct exposure to ETH through traditional investment channels, and instead generally were only able to hold ETH through “hosted” wallets provided by digital asset service providers or through “unhosted” wallets that expose the investor to risks associated with loss or hacking of their private keys. Given the relative novelty of digital assets, general lack of familiarity with the processes needed to hold ETH directly, as well as the potential reluctance of financial planners and advisers to recommend direct ETH holdings to their retail customers because of the manner in which such holdings are custodied, some investors have sought exposure to ETH through investment vehicles that hold ETH and issue shares representing fractional undivided interests in their underlying ETH holdings. These vehicles, which were previously offered only to “accredited investors” on a private placement basis, have in the past traded at substantial premiums to net asset value, possibly due to the relative scarcity of traditional investment vehicles providing investment exposure to ETH.

Although we are an operating company, and we believe we offer a different value proposition than a ETH investment vehicle such as a spot ETH ETP, investors may nevertheless view our common stock as an alternative to an investment in an ETP, and choose to purchase shares of a spot ETP instead of our common stock. They may do so for a variety of reasons, including if they believe that ETPs offer a “pure play” exposure to ETH that is generally not subject to federal income tax at the entity level as we are, or the other risk factors applicable to an operating business, such as ours.

As a result of the foregoing factors, availability of spot ETPs for ETH and other digital assets could have a material adverse effect on the market price of our listed securities.

The emergence or growth of other digital assets, including those with significant private or public sector backing, could have a negative impact on the price of ETH and adversely affect our business.

As a result of our ETH strategy, our assets are concentrated in our ETH holdings. Accordingly, the emergence or growth of digital assets other than ETH may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. There are numerous alternative digital assets and many entities, including consortiums and financial institutions, are researching and investing resources into private or permissioned blockchain platforms or digital assets. Additionally, the Ethereum network has completed multiple major upgrades since then and may undertake additional upgrades in the future. If the mechanisms for validating transactions in other alternative digital assets are perceived as superior to the Ethereum network, those digital assets could gain market share relative to ETH.

Other alternative digital assets that compete with ETH in certain ways include “stablecoins,” which are designed to maintain a constant price because of, for instance, their issuers’ promise to hold high-quality liquid assets (such as U.S. dollar deposits and short-term U.S. treasury securities) equal to the total value of stablecoins in circulation. Stablecoins have grown rapidly as an alternative to ETH and other digital assets as a medium of exchange and store of value, particularly on digital asset trading platforms.

Additionally, central banks in some countries have started to introduce digital forms of legal tender. For example, China’s CBDC project was made available to consumers in January 2022, and governments including the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Israel have been discussing the potential creation of new CBDCs. Whether or not they incorporate blockchain or similar technology, CBDCs, as legal tender in the issuing jurisdiction, could also compete with, or replace, ETH and other digital assets as a medium of exchange or store of value. As a result, the emergence or growth of these or other digital assets could cause the market price of ETH to decrease, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and operating results.

Our ETH holdings are less liquid than our existing cash and cash equivalents and may not be able to serve as a source of liquidity for us to the same extent as cash and cash equivalents.

Historically, the ETH market has been characterized by significant volatility in price, limited liquidity and trading volumes compared to sovereign currencies markets, relative anonymity, a developing regulatory landscape, potential susceptibility to market abuse and manipulation, compliance and internal control failures at exchanges, and various other risks inherent in its entirely electronic, virtual form and decentralized network. During times of market instability, we may not be able to sell our ETH at favorable prices or at all. For example, a number of ETH trading venues temporarily halted deposits and withdrawals in 2022, although the Coinbase exchange (our principal market for ETH) has, to date, not done so. As a result, our ETH holdings may not be able to serve as a source of liquidity for us to the same extent as cash and cash equivalents. Further, ETH we hold with our custodians do not enjoy the same protections as are available to cash or securities deposited with or transacted by institutions subject to regulation by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. Additionally, we may be unable to enter into term loans or other capital raising transactions collateralized by our unencumbered ETH or otherwise generate funds using our ETH holdings, including in particular during times of market instability or when the price of ETH has declined significantly. If we are unable to sell our ETH, enter into additional capital raising transactions, including capital raising transactions using ETH as collateral, or otherwise generate funds using our ETH holdings, or if we are forced to sell our ETH at a significant loss, in order to meet our working capital requirements, our business and financial condition could be negatively impacted.

If we or our third-party service providers experience a security breach or cyberattack and unauthorized parties obtain access to our ETH, or if our private keys are lost or destroyed, or other similar circumstances or events occur, we may lose some or all of our ETH and our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Substantially all of the ETH and LsETH we own is held in custody accounts at institutional-grade digital asset custodians. Security breaches and cyberattacks are of particular concern with respect to our ETH. ETH and other blockchain-based cryptocurrencies and the entities that provide services to participants in the ETH ecosystem have been, and may in the future be, subject to security breaches, cyberattacks, or other malicious activities. A successful security breach or cyberattack could result in:

Further, any actual or perceived data security breach or cybersecurity attack directed at other companies with digital assets or companies that operate digital asset networks, regardless of whether we are directly impacted, could lead to a general loss of confidence in the broader blockchain ecosystem or in the use of the Ethereum network to conduct financial transactions, which could negatively impact us.

Attacks upon systems across a variety of industries, including industries related to ETH, are increasing in frequency, persistence, and sophistication, and, in many cases, are being conducted by sophisticated, well-funded and organized groups and individuals, including state actors. The techniques used to obtain unauthorized, improper or illegal access to systems and information (including personal data and digital assets), disable or degrade services, or sabotage systems are constantly evolving, may be difficult to detect quickly, and often are not recognized or detected until after they have been launched against a target. These attacks may occur on our systems or those of our third-party service providers or partners. We may experience breaches of our security measures due to human error, malfeasance, insider threats, system errors or vulnerabilities or other irregularities. Threats can come from a variety of sources, including criminal hackers, hacktivists, state-sponsored intrusions, industrial espionage, and insiders. In addition, certain types of attacks could harm us even if our systems are left undisturbed. For example, certain threats are designed to remain dormant or undetectable, sometimes for extended periods of time, or until launched against a target and we may not be able to implement adequate preventative measures. The risk of cyberattacks could also be increased by cyberwarfare in connection with the ongoing Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas conflicts, or other future conflicts, including potential proliferation of malware into systems unrelated to such conflicts. Any future breach of our operations or those of others in the ETH industry, including third-party services on which we rely, could materially and adversely affect our business.

We face risks relating to the custody of our ETH, including the loss or destruction of private keys required to access our ETH and cyberattacks or other data loss relating to our ETH.

We hold our ETH with regulated custodians that have duties to safeguard our private keys. Our custodial services contracts do not restrict our ability to reallocate our ETH among our custodians, and our ETH holdings may be concentrated with a single custodian from time to time. In light of the significant amount of ETH we hold, we will seek to engage additional custodians to achieve a greater degree of diversification in the custody of our ETH as the extent of potential risk of loss is dependent, in part, on the degree of diversification. If there is a decrease in the availability of digital asset custodians that we believe can safely custody our ETH, for example, due to regulatory developments or enforcement actions that cause custodians to discontinue or limit their services in the United States, we may need to enter into agreements that are less favorable than our current agreements or take other measures to custody our ETH, and our ability to seek a greater degree of diversification in the use of custodial services would be materially adversely affected.

ETH is controllable only by the possessor of both the unique public key and private key(s) relating to the local or online digital wallet in which the ETH is held. While the ETH blockchain ledger requires a public key relating to a digital wallet to be published when used in a transaction, private keys must be safeguarded and kept private in order to prevent a third party from accessing the ETH held in such wallet. To the extent the private key(s) for a digital wallet are lost, destroyed, or otherwise compromised and no backup of the private key(s) is accessible, neither we nor our custodians will be able to access the ETH held in the related digital wallet. Furthermore, we cannot provide assurance that our digital wallets, nor the digital wallets of our custodians held on our behalf, will not be compromised as a result of a cyberattack. ETH, as well as other digital assets and blockchain technologies, have been, and may in the future be, subject to security breaches, cyberattacks, or other malicious activities.

As of the date of this filing, the insurance that covers losses of our Ether holdings may cover none or only a small fraction of the value of the entirety of our Ether 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 Ether. Moreover, our use of custodians exposes us to the risk that the Ether 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 Ether. Any loss associated with such insolvency proceedings is unlikely to be covered by any insurance coverage we maintain related to our Ether. 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.

As part of our treasury management strategy, we may engage in staking, restaking, or other permitted activities that involve the use of “smart contracts” or decentralized applications. The use of smart contracts or decentralized applications entails certain risks including risks stemming from the existence of an “admin key” or coding flaws that could be exploited, potentially allowing a bad actor to issue or otherwise compromise the smart contract or decentralized application, potentially leading to a loss of our Ether. Like all software code, smart contracts are exposed to risk that the code contains a bug or other security vulnerability, which can lead to loss of assets that are held on or transacted through the contract or decentralized application. Smart contracts and decentralized applications may contain bugs, security vulnerabilities or poorly designed permission structures that could result in the irreversible loss of Ether or other digital assets. Exploits, including those stemming from admin key misuse, admin key compromise, or protocol flaws, have occurred in the past and may occur in the future.

Mutual funds, ETFs and their directors and management are subject to extensive regulation as “investment companies” and “investment advisers” under U.S. federal and state law; this regulation is intended for the benefit and protection of investors. We are not subject to, and do not otherwise voluntarily comply with, these laws and regulations. This means, among other things, that the execution of or changes to our ETH treasury strategy, the manner in which our ETH is custodied, our ability to engage in transactions with affiliated parties and our operating and investment activities generally are not subject to the extensive legal and regulatory requirements and prohibitions that apply to investment companies and investment advisers. Our board of directors has broad discretion over the investment, leverage and cash management policies it authorizes, whether in respect of our ETH holdings or other activities we may pursue, and has the power to change our current policies, including our strategy of acquiring and holding ETH.

Due to the unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of many ETH trading venues, ETH trading venues may experience greater fraud, security failures or regulatory or operational problems than trading venues for more established asset classes, which may result in a loss of confidence in ETH trading venues and adversely affect the value of our ETH.

ETH trading venues are relatively new and, in many cases, unregulated. Furthermore, there are many ETH trading venues which do not provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management teams, corporate practices and regulatory compliance. As a result, the marketplace may lose confidence in ETH trading venues, including prominent exchanges that handle a significant volume of ETH trading and/or are subject to regulatory oversight, in the event one or more ETH trading venues cease or pause for a prolonged period the trading of ETH or other digital assets, or experience fraud, significant volumes of withdrawal, security failures or operational problems.

Our ETH strategy exposes us to risk of non-performance by providers and counterparties.

Our ETH strategy exposes us to the risk of non-performance by providers and counterparties, whether contractual or otherwise. Risk of non-performance includes inability or refusal of a provider or counterparty to perform because of a deterioration in the counterparty’s financial condition and liquidity or for any other reason. For example, our execution partners, custodians, or other counterparties might fail to perform in accordance with the terms of our agreements with them, which could result in a loss of ETH, a loss of the opportunity to generate funds, or other losses.

Our primary provider risk with respect to our ETH is custodian performance obligations under the various custody arrangements we have entered into. In particular, SharpLink is reliant on our custodial relationships and agreements with Anchorage Digital Bank N.A. and its affiliates, as well as Coinbase Inc. and its affiliates. Any failures of our custodians to perform could have an impact on our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results. In addition, in the event of a termination of one or more of our custody agreements, the Company would be required to contract with an alternative custodian at terms and conditions that may not be as favorable as our current custody agreements.

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 perceived and actual counterparty and provider risk applicable to digital asset ownership and trading. Although these bankruptcies, closures and liquidations have not resulted in any loss or misappropriation of our ETH, nor have such events adversely impacted our access to our ETH, legal precedent created in these bankruptcy and other proceedings may increase the risk of future rulings adverse to our interests in the event one or more of our custodians becomes a debtor in a bankruptcy case or is the subject of other liquidation, insolvency or similar proceedings.

While all of our custodians are subject to regulatory regimes intended to protect customers in the event of a custodial bankruptcy, receivership or similar insolvency proceeding, no assurance can be provided that our custodially-held ETH and LsETH will not become part of the custodian’s insolvency estate if one or more of our custodians enters bankruptcy, receivership or similar insolvency proceedings. Additionally, if we pursue any strategies to create income streams or otherwise generate funds using our ETH holdings, we would become subject to additional counterparty risks. Any significant non-performance by providers and counterparties, including in particular the custodians with which we custody substantially all of our ETH, could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results.

If we are unable to recruit or retain skilled personnel, or if we lose the services of our Chairman of the Board of Directors and Co-Chief Executive Officers, our business, operating results, and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Our future success depends on our continuing ability to attract and retain highly skilled personnel. Competition for employees is intense. We may not be able to retain our current key employees or attract, train, and retain other highly skilled personnel in the future. Competition for qualified employees in the technology industry has historically been high. Our future success also depends in large part on the continued service of Joseph Lubin, our Chairman of the Board of Directors, Rob Phythian and Joseph Chalom as Co-Chief Executive Officers of the Company, and Robert DeLucia, Chief Financial Officer of the Company. If we lose the services of Messrs. Lubin, Phythian, Chalom or DeLucia, or if we are unable to attract, train and retain the highly skilled personnel we need, our business, operating results and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.