Author: Zhou, ChainCatcher
During this downturn in ETH, the two largest treasury companies have both incurred losses of over 50%.
SharpLink has resumed buying after eight months, recently accumulating 39,196 ETH at an average cost ofapproximately $3,609, resulting in a current unrealized loss of over $1.7 billion.
Bitmine continues to expand its balance sheet, with holdings reaching 5.7 million ETH, approximately 4.7% of ETH’s circulating supply,resulting in unrealized losses exceeding $10 billion.
Meanwhile, both companiesareincluded in the Russell Index and are both funders of the newly established Ethereum research institute, Ethlabs.
The cost basis and stock price declines of the two companies are actually quite similar, but the market’s valuation discounts are markedly different. SharpLink trades at a discount of approximately 21% to its ETH net asset value, while Bitmine’s discount is only about 6%—more than three times smaller.
If ETHthis market cyclehas hit bottom, and investors want to gain indirect exposure to ETH through stocks, should they choose SharpLink or Bitmine?
The answer may not lie in whose story is told better, but in specific dimensions such as cost basis, financing capability, liquidity, and narrativewhetherthese can be realized,especially in understanding where this discount divergence truly comes from.
What chips are you holding?
SharpLinkonhas a full institutional narrative:Co-founder-level Ethereum connections Joe Lubin serve as Chairman, and former BlackRock digital assets executive Joseph Chalom serves as Co-CEO;the companystarted last yearadvancing RWA tokenization partnerships, with plans to tokenize SharpLink’s own equity on Ethereum.
Image source:RootData
Added to the Russell index inclusion and cumulative yields from ETH staking.Each of these factors, on its own, tells a story of valuation premium.
Bitmine’s advantage lies in its more direct scale, holding 5.7 million ETH, and its chairman, Tom Lee, enjoys significantly higher market visibility and media exposure than his peers.
The company has been included in the higher-barrier Russell 1000 Index, and according to management, this will bring hundreds to thousands of new institutional investors, as passive funds typically hold 18% to 20% of a publicly traded company’s outstanding shares.
Both chip lists appear strong, but the market ultimately recognized only one for its discount correction. What truly made the difference were several more specific metrics.
Position cost and stock price reaction
First, let’s look at the most direct question: who bought ETH more cheaply?
According to Sharplink's announcement on June 30, the company purchased 10,000 ETH at an average price of approximately $1,611, increasing its total holdings to 886,725 ETH, consisting of 632,719 native ETH, 181,299 ETH redeemable from lsETH, and 72,707 ETH redeemable from weETH.
The average cost basis for SharpLink is approximately $3.609, and with the current price around $1,650, the unrealized loss is approximately $1.74 billion, a decline of about 54.3%.
As of June 28, 2026, BitMine’s total Ethereum holdings reached 5,700,040 ETH, accounting for approximately 4.7% of Ethereum’s total supply.According toon-chaindata,its average cost basis is around $3,400 per ETH, with an unrealized loss of approximately $11 billion, representing a decline of about 51.5%.
The cost basis and percentage decline for both are very similar. The difference lies in the absolute size of the positions: Bitmine’s position is 6.4 times larger than SharpLink’s, causing the absolute unrealized loss to be more than six times greater.
At the stock price level, the price movements of both companies are highly similar: both experienced a sharp surge shortly after listing, followed by a steady decline, and are now trading sideways at low levels.
As of the close on July 1, SharpLink's stock price dropped from a high of $124 to around $5, a decline of approximately 96%, while Bitmine fell from a high of $160 to around $14, a decline of approximately 91%. In terms of market capitalization, SharpLink is approximately $1.02 billion, and Bitmine is approximately $7.6 billion.
Funding capacity and liquidity
SharpLink's funding history has largely consisted of consistent, small-scale dilutive issuances. In the past, the company primarily raised capital through ATM offerings, gradually acquiring ETH—a process that was slow in pace and resulted in gradual dilution.
The funds for this restart of the buyback,primarilycome fromlast month’s completionof a $75 million private placement, issuing 10,013,400 common shares and an equal number of warrants, with proceeds explicitly allocated for working capital, continued ETH accumulation, and share repurchases.
In addition to leveraged coin purchases, SharpLink is also boosting returns through staking; since launching its ETH treasury strategy, the company has accumulated staking rewards of 22,102 ETH.
In contrast, Bitmine’s fundraising pace has been significantly more aggressive. According to the 10x Research report, Bitmine raised $19.2 billion through 50 equity offerings between July 2025 and May 2026, all of which was used to purchase approximately 5.54 million ETH.
Last month, the company began adopting the strategy of the largest Bitcoin treasurycompany, issuing preferred stock products; its Class A perpetual preferred stock, BMNP, has been approved for listing on the New York Stock Exchange, and the board has approved a cash dividend of $0.1056 per share, to be paid on July 10 to shareholders of record as of June 30.
It is worth noting thatthe inclusion in the Russell Indexes has somewhat enhanced the fundraising capabilities of both companies. SharpLink has been included in the Russell 3000, while Bitmine has been included in the more selective Russell 1000.
Tom Lee, Chairman of BitMine, said that many actively managed funds only buy stocks in the Russell 1000, and typically 20% to 25% of a single stock's market capitalization is held by passive index funds or ETFs.
As a result,the passive capital inflow from index inclusion directly enhances trading liquidity and buying pressure for the stock, effectively expanding financing channels for DAT, which requires continuous equity issuance.
However, the difference in financing capacity is ultimately reflected in mNAV. According to the latest data tracked by DefiLlama, SharpLink is currently trading at a ~21% discount to its ETH net asset value, while Bitmine’s discount is only ~6%.
The deeper the discount, the more the additional issuance further depresses the stock price, creating a negative cycle. SharpLink’s pause in repurchasing over the past eight months was largely due to being trapped in this cycle.
In terms of liquidity, Bitmine has long been among the most actively traded stocks in the U.S., with daily trading volumes often reaching hundreds of millions of dollars. SharpLink’s daily trading volume is an order of magnitude smaller.
For investors looking to execute a discount trading strategy,liquidity directly determines the cost of entering and exiting positions, as bid-ask spreads and slippage can erode theoretical discount gains—on this front, Bitmine clearly has an advantage.
Howeverthis advantage does not come without a cost.According to 10x Research, Bitmine incurred an overall loss of approximately $10.1 billion over the past year—a figure that includes not only unrealized losses from the decline in ETH price, but also an additional loss: investors previously paid a premium over mNAV to purchase BMNR shares, accumulating a total premium payment of about $4.6 billion.
In other words, investors who buy Bitmine shares take on an additional layer of risk compared to simply holding ETH—they must bear not only the risk of ETH price declines but also the risk of the stock price falling from a premium to a discount. SharpLink, which has long traded at a discount, is less exposed to this additional loss.
RWA and the ability to deliver on ecosystem narratives
Regarding the recent popular narrative around stock tokenization, SharpLink actually announced in September 2025 its plan to tokenize SBET shares in collaboration with Superstate via its Opening Bell platform, becoming the first publicly traded company to issue stocks natively on Ethereum.
In October this year, Co-CEO Joseph Chalom mentioned in an interview that the company plans to launch a compliant tokenized version in the near future, prioritizing Ethereum over Solana as the underlying infrastructure.
However, as of now, this initiative remains at the stage of expressed intent, with no actual on-chain transactions or revenue observed. The company and Superstate previously stated that additional regulatory approvals are required for how tokenized stocks can be traded on decentralized exchanges.
Bitmine takes a different approach to its ecosystem narrative, hedging single-asset exposure through so-called moonshot stock allocations, including indirect holdings in OpenAI and equity investments in Beast Industries. Such investmentsdonotyetgenerate stable cash flow, but instead provide the market with additional speculative potential.
In addition, the two companies jointly funded the newly established Ethereum research institute, Ethlabs. This comes at a time when the Ethereum Foundation has cut approximately 40% of its 2026 budget and eliminated 54 positions, with former core development coordinator Trent Van Epps warning that core development could face a funding gap within three to nine months.
In response to specific warnings about this governance risk, SharpLink Co-CEO Joseph Chalom said Ethlabs will complement the Ethereum Foundation, but acknowledged that the two will “overlap in some areas” and that “the most concentrated talent” will be at Ethlabs. Bitmine Chairman Tom Lee, meanwhile, directly stated that the likelihood of a crisis is zero, as funding has already been secured.
Overall, whether it’s RWA tokenization or Ethlabs, both are currently better positioned as long-term industry-level narratives rather than concrete businesses that have already translated into revenue or valuation. On this front, both companies are essentially on the same starting line.
Finally
If you only look at the trade execution during this bottoming phase, Bitmine is the more convenient entry point. The market is willing to offer it a price closer to its net value, with better liquidity, meaning lower trading friction and more predictable entry and exit costs—these are tangible advantages.
However, if you look at long-term holding, Bitmine's weaknesses are also clear: the perpetual preferred stock layered into its capital structure represents a fixed cost that has already begun to be paid.
In contrast, SharpLink has a simpler capital structure, and its current stock price already reflects more pessimistic expectations, so investors buying now do not have to pay for past premiums.
Look ahead to several scenarios. If ETH continues to decline, both companies’ unrealized losses will expand in tandem; because of its larger position size, Bitmine’s absolute losses will grow faster, and the market’s current valuation advantage for it may narrow, putting its financing flywheel to its first real test.
If ETH stabilizes and rebounds, SharpLink, starting from a lower base, theoretically has greater room for valuation recovery, while Bitmine must first absorb its accumulated high-valuation bubble before its recovery phase can begin.
What both companies revealed are two different risk distributions of the same pattern: SharpLink’s vulnerability is evident in its stock price and liquidity; Bitmine’s vulnerabilityishidden in its capital structure and the accumulated valuation bubble from the past.
However, this is not an either-or choice; the answer depends on which risk matters more to you.