Author | Cubone Wu Says Blockchain
Since 2025, four U.S. public companies, represented by SharpLink Gaming, Bitmine Immersion Tech, Bit Digital, and BTCS Inc., have built an 'ETH micro-strategy' through large-scale purchases of ETH and investment in on-chain staking, creating a paradigm distinct from MicroStrategy's holding model. This strategy has not only reshaped the structure of corporate balance sheets but also promoted a narrative leap for Ethereum in the capital market. This article systematically organizes the core logic of these four companies in terms of funding paths, on-chain deployment, strategic motivations, and risk governance around ten key questions.
Question 1: Which companies currently hold the most ETH among U.S. publicly listed companies? How much do they each hold?
As of July 2025, SharpLink Gaming, Bitmine Immersion Tech, Bit Digital, and BTCS Inc. are among the companies with the largest ETH holdings in the U.S. stock market. SharpLink Gaming holds approximately 358K ETH, with Bitmine closely following at around 300.7K ETH; Bit Digital holds about 120.3K ETH, and BTCS Inc. has disclosed holdings of 31.9K ETH. Although Coinbase, as a trading platform, holds about 137.3K ETH, primarily for operational needs rather than strategic holdings, it is generally not included in the 'micro-strategy' category. The aforementioned four companies represent the current trend of Ethereum 'micro-strategy' in the U.S. stock market.
Question 2: What are the main businesses of these four companies? Who is leading their Ethereum micro-strategies?
These four companies originally had different business backgrounds, and the current Ethereum micro-strategies are led by the current CEOs or core board members of the companies:
SharpLink Gaming (SBET): SharpLink Gaming was originally a sports prediction and interactive gaming technology provider. Since 2025, the company has gradually increased its ETH holdings through PIPE and ATM financing methods, positioning it as a core asset on its balance sheet. The relevant financing was led by Consensys Software Inc., with participation from well-known crypto capitals such as Pantera Capital, Electric Capital, ParaFi Capital, and Galaxy Digital. Board Chairman Joseph Lubin (co-founder of Ethereum and founder of Consensys) is seen as a key driver of this strategic transformation, with his profound background in the blockchain field providing directional support for the company to introduce Ethereum reserves.
Bitmine Immersion Tech (BMNR): Bitmine was originally a blockchain infrastructure company, mainly operating Bitcoin mining sites and selling liquid cooling hardware, with operations covering low-cost energy regions such as Texas and Trinidad. In June 2025, the company raised approximately $250 million through a private placement of 55.6 million shares at $4.50 per share to expand its ETH reserves. Crypto capitals such as Founders Fund and Pantera Capital participated. Tom Lee, co-founder of Fundstrat, was appointed as chairman of the board to lead the ETH strategic path.
Bit Digital (BTBT): Originally a Bitcoin mining company, it has transformed into a digital asset infrastructure platform in recent years, focusing on expanding ETH validator deployment and staking yield strategies. The current CEO, Samir Tabar, has a background with Merrill Lynch and BitMEX, and has led the company to gradually accumulate and stake ETH since 2022, earning rewards by operating Ethereum validators. As of March 31, 2025, institutional shareholders include BlackRock, Invesco, and VanEck, holding 3.53%, 2.12%, and 1.61% of the company's shares, respectively.
BTCS Inc. (BTCS): Since 2014, it has focused on building blockchain infrastructure, and since 2021, it has concentrated on the Ethereum ecosystem, laying out validator nodes and block construction businesses, and launched the Builder+ block optimization tool in 2024 to explore Ethereum staking and block revenue opportunities. The ETH strategy is led by CEO Charles W. Allen, reflecting the company's continuous investment in the long-term development of blockchain.
Question 3: What are the main sources of funds for these companies' large-scale purchases of ETH?
All four companies did not rely on operating cash flows to purchase coins, but instead diversified their funding sources for the ETH micro-strategy through PIPE, ATM issuance, convertible bonds, DeFi lending, and liquidation of BTC assets, reflecting a common strategy of 'leveraging on-chain yields with balance sheets'.
SharpLink Gaming mainly builds its financing platform through a combination of PIPE and ATM. In May 2025, the company completed approximately $420 million in PIPE financing; on July 17, it submitted a revised document to the U.S. SEC, increasing the original ATM financing limit from $1 billion to $6 billion and including part of the PIPE in a unified registration scope. The company has explicitly stated in multiple announcements that these funds will be used to build ETH strategic reserves and execute on-chain staking.
Bitmine Immersion Tech completed a $250 million private placement in July 2025 and introduced Founders Fund to obtain a 9.1% strategic stake. The company stated plans to use all financing for constructing ETH reserves, including subsequent staking yield construction; however, as of now, there has been no public disclosure of an on-chain staking deployment path.
Bit Digital adopts a hybrid financing strategy of 'BTC liquidation + public issuance'. In July 2025, the company raised approximately $172 million through public issuance and the sale of BTC (about 280 coins), specifically for purchasing ETH and constructing an on-chain staking yield model. It subsequently announced on July 15 that it would again raise approximately $67.3 million through a directed issuance of common stock, continuing to expand its ETH strategic allocation.
BTCS Inc. continuously builds its ETH holdings primarily through three paths: 'ATM issuance + convertible bonds + DeFi lending', and has raised its target financing scale to $225 million, emphasizing compounding growth of ETH per share with minimal shareholder dilution.
Question 4: Why did these companies choose to bet on ETH instead of BTC?
Compared to BTC as a 'non-yielding reserve asset', ETH, after transitioning to PoS, possesses characteristics that can be staked and generate stable on-chain yields, becoming a digital asset tool similar to 'yield-bearing treasury bonds'. At the same time, the Ethereum ecosystem is still in the phase of distributed narratives, lacking a leading monopolist like MSTR for BTC, leaving more room for narrative margins and stronger price elasticity, facilitating small and medium enterprises to enter through financing + staking. In addition, the on-chain use of ETH is broader, allowing companies to participate in the validator network, re-staking ecosystems, and even modular security collaboration mechanisms.
Question 5: Are these companies' ETH holdings participating in staking? What are the differences in staking paths?
SharpLink: Has used almost all of its ETH holdings for staking, with an annualized return range of about 3%-4%. By July 2025, it has accumulated over 415 ETH in staking rewards.
Bit Digital: Actively promoting native staking, by the end of the first quarter, approximately 21,568 ETH had participated in validation, accounting for nearly 88% of the holdings during that period, earning about $600,000 in the quarter.
BTCS: Takes a multi-path approach, having staked about 10,460 ETH through Rocket Pool and solo staking, with another approximately 4,382 ETH in queue. Meanwhile, the company has also collateralized some ETH on Aave for lending yields, constructing diversified on-chain revenue pathways.
Bitmine: Although it has not yet disclosed staking execution status, it has publicly stated multiple times that it will initiate the ETH staking plan after financing is completed.
The four companies exhibit different trade-offs and technical paths in their staking methods, node control, and on-chain operational strategies.
Question 6: Have the companies disclosed their ETH profit and loss situation? Is the on-chain address transparent?
SharpLink: is currently the only company with publicly traceable ETH addresses, and its fund flows and staking paths can be fully verified through platforms like Arkham. The company also disclosed that the average purchase price of ETH is $2,825, and as of July 2025, it has achieved a floating profit of approximately $260 million.
Bit Digital: Has not disclosed its on-chain address, but continuously updates key data such as ETH holdings and staking yields through financial reports, demonstrating basic transparency.
BTCS: Has not disclosed its address, but has detailed the allocation structure of ETH in Rocket Pool, solo staking, and Aave lending in its official website and SEC filings, with a clear asset path to follow.
Bitmine: Latest disclosed holding reaches 300,657 ETH, with a total market value exceeding $1 billion, an average purchase price of about $3,461.89, funded by private placement completed in early July; however, its on-chain address and staking details have not yet been made public.
Overall, SharpLink is the most complete in terms of profit and loss disclosure and on-chain transparency. The other three companies, while not disclosing their addresses, have all provided key information in their financial reports, forming a basic traceable framework.
Question 7: What is the proportion of ETH in the asset structure of these companies? Has it become a core reserve?
According to the latest data, as of July 2025, the current market values of SharpLink, Bitmine, Bit Digital, and BTCS's ETH (calculated at a unit price of approximately $3,573) are approximately $1.278 billion, $1.074 billion, $429 million, and $114 million, respectively. Compared to the latest estimated market values of these companies (approximately $2.9 billion, $3.4 billion, $1.23 billion, and $153 million), the proportion of ETH assets is approximately:
• SharpLink: Approximately 44%
• Bitmine: Approximately 32%
• Bit Digital: Approximately 35%
• BTCS: Approximately 74%
It should be noted that the rapid increase in the proportion of ETH held by these companies may be partially influenced by the hype of on-chain narratives, indicating market behavior that leverages topic effects to boost valuations. In the absence of stable operating cash flows, the sustainability of such strategies and the risk exposure they bring still rely on further observation of their cash flow conditions, financing pace, and staking deployment progress in financial reports.
Question 8: Have these ETH micro-strategies driven stock price increases? What is the market feedback?
As of July 18, 2025, all four U.S. companies implementing ETH micro-strategies have experienced significant stock price increases, but also accompanied by drastic declines, with an overall high degree of volatility:
SharpLink Gaming (SBET): The stock price started around $2.58 at the end of May, peaked at $124.12 in early June, then fell sharply, closing at $28.98 on July 18, with a phase retracement of 92.5%. Although it has recently risen again, it remains significantly below the high level overall.
BitMine Immersion Tech (BMNR): After listing in June, it surged to $161.00 in a short time, and as of July 18, it has fallen back to $42.35, a retracement of about 73.7%, indicating a strong speculative response from the market regarding its ETH strategy.
BTCS Inc. (BTCS): From a low point of $1.35 in April, it rose to a peak of $8.49, an increase of over 528%. Currently, it is at $6.57, still at a relatively high level, but there was also a rapid adjustment of over 20% in between.
Bit Digital (BTBT): The stock price rose from $1.69 to $4.49 before falling back to $3.84, resulting in a cumulative increase of about 127%, with multiple pullbacks during the period, showing significant overall volatility.
Overall, the 'ETH micro-strategy' has indeed become a core catalyst for the short-term surge in stock prices of the aforementioned companies, but due to the generally smaller scale of the related enterprises, the on-chain assets' prominent role in supporting valuations, and the extreme sensitivity of market trading, SharpLink and BitMine have experienced over 70% deep retracements in a short period, demonstrating clear high-risk and high-volatility characteristics, where the drastic inflow and outflow of funds have become a typical market response to this strategy.
Question 9: What are the main risks of these strategies? Do they have sustainability?
These types of ETH micro-strategies carry multiple risks, primarily including the following aspects:
First is the risk of price and liquidity. ETH itself experiences severe price fluctuations, and if the market undergoes a deep correction, it will directly impact the company's book valuation, especially under staking conditions where assets are illiquid in the short term, exacerbating liquidity pressure.
Secondly, there are on-chain risks and uncertainties in re-staking. To improve the yield of ETH holdings, companies may participate some of their assets in on-chain staking or re-staking. While this can enhance capital efficiency in the short term, it also introduces risks such as smart contracts, penalty mechanisms, and validator node errors. If systemic issues occur in the on-chain ecosystem, it may lead to a rapid depreciation or unavailability of staking assets, affecting financial stability.
The third risk is financing structure risk. Currently, most companies rely on at-the-market (ATM) issuance mechanisms to provide funding sources for purchasing ETH. These ongoing equity financings will face efficiency declines or even financing interruptions during market downturns, and there are also issues of diluting existing shareholders' rights.
Moreover, as the number of validators increases, the downward pressure on PoS yields is gradually becoming apparent. If on-chain yields continue to decline while the companies' finances have not achieved positive cash flow, it will be difficult to maintain the yield coverage of ETH strategies.
Ultimately, whether a company has dynamic rebalancing capabilities, robust financial scheduling mechanisms, and the ability to control the rhythm between on-chain and off-chain operations will determine whether this strategy can truly achieve long-term stable operation.
Question 10: Do these companies have the opportunity to become the 'Ethereum version of MicroStrategy'? Why has a leading pattern not yet formed?
Currently, SharpLink and Bitmine have initially formed a market recognition as representative companies of 'ETH micro-strategies', but there remains a significant gap from truly establishing a global pricing anchor effect similar to that of MicroStrategy in the Bitcoin market. The main reasons include:
Firstly, the asset attributes of ETH are more complex. Unlike BTC, which is a fixed supply and non-stakable 'value reserve asset', ETH has income attributes and a dynamically adjusted supply mechanism, making it more like a composite financial instrument rather than a pure reserve asset. This multi-faceted positioning makes it difficult for companies to build a single narrative anchor around ETH.
Secondly, there are high thresholds in the execution of on-chain strategies. ETH micro-strategies often require companies to operate or host staking nodes or participate in more complex on-chain yield deployments, with technical complexity and security risks far exceeding simple asset allocation behaviors, making it difficult for most companies to replicate on a large scale.
Thirdly, the current market capitalizations of related companies are generally small, financing tools are limited, and a collaborative mechanism similar to MSTR's 'valuation premium + convertible bonds + media narratives' has not yet been established, nor has a financial flywheel that can drive secondary market sentiment resonance been built.
Finally, the current ETH market still lacks a 'representative enterprise' with high consensus, broad coverage, and strong leverage capability. To become a true 'Ethereum version of MicroStrategy', it not only requires continuous accumulation of ETH but also needs to form a closed loop across multiple dimensions such as financing capability, on-chain deployment, narrative control, and value transmission.
