Written by: Cubone Wu Blockchain
This article does not constitute any investment advice. Readers should strictly comply with local laws and regulations and not participate in illegal financial activities.
Starting from 2025, four US-listed companies represented by SharpLink Gaming, Bitmine Immersion Tech, Bit Digital, and BTCS Inc. have built a "ETH Micro Strategy" different from MicroStrategy's holding pattern by massively purchasing ETH and engaging in on-chain staking. This strategy not only reshaped the corporate balance sheet structure but also promoted the narrative transition of Ethereum in the capital market. This article systematically combs through 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 US-listed companies currently hold the most ETH? How much do they each hold?
As of July 2025, SharpLink Gaming, Bitmine Immersion Tech, Bit Digital, and BTCS Inc. are the companies with the highest ETH holdings in the US stock market. SharpLink Gaming holds approximately 358K ETH, Bitmine follows closely with about 300.7K; Bit Digital holds about 120.3K, and BTCS Inc. discloses holdings of 31.9K. Although Coinbase holds about 137.3K ETH as a trading platform, it is mainly for operational needs and not considered a strategic holding, thus typically not included in the "micro strategy" category. These four companies constitute the representative camp of the current "ETH micro-strategyization" trend in the US stock market.
Question 2: What are the main businesses of these four companies? Who is leading their Ethereum micro-strategy?
These four companies had different original business backgrounds, and their current Ethereum micro-strategy is led by the current CEO or core board members:
SharpLink Gaming (SBET): Originally a sports prediction and interactive gaming technology provider, the company has gradually increased its ETH holdings through PIPE and ATM financing since 2025, using it as a core balance sheet configuration. The related 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 (Ethereum co-founder, Consensys founder) is considered a key driver of this strategic transformation, with his deep background in the blockchain field providing directional support for the company's introduction of Ethereum reserves.
Bitmine Immersion Tech (BMNR): Bitmine was originally a blockchain infrastructure company, mainly operating Bitcoin mining sites and selling liquid cooling hardware, with business coverage in low-cost energy regions like Texas and Trinidad. In June 2025, the company raised approximately $250 million by privately issuing 55.6 million shares at $4.50 per share to expand ETH reserves. Crypto capitals like Founders Fund and Pantera Capital participated. Fundstrat co-founder Tom Lee was appointed as board chairman to lead the ETH strategic path.
Bit Digital (BTBT): Originally a Bitcoin mining enterprise, it has recently transformed into a digital asset infrastructure platform, focusing on ETH validator deployment and staking yield strategies. Current CEO Samir Tabar, with a background from Merrill Lynch and BitMEX, has led the company to gradually accumulate and stake ETH since 2022 to obtain yields by running 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): Focusing on blockchain infrastructure construction since 2014, the company has focused on the Ethereum ecosystem since 2021, deploying validator nodes and block construction business, and launched the Builder+ block optimization tool in 2024 to explore Ethereum staking and block reward opportunities. The ETH strategy is led by CEO Charles W. Allen, reflecting the company's continuous investment in long-term blockchain development.
Question 3: What are the main funding sources for these companies' large-scale ETH purchases?
None of the four companies relied on operating cash flow to purchase coins. Instead, they provided funding support for the ETH micro-strategy through diversified paths such as PIPE, ATM issuance, convertible bonds, DeFi lending, and BTC asset monetization, demonstrating a common strategy of "leveraging on-chain yields with the balance sheet".
SharpLink Gaming mainly built a financing platform by combining 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, raising the ATM financing limit from $1 billion to $6 billion and incorporating the PIPE portion into a unified registration scope. The company has clearly stated in multiple declarations 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 with a 9.1% strategic stake. The company stated plans to use all financing for building ETH reserves, including subsequent staking yield construction, but no public on-chain staking deployment path has been disclosed so far.
Bit Digital adopted a combined financing strategy of "BTC monetization + public issuance". In July 2025, the company raised approximately $172 million through public offering and selling BTC (about 280 coins in total), specifically used for purchasing ETH and building an on-chain staking yield model. Subsequently, on July 15, it announced another targeted issuance of ordinary shares raising about $67.3 million to continue expanding ETH strategic allocation.
BTCS Inc. mainly builds ETH holdings through three paths: "ATM issuance + convertible bonds + DeFi lending", and has raised the target financing scale to $225 million, emphasizing achieving ETH per share compound growth with minimal shareholder dilution.
Question 4: Why do these enterprises choose to bet on ETH rather than BTC?
Compared to BTC as a "non-yield reserve asset", ETH after transitioning to PoS has the characteristics of being stakable and generating stable on-chain yields, becoming a digital asset tool similar to "yield-bearing government bonds". Meanwhile, the Ethereum ecosystem is still in a distributed narrative stage, lacking a dominant leader like MSTR for BTC, with greater narrative marginal space and stronger price elasticity, which is conducive for small and medium-sized enterprises to enter through financing + staking. Additionally, ETH has broader on-chain uses, allowing enterprises to participate in validator networks, re-staking ecosystems, and even modular security collaborative mechanisms.
Question 5: Are these enterprises' ETH participating in staking? What are the differences in staking paths?
SharpLink: Has used almost all ETH holdings for staking, with an annual yield range of about 3%-4%, accumulating over 415 ETH in staking rewards by July 2025.
Bit Digital: Actively promoting native staking, with about 21,568 ETH participating in validation by the end of the first quarter, accounting for nearly 88% of current holdings, generating approximately $600,000 in revenue that quarter.
BTCS: Adopting multiple paths, having staked about 10,460 ETH through Rocket Pool and solo staking, with another 4,382 ETH queuing. The company also collateralized some ETH on Aave to obtain lending yields, constructing a diversified on-chain yield path.
Bitmine: Although not yet disclosing staking execution, it has repeatedly stated it will launch an ETH staking plan after financing is completed.
The four companies demonstrate different trade-offs and technical paths in staking methods, node control rights, and on-chain operational strategies.
Question 6: Do the companies disclose their ETH profit and loss? Are their on-chain addresses transparent?
SharpLink: Currently the only enterprise with a publicly traceable ETH address, with fund flows and staking paths fully verifiable through platforms like Arkham. The company also disclosed an average ETH purchase price of $2,825, realizing approximately $260 million in floating profits by July 2025.
Bit Digital: Has not disclosed on-chain addresses but continuously updates key data such as ETH holdings and staking rewards through financial reports, maintaining basic transparency.
BTCS: Similarly has not disclosed addresses but detailed the ETH configuration structure in Rocket Pool, solo staking, and Aave lending on its website and SEC documents, with clear asset paths.
Bitmine: Recently disclosed holdings of 300,657 ETH, with a total market value exceeding $1 billion, and an average purchase price of about $3,461.89, funded by the private placement completed in early July; however, its on-chain address and staking details remain undisclosed.
Overall, SharpLink is the most comprehensive in terms of profit and loss disclosure and on-chain transparency. The other three companies, while not disclosing addresses, provide key information in their financial reports, forming a basically 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 value of ETH for SharpLink, Bitmine, Bit Digital, and BTCS (calculated at approximately $3,573 per unit) is about $1.278 billion, $1.074 billion, $429 million, and $114 million, respectively. Compared to their latest estimated market values (29 billion, 34 billion, 12.3 billion, and 1.53 billion dollars, respectively), the proportion of ETH assets is approximately:
• SharpLink: About 44%
• Bitmine: About 32%
• Bit Digital: About 35%
• BTCS: About 74%
It should be noted that the rapid increase in ETH proportion for these companies may be partially influenced by on-chain narrative heat, involving market behaviors that drive valuation through topic effects. In the absence of stable operating cash flow support, the sustainability of such strategies and their risk exposure still depend on further observation of cash flow conditions, financing rhythm, and staking deployment progress in their financial reports.
Question 8: Have these ETH micro-strategies driven stock price increases? What is the market feedback?
As of July 18, 2025, the stock prices of the four U.S. companies implementing ETH micro-strategies have experienced significant increases but also accompanied by sharp declines, with extremely large overall volatility:
SharpLink Gaming (SBET): The stock price started at around $2.58 in late May, reached a high of $124.12 in early June, then sharply fell back, closing at $28.98 on July 18, with a stage-wise pullback of 92.5%. Although it has recently risen again, it remains far below its peak level.
BitMine Immersion Tech (BMNR): After listing in June, it soared to $161.00 in a short period, falling back to $42.35 by July 18, with a pullback of about 73.7%, showing that the market's initial reaction to its ETH strategy was highly speculative.
BTCS Inc. (BTCS): Rose from a low of $1.35 in April to a high of $8.49, an increase of over 528%, currently closing at $6.57. Although still relatively high, it has also experienced rapid adjustments of over 20%.
Bit Digital (BTBT): Stock price rose from $1.69 to $4.49 before falling back to $3.84, with a cumulative increase of about 127%, with multiple pullbacks and significant overall volatility.
Overall, the "ETH micro-strategy" has indeed become the core catalytic factor for short-term stock price surges for these companies. However, due to the generally small size of these enterprises, on-chain assets have a prominent supporting effect on valuation, and market trading is extremely sensitive. SharpLink and BitMine experienced over 70% deep pullbacks in a short period, showing clear high-risk and high-volatility characteristics, with violent price fluctuations caused by concentrated capital inflows and outflows becoming a typical market response to this strategy.
Question 9: What are the main risks of such strategies? Are they sustainable?
These ETH micro-strategies involve multiple risks, primarily including the following aspects:
First, price and liquidity risks. ETH itself has extreme price volatility. If the market experiences a deep pullback, it will directly affect the book valuation of enterprises, especially when assets are in a staking state and not short-term liquid, which will exacerbate liquidity pressure.
Second, on-chain risks and re-staking uncertainty. To improve the yield of ETH holdings, enterprises may participate in on-chain staking or re-staking, which, while potentially improving capital efficiency in the short term, introduces risks such as smart contract issues, penalty mechanisms, and validator node errors. If a systemic problem occurs in the on-chain ecosystem, it could cause staked assets to depreciate or become unusable in a short time, affecting financial stability.
Third, financing structure risks. Currently, most companies rely on at-the-market (ATM) issuance mechanisms to fund ETH purchases. Such continuous equity financing will face efficiency decline or even financing interruption when the market cools, while also risking dilution of existing shareholders' rights.
Additionally, as the number of validators increases, the downward pressure on PoS yield is gradually emerging. If the on-chain yield continues to decline while the enterprise's finances have not achieved positive cash flow, it will be difficult to maintain the yield coverage of the ETH strategy.
Ultimately, whether the enterprise has the ability to dynamically adjust positions, maintain a stable financial scheduling mechanism, and 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 a chance to become the "Ethereum version of MicroStrategy"? Why hasn't a leading format been formed?
Currently, SharpLink and Bitmine have initially formed a market perception of representative companies for the "ETH micro-strategy", but they are still far from truly forming a global pricing anchor effect similar to MicroStrategy in the Bitcoin market. The main reasons include:
First, ETH's asset attributes are more complex. Unlike BTC as a fixed-supply, non-stakable "value reserve asset", ETH has yield attributes and a dynamically adjusted supply mechanism, making it more like a composite financial instrument than a pure reserve asset. This multi-positioning makes it difficult for enterprises to construct a single narrative anchor around ETH.
Second, there are high barriers to on-chain strategy execution. ETH micro-strategies often require enterprises to operate or host staking nodes, or participate in more complex on-chain yield deployments. The technical complexity and security risks are far higher than simple asset allocation, making it difficult for most enterprises to replicate at scale.
Third, the market value of current related companies is generally small, with limited financing tools. They have not formed a collaborative mechanism similar to MSTR's "valuation premium + convertible bonds + media narrative", nor established a financial flywheel that can drive secondary market sentiment resonance.
Finally, the ETH market currently lacks a "representative enterprise" with high consensus, broad coverage, and strong leverage capabilities. To become a true "Ethereum version of MicroStrategy", it not only needs to continuously accumulate ETH but also form a closed loop in multiple dimensions, including financing capabilities, on-chain deployment, narrative control, and valuation transmission.
