We discuss liquidity and size as competitive advantages of Sharplink to grow ETH per share over time. We believe we can do bigger, better deals with our ETH that are sized beyond reach of most players in our ecosystem and therefore command better economics as we grow ETH holdings. The more ETH we have all else equal, the more deals available to us. Liquid ETH that doesn't need to go through an unstaking queue useful for deployments too at times. As we increase our deployments, the goal is to increase the ETH rate of return on marginal deployments over time (as we push further out our view of the efficient yield / ETH denominated return frontier). Having the size to negotiate and deploy is one of the things we view as a major advantage. Our Linea, Etherfi, Eigen deal for $200m from earlier this year is an example. Same deal isn't very interesting to them in small size. Our Galaxy fund MOU announcement follows similar principals. The sizes are attractive so deals can be made. Additionally, when we do capital markets deals like the one we did to raise the $75m or the ATM historically (when we were above mNAV 1), the pricing, and scale factor in our trading volumes. It's less likely someone could offer the same economics to us all else equal if we had 50% of the volumes. There's a long list of treasuries that launched late last year with anemic trading volumes today. I personally have not seen many similarly sized, competitively priced capital markets transactions come from them. With almost 50% of the stock owned by institutions, we believe each marginal $1 of shares repurchased reduces volumes by more than $1 (part of why I believe we went from hundreds of millions a day last year to a still strong ~$50m now is that we went from ~5-6% institutionally owned to 47% in under a year). Great for adoption, it was our goal to be the trusted player. But there are tradeoffs. A lot of those institutions are longer term strategies. We believe more of the shares we repurchase come from the active trader bucket than from those institutions, so volumes can get reduced with repurchases. So to remain kinetic, get stronger terms raising and have the ability to raise at a good pace off the ATM in the future, we consider ongoing liquidity. We have some large institutional holders who likely have position limits as a % of the stock, and dynamic risk parameters that consider their position size as a function of trading volumes (slippage to exit position in X time). So repurchases increase their ownership %, and could reduce the liquidity which may mean on the margins they get pushed out of some of their position (forced seller). Finally, ability to do the trade at opportunistic times. ~$50m of Sharplink trades daily. $10B of ETH traded in the last 24H. We were able to repurchase $10m of shares at $4.69 and 10,000 ETH at $1670 when the market gave us the chance. I don't think we could have bought back $26m of SBET at $4.69 in the same time period. So we were able to get our ETH per share exposure at those prices via a hybrid approach. Obviously the lower the mNAV the more that changes the calculus of ETH per share growth, versus liquidity, target price slippage, versus the ETH purchase and deployments in the pipeline and their upside, etc. It's all a tradeoff, we think repurchases were accretive when we did them, and we thought ETH was a great buy too for our goals. We'll continue to dynamically assess on a number of criteria, and try to be consistent in our frameworks so we can be trusted by institutions and individual investors alike to execute on our mission through a long term, holistic, expected value lens. We will also continue to seek input from stockholders when we do transactions to ensure our strategy and vision are aligned, our frameworks are stress tested and evolve them as it makes sense.

The EF wrote this for the people whose job it is to be skeptical, not those of us who already believe. It reads like an internal due diligence memo a central bank would build before picking a settlement layer. It's objective, and unapologetic in comparing Ethereum to other chains. It explains the importance of different evaluation criteria to set the table before laying out the facts on Ethereum's dominance: Page 5: Quantifies security cost. Finalizing a fraudulent transaction on Ethereum costs about $50.7B to pull off, against $76B staked. Your stake gets slashed on the way out. That's more than Solana, BNB Chain and TRON hold combined. Page 28: Want to know who really controls a chain Look at genesis distribution. ETH: ~17% to insiders. Other chains were 50-90% to insiders. Check the charts. Page 37: Zero outages since 2015. None of the other players compared can say that. Page 38: Ethereum runs 5+ independent clients. Other L1s compared run 1-2. They explain the importance of client diversity too. Page 47: "Public blockchains aggregate global liquidity. Stablecoins, tokenized securities, and financial primitives on Ethereum are immediately usable across a broad market of participants. Permissioned ledgers remain liquidity-constrained by design. Even when technically functional, they often fail to achieve economic relevance beyond the initiating consortium." It goes on from there. This is a great information source that I hope becomes one of the first resources governments and institutions reference when considering their settlement network.

Backwards framing in my opinion. Stablecoin growth, RWA growth, agentic payment growth are all part of the ETH opportunity… when I see more stablecoins minted, or Blackrock announces new tokenized funds, that is a sign to me that the thesis is playing out. More money onchain, bigger market, more economic security needed, more transaction volume potential. If Stablecoin number was shrinking that would be a different story but when a leading indicator rises I’d say that’s good news.

This market feels like a liquidity and narrative story perpetuating each other more than a structural change. If I’m right, it’s short lived and resolves post SpaceX (assuming the bankers stick the landing, and there’s a stacked team working on it). If the IPO goes well the effect works in reverse (positive for crypto). 1/n 🧵