How to choose between buying discounted ETH, Bitmine, and SharpLink?

Author: Zhou, ChainCatcher

In this round of sluggish market for ETH, the two largest treasury companies have already incurred losses of over 50%.

[SharpLink](https://www.rootdata.com/zh/Projects/detail/SharpLink Gaming?k=MTc5NDk= "Gaming Affiliate Marketing Platform (NASDAQ:SBET)") has restarted its buyback after eight months, recently accumulating 39,196 ETH at an average cost of about $3,609, currently facing a loss of over $1.7 billion.

Bitmine has continued to expand its holdings during the same period, with a total of 5.7 million ETH, accounting for about 4.7% of the circulating supply of ETH, and its losses have exceeded $10 billion.

At the same time, both companies have been included in the Russell Index and are also sponsors of the newly established Ethereum research institution, Ethlabs.

The cost of holdings and the decline in stock prices for both companies are actually not far apart, but the market's willingness to assign valuation discounts has diverged significantly. SharpLink has a discount of about 21% relative to the net asset value of ETH, while Bitmine's discount is only about 6%, a difference of more than three times.

If the current market for ETH finds a bottom, which company should investors choose to indirectly gain exposure to ETH through stocks, SharpLink or Bitmine?

The answer may not lie in who tells a better story, but in specific dimensions such as holding costs, financing capabilities, liquidity, and whether the narrative can materialize, especially to understand where this discount divergence comes from.

What Chips Do They Hold?

SharpLink holds a complete set of institutional narratives: co-founder-level Ethereum connections with [Joe Lubin](https://www.rootdata.com/zh/member/Joseph Lubin?k=OTU2OQ==) serving as chairman, and former BlackRock digital assets executive Joseph Chalom as co-CEO; the company began promoting RWA tokenization collaborations last year, planning to move SharpLink's own stock onto Ethereum.

Image Source: RootData

In addition to being included in the Russell Index and the cumulative earnings brought by ETH staking. Each of these labels can tell a story of valuation premium when viewed individually.

Bitmine's chips, on the other hand, are more directly related to scale advantages. Holding 5.7 million ETH, chairman Tom Lee's market presence and media exposure are also far higher than his peers.

The company is included in the higher threshold Russell 1000 Index, and according to management, this will bring in hundreds or even thousands of new institutional investors, with passive funds typically holding 18% to 20% of the circulating shares of listed companies.

Both chip lists do not appear weak, but the market ultimately recognized the discount recovery of only one of the companies. The real gap is reflected in several more specific indicators.

Holding Costs and Stock Price Response

First, let's look at the most direct question: who bought ETH at a cheaper price.

According to SharpLink's announcement on June 30, the company purchased 10,000 ETH at an average price of about $1,611, increasing its total holdings to 886,725 ETH, consisting of 632,719 native ETH, 181,299 ETH redeemable by LsETH, and 72,707 ETH redeemable by weETH.

SharpLink's holding cost is approximately $3,609 per ETH, and at the current price of around $1,650, it faces a loss of about $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 about 4.7% of the total supply of Ethereum. According to on-chain data, its holding cost is about $3,400 per ETH, with a loss of about $11 billion, a decline of about 51.5%.

The holding costs and decline ratios of the two companies are actually very close. The difference lies in the absolute scale of holdings, with Bitmine being 6.4 times that of SharpLink, and the absolute value of losses has also expanded more than six times.

In terms of stock prices, the trends of both companies are also highly similar, experiencing a surge in the early stages of listing, followed by a continuous decline, and currently both are trading sideways at low levels.

As of July 1, SharpLink's stock price has dropped from a high of $124 to around $5, a retracement of about 96%, while Bitmine has fallen from a high of $160 to around $14, a retracement of about 91%. In terms of market capitalization, SharpLink is about $1.02 billion, while Bitmine is about $7.6 billion.

Financing Capability and Liquidity

SharpLink's financing history has primarily been a series of small-scale issuances. The company has mainly relied on ATM issuances to raise funds, gradually buying ETH, which results in a slow financing pace and gradual dilution.

The funds for this restart of buybacks mainly come from a $75 million targeted issuance completed at the end of last month, issuing 10,013,400 shares of common stock and an equal amount of warrants, with funds clearly earmarked for working capital, continued accumulation of ETH, and stock buybacks.

In addition to financing to buy coins, SharpLink is also increasing returns through staking, having accumulated rewards of 22,102 ETH since launching its ETH treasury strategy.

In contrast, Bitmine's financing pace is much more aggressive. According to a report by 10x Research, Bitmine raised a total of $19.2 billion through 50 equity issuances from July 2025 to May 2026, all used to purchase about 5.54 million ETH.

Last month, the company began to adopt the strategy of the largest treasury company in Bitcoin, Strategy, 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, which will be paid on July 10 to shareholders registered as of June 30.

It is worth mentioning that inclusion in the Russell Index has, to some extent, enhanced the financing capabilities of both companies. SharpLink is included in the Russell 3000, while Bitmine is included in the higher threshold Russell 1000.

BitMine chairman Tom Lee stated that many actively managed funds only buy Russell 1000 component stocks, and typically 20% to 25% of the market capitalization of individual stocks is held by passive index funds or ETFs.

As a result, the passive capital inflow brought by index inclusion directly enhances the trading depth and buying power of the stocks, which is equivalent to an additional widening of financing channels for DAT companies that need to continuously issue shares for financing.

However, the gap in financing capability ultimately reflects on mNAV. According to the latest data tracked by DefiLlama, SharpLink currently has a discount of about 21% relative to the net asset value of ETH, while Bitmine's discount is only about 6%.

The deeper the discount, the more issuing new shares will further depress the stock price, creating a negative cycle. SharpLink's pause in buybacks over the past eight months is largely due to being stuck in this cycle.

In terms of liquidity, Bitmine has long ranked 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 discount trading strategies, liquidity directly determines the cost of entry and exit, and the bid-ask spread and slippage will practically erode the theoretical discount returns, where Bitmine clearly has the advantage.

However, this advantage does not come without cost. According to 10x Research, Bitmine has incurred an overall loss of about $10.1 billion over the past year, a figure that includes not only the unrealized losses caused by the decline in ETH prices but also another layer of loss, as investors previously bought BMNR stock at a relative mNAV premium, accumulating about $4.6 billion in excess premium paid.

In other words, investors buying Bitmine stock bear a layer of risk beyond simply holding ETH, as they must not only bear the risk of falling coin prices but also the risk of stock prices reverting from premium to discount. SharpLink, being in a long-term discount state, bears this additional loss less frequently.

The Realization Capability of RWA and Ecological Narratives

Regarding the recently much-discussed narrative of stock tokenization, in fact, SharpLink announced its plan in September 2025, collaborating with Superstate to tokenize SBET stock through its Opening Bell platform, becoming the first publicly listed company to issue stock 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 plan remains at the intention expression stage, with no actual on-chain transactions or revenue seen. The company and Superstate previously stated that additional regulatory approval is needed for how tokenized stocks will trade on decentralized exchanges.

Bitmine is taking a different path in ecological narratives, laying out a so-called moonshot stock strategy to hedge single asset exposure, including indirect holdings in OpenAI and equity investments in Beast Industries. Although these investments have not formed stable cash flow contributions in the short term, they provide the market with an additional imaginative space.

Additionally, both companies jointly funded the newly established Ethereum research institution, Ethlabs. The establishment of this institution coincides with the Ethereum Foundation cutting about 40% of its budget for 2026 and laying off 54 positions, with former core development coordinator Trent Van Epps warning that core development may face a funding gap within three to nine months.

In response to such specific warnings about governance risks, SharpLink co-CEO Joseph Chalom stated that Ethlabs will complement the Ethereum Foundation, but acknowledged that the two will "overlap in certain aspects," and that "the most concentrated talent" will be in Ethlabs. Bitmine chairman Tom Lee directly stated that the possibility of a crisis is zero, as funding is already in place.

Overall, whether it is RWA tokenization or Ethlabs, both are currently more suitable to be positioned as industry-level long-term narrative support rather than hard businesses that have already converted into revenue or valuation. In this regard, both companies are actually at the same starting line.

Conclusion

If we only look at the execution of trades in this round of bottom-seeking market, Bitmine is the more convenient entry point. The market is willing to give it a price closer to net value, and liquidity is better, which means lower trading friction and more certain entry and exit costs, all of which are tangible advantages.

However, if we focus on longer-term holdings, Bitmine's weaknesses are also apparent. The perpetual preferred stock layered in its capital structure is a fixed cost that has already begun to be paid.

In contrast, SharpLink's capital structure is simpler, and the current stock price has already factored in more pessimistic expectations, meaning that investors buying now do not need to pay for past premiums.

Looking ahead to several scenarios: If ETH continues to dip, both companies' unrealized losses will expand simultaneously, and because Bitmine has a larger holding scale, the growth of absolute losses will also accelerate, potentially narrowing the valuation advantage the market currently gives it, which will put its financing flywheel to the test for the first time.

If ETH stabilizes and rebounds, SharpLink theoretically has more room for valuation recovery due to its lower starting point, while Bitmine will need to first digest the high valuation bubble accumulated in the past before it can enter a recovery phase.

The risks exposed by both companies actually reflect two distributions of risk from the same model. SharpLink's vulnerabilities are written in its stock price and liquidity; Bitmine's vulnerabilities are hidden in its capital structure and the valuation bubble accumulated in the past.

However, this is not a binary choice; the answer depends on which type of risk you care about more.