Sharplink, Inc. 10-Q

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS You should carefully consider the risks described below before making an investment decision. The risks and uncertainties described in this section may not be the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties that are not currently known to us, or that we currently deem immaterial, may also impair our business operations or financial condition. If any of the risks described below or any such additional risks actually occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and the market price of our securities could be materially adversely affected. In particular, because we have adopted a treasury strategy centered on acquiring and holding ETH, and a substantial portion of our assets are concentrated in ETH and related digital intangible asset holdings, our financial results and the market price of our securities are subject to significant volatility and may be adversely impacted by events affecting the price, perception, regulation, or technological underpinnings of ETH. The following risk factors highlight the material risks associated with our ETH Treasury Management strategy and related exposures. The price of ETH has historically been subject to dramatic price fluctuations and is highly volatile. Because we intend to purchase additional ETH in future periods and increase our overall holdings of ETH, we expect that the proportion of our total assets represented by our ETH holdings will increase in the future. As a result, and in particular due to our adoption of ASU 2023-08, volatility in our earnings may be significantly more than what we experienced in prior periods. Our historical financial statements do not reflect the potential variability in earnings that we may experience in the future relating to our ETH holdings. Our historical financial statements do not reflect the potential variability in earnings that we may experience in the future from holding or selling significant amounts of ETH. Our ETH holdings are less liquid than our existing cash and cash equivalents and may not be able to serve as a source of liquidity for us to the same extent as cash and cash equivalents. Historically, the ETH market has been characterized by significant volatility in price, limited liquidity and trading volumes compared to sovereign currencies markets, relative anonymity, a developing regulatory landscape, potential susceptibility to market abuse and manipulation, compliance and internal control failures at exchanges, and various other risks inherent in its entirely electronic, virtual form and decentralized network. During times of market instability, we may not be able to sell our ETH at favorable prices or at all. For example, a number of ETH trading venues temporarily halted deposits and withdrawals in 2022, although the Coinbase exchange (our principal market for ETH) has, to date, not done so. As a result, our ETH holdings may not be able to serve as a source of liquidity for us to the same extent as cash and cash equivalents. Further, ETH we hold with our custodians do not enjoy the same protections as are available to cash or securities deposited with or transacted by institutions subject to regulation by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. Additionally, we may be unable to enter into term loans or other capital raising transactions collateralized by our unencumbered ETH or otherwise generate funds using our ETH holdings, including in particular during times of market instability or when the price of ETH has declined significantly. If we are unable to sell our ETH, enter into additional capital raising transactions, including capital raising transactions using ETH as collateral, or otherwise generate funds using our ETH holdings, or if we are forced to sell our ETH at a significant loss, in order to meet our working capital requirements, our business and financial condition could be negatively impacted. 63 Although the SEC and CFTC have issued joint interpretive guidance identifying ETH as a “digital commodity” rather than a “digital security,” that guidance is non-binding and could be modified or rejected by a court, and any determination that ETH is a “security” would subject us to additional regulation and could materially impact the operation of our business. On March 17, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), joined by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), issued a joint interpretation (the “Joint Interpretation”) clarifying the application of the federal securities laws to crypto assets and establishing a taxonomy of five categories: “digital commodities,” “digital collectibles,” “digital tools,” “stablecoins,” and “digital securities.” The Joint Interpretation expressly identifies ETH as an example of a digital commodity, and the SEC and CFTC have each stated that they will administer their respective statutes consistent with the Joint Interpretation. The Joint Interpretation is consistent with our long-held view, described below, that ETH is not a “security” within the meaning of the U.S. federal securities laws and that registration of the Company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”), is therefore not required under the applicable securities laws. The Joint Interpretation is interpretive guidance rather than a rulemaking and does not itself have the force of law. It could be modified, withdrawn, or superseded by future SEC or CFTC leadership, narrowed or invalidated through judicial challenge, or rendered obsolete by subsequent legislation or rulemaking. Federal and state courts are not bound by the Joint Interpretation, and the ultimate legal question of whether any particular digital asset, or any particular transaction involving a digital asset, is a “security” remains subject to judicial determination under tests articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court, including in the Howey and Reves cases. In addition, the Joint Interpretation acknowledges that a crypto asset that is not itself a security may nonetheless become subject to an “investment contract” depending on the manner in which it is offered or sold, so classification of ETH as a digital commodity does not foreclose the possibility that particular transactions involving ETH could be characterized as securities transactions. We have adapted, and expect to continue to adapt, our process for analyzing the U.S. federal securities law status of ETH and other cryptocurrencies over time, as guidance, interpretive releases, and case law have evolved. As part of our U.S. federal securities law analytical process, we take into account a number of factors, including the various definitions of “security” under U.S. federal securities laws and federal court decisions interpreting the elements of these definitions, such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in the Howey and Reves cases, as well as court rulings, reports, orders, press releases, public statements, and speeches by the SEC Commissioners and SEC Staff — including, most recently, the Joint Interpretation — providing guidance on when a digital asset, or a transaction to which a digital asset may relate, may be a security for purposes of U.S. federal securities laws. Our position that ETH is not a “security” is premised, among other reasons, on our conclusion that ETH does not meet the elements of the Howey test. Among the reasons for our conclusion that ETH is not a security is that holders of ETH do not have a reasonable expectation of profits from our efforts in respect of their holding of ETH. Also, ETH ownership does not convey the right to receive any interest, rewards, or other returns. 64 Notwithstanding the Joint Interpretation and our own conclusion, we acknowledge that a federal or state court, state securities regulator, future SEC or CFTC leadership, or private plaintiff could take a different view as to the status of ETH or any particular transaction involving ETH. State “blue sky” regulators are not formally bound by the Joint Interpretation, and private litigants are not bound by the views of any federal regulator. Application of securities laws to the specific facts and circumstances of digital assets is complex and subject to change. As such, we remain at risk of private litigation, state enforcement proceedings, and — in the event the Joint Interpretation is modified, withdrawn, or judicially rejected — federal enforcement proceedings, any of which could result in potential injunctions, cease-and-desist orders, fines, penalties, damages, or a requirement that we register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, and any of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. Regulatory developments regarding the classification of digital assets as “commodities” or “digital commodities” by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), including recent joint SEC-CFTC interpretive guidance and pending legislation, could subject us to additional regulatory burdens and oversight by the CFTC and could adversely affect the market price of ETH and the market price of our listed securities. The CFTC has stated it believes, and judicial decisions involving CFTC enforcement actions have confirmed, that at least some digital assets fall within the definition of a “commodity” under the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act of 1936 (the “CEA”) and the rules promulgated by the CFTC thereunder (“CFTC Rules”). On March 17, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), joined by the CFTC, issued a joint interpretation (the “Joint Interpretation”) clarifying the application of the federal securities laws to crypto assets and establishing a token taxonomy distinguishing “digital commodities,” “digital collectibles,” “digital tools,” “stablecoins,” and “digital securities.” The Joint Interpretation expressly identifies ETH as an example of a digital commodity, and the CFTC has stated that it will administer the CEA consistent with the Joint Interpretation. While the CFTC has enforcement authority to police against fraud and manipulation in spot commodity markets (including the spot market for digital assets that are commodities), the CFTC continues to have regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction only with respect to “commodity interest” transactions, such as futures, options, and swaps on a commodity (including a digital asset commodity) and certain leveraged, margined, or financed transactions in commodities involving retail customers. The Joint Interpretation did not expand the CFTC’s statutory jurisdiction over spot digital asset activities. Accordingly, we are not currently regulated or supervised by the CFTC and are not subject to the legal and regulatory obligations that are applicable to CFTC-registered entities under the CEA and CFTC Rules. The Joint Interpretation is interpretive guidance rather than a rulemaking, and it does not itself have the force of law. It could be modified, withdrawn, or superseded by future SEC or CFTC leadership, narrowed or invalidated through judicial challenge, or rendered obsolete by subsequent legislation or rulemaking. No assurance can be given that ETH will continue to be treated as a digital commodity under this or any future guidance, or that the current allocation of jurisdiction between the SEC and CFTC with respect to ETH and other digital assets will remain unchanged. A change in ETH’s regulatory classification, or in the coordinated posture between the SEC and the CFTC, could materially increase our compliance burden, restrict our ability to hold or transact in ETH, and adversely affect the market price of ETH and the market price of our listed securities. The regulation of digital assets in the U.S. also remains subject to change through the enactment and adoption of new laws and regulations, and the Joint Interpretation is expressly intended to complement, rather than substitute for, Congressional market structure legislation. The proposed CLARITY Act passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, and other draft digital asset market structure and regulation bills, have proposed granting the CFTC additional regulatory and supervisory powers with respect to spot digital assets as “digital commodities.” While it is not possible to predict if and in what form such proposals will be adopted, if any, changes to or expansion of the jurisdiction of the CFTC with respect to activities in spot digital assets could result in the imposition of additional regulatory obligations and burdens, which could include registration, disclosure, reporting, and business conduct requirements. For example, it is possible that if the CLARITY Act were to become law as currently proposed, our ETH Treasury Management strategy could cause us to be deemed a “commodity pool” under the CEA such that our operators and advisors may need to register with the CFTC as commodity pool operators and comply with other CFTC regulations as well as the rules of the National Futures Association. Such additional regulatory burdens and oversight could materially increase the cost of our business, could adversely affect the market price of ETH, and in turn could adversely affect the market price of our listed securities. 65 We may be subject to regulatory developments related to digital assets and digital asset markets, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. As digital assets are relatively novel and the application of state and federal securities laws and other laws and regulations to digital assets is still evolving, it is possible that regulators in the United States or foreign countries may interpret or apply existing laws and regulations in a manner that adversely affects the price of digital assets. The U.S. federal government, states, regulatory agencies, and foreign countries may also enact new laws and regulations, or pursue regulatory, legislative, enforcement or judicial actions, that could materially impact the price of digital assets or the ability of individuals or institutions such as us to own or transfer digital assets. On January 23, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology” (the “Executive Order”) aimed at supporting “the responsible growth and use of digital assets, blockchain technology, and related technologies across all sectors of the economy.” The Executive Order also established an interagency working group that is tasked with “proposing a Federal regulatory framework governing the issuance and operation of digital assets” in the United States. Pursuant to this Executive Order, the working group released a report in July 2025 outlining the administration’s recommendations to Congress and various agencies reflecting the administration’s “pro-innovation mindset toward digital assets and blockchain technologies.” In particular, the report recommends that Congress enact legislation regarding self-custody of digital assets, clarifying the applicability of Bank Secrecy Act obligations with respect to digital asset service providers, granting the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) authority to regulate spot markets in non-security digital assets, prohibiting the adoption of a central bank digital currency (“CBDC”), and clarifying tax laws as relevant to digital assets. In addition, the report recommends that agencies reevaluate existing guidance on digital asset activities, use existing authorities to enable the trading of digital assets at the federal level, embrace DeFi, launch or relaunch digital asset innovation efforts, and promote U.S. private sector leadership in the responsible development of cross-border payments and financial markets technologies, among others. Consistent with the Executive Order and the July 2025 working group report, on March 17, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), joined by the CFTC, issued a joint interpretation (the “Joint Interpretation”) clarifying the application of the federal securities laws to crypto assets. The Joint Interpretation establishes a taxonomy of five categories — “digital commodities,” “digital collectibles,” “digital tools,” “stablecoins,” and “digital securities” — and expressly identifies ETH as an example of a digital commodity. The SEC and CFTC have each stated that they will administer their respective statutes consistent with the Joint Interpretation. While we believe the Joint Interpretation provides meaningful additional clarity regarding the regulatory status of ETH, it is interpretive guidance rather than a rulemaking, does not itself have the force of law, and is not binding on federal or state courts, state securities regulators, or private litigants. The Joint Interpretation could be modified, withdrawn, or superseded by future SEC or CFTC leadership, narrowed or invalidated through judicial challenge, or rendered obsolete by subsequent legislation or rulemaking, and it also acknowledges that a crypto asset that is not itself a security may nonetheless become subject to an “investment contract” depending on the manner in which it is offered or sold. 66 There have also been several bills introduced in Congress that propose to establish additional regulation and oversight of the digital asset markets. For example, the CLARITY Act was passed by the House of Representatives in July 2025, which would, if enacted, regulate digital asset markets and digital asset trading platforms in the United States and provide statutory backing for the allocation of jurisdiction between the SEC and CFTC reflected in the Joint Interpretation. In addition, also in July 2025, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act of 2025 (the “GENIUS Act”) became the first federal law specifically regulating the issuance, custody and other stablecoin-related matters in the United States. It is difficult to predict whether, or when, the CLARITY Act or another bill that would regulate digital asset markets and digital asset trading platforms may become law or what any such bill may entail. It is difficult to predict whether, or when, as a result of these developments, Congress will grant additional authorities to the SEC, the CFTC, or other regulators, what the nature of such additional authorities might be, how additional legislation and/or regulatory oversight might impact the ability of digital asset markets to function, the willingness of financial and other institutions to continue to provide services to the digital assets industry, or how any new regulations, changes to existing regulations, or changes to or withdrawal of existing interpretive guidance might impact the value of digital assets generally and ETH held by the Company specifically. The consequences of these potential developments, including any narrowing, modification, or withdrawal of the Joint Interpretation, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects, as well as the market price of ETH, which in turn could adversely affect the market price of our listed securities. We may engage in decentralized finance transactions and deploy ETH using liquid staking and liquid restaking protocols, which present additional risk as opposed to simply holding our digital assets. We intend to invest and deploy ETH using one or more decentralized finance protocols. All trading and investment activity involves risk, which is heightened in the case of decentralized finance due to the irrevocable nature of blockchain transactions and the possibility of errors in smart contracts. Decentralized finance protocols also attract hackers and persons looking to exploit flaws in or the ability to misuse smart contracts. We also may incur losses in connection with our decentralized finance activity due to human error or our inability to predict future price movements. Any losses we sustain in connection with decentralized finance activities could cause an adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations, and the market price of our Common Stock. Decentralized finance protocols also pose heightened regulatory concerns even beyond those that face digital asset networks and digital assets generally. The U.S. financial system is extensively regulated at both the federal and state level with a particular focus on intermediaries such as banks, broker-dealers, futures commission merchants, investment funds, investment advisers, financial asset exchanges, trading platforms, clearinghouses and custodians. U.S. laws and regulations impose specific obligations on financial services intermediaries both for the protection of their customers and for the protection of the U.S. financial system as a whole. These include, among others, capital requirements, activities restrictions, reporting and disclosure requirements and obligations to monitor the activities of their customers and to ensure that the intermediaries’ activities and the activities of their customers are conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Non-U.S. laws and regulatory requirements may impose similar obligations. By seeking to eliminate or substantially limit the role of traditional financial services intermediaries in lending, brokering, advisory, trading, clearing, custody and other financial services activities, DeFi protocols pose numerous challenges to the longstanding oversight framework developed under U.S. law and used by U.S. and other regulators. Legislative bodies and regulators may be required to adapt their regulatory models to accommodate decentralized financial activities, or take novel steps to supervise, limit or even prohibit decentralized financial activities. It is not possible to predict how or when these challenges will be resolved or what the impact on specific decentralized finance protocols will be, and it is likely that the decentralized finance industry will face a prolonged period of regulatory uncertainty. It is possible that some decentralized finance protocols will be subjected to costly and burdensome compliance regimes or even prohibited outright. 67 We have also deployed ETH using liquid staking and liquid restaking protocols, including by staking ETH through Liquid Collective in exchange for LsETH and through ether.fi in exchange for weETH, the wrapped, non-rebasing form of eETH. Liquid staking protocols are even newer than many decentralized finance protocols and are a novel and evolving technology, and liquid restaking protocols — which layer additional restaking and validation arrangements on top of liquid staking and use the underlying ETH (or its receipt tokens) to provide cryptoeconomic security to other protocols and services — are even more novel and have an even more limited operating history. Although the staff of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance has provided a statement that the staff does not generally believe liquid staking services are securities offerings, and that it does not believe receipt tokens obtained through such liquid staking services are generally securities, there is no guarantee that courts agree. That staff statement is, by its terms, addressed to liquid staking and does not directly address liquid restaking arrangements or the receipt tokens obtained from liquid restaking protocols, such as weETH; the regulatory treatment of liquid restaking arrangements under the federal securities laws therefore remains uncertain. It is also possible that the liquid staking or liquid restaking protocols we use, or specific features of those protocols, do not fit within the scope of the staff statement. If it is determined that the liquid staking or liquid restaking protocols we use, or the receipt tokens we receive (including LsETH and weETH), are securities offerings, the providers of those protocols may be required to pay fines or be subject to other third-party claims, and the ETH we have deposited with them may be available to their creditors to fulfill those claims. See “ Our shift towards an ETH-focused treasury strategy requires substantial changes in our day-to-day operations and exposes us to significant operational risks ” and “ We face risks relating to the custody of our digital assets, including the loss or destruction of private keys required to access our digital assets and cyberattacks or other data loss relating to our digital assets and insolvency of our custodians. ” There is also ongoing uncertainty as to the regulatory treatment of liquid staking and liquid restaking services from other regulators and agencies. Liquid restaking activities also involve risks beyond those associated with native staking or liquid staking. In a liquid restaking arrangement, the underlying ETH (or its receipt token) is used to provide cryptoeconomic security not only to the Ethereum proof-of-stake protocol but also to additional services, such as the EigenCloud Autonomous Verifiable Services (“AVSs”) that we secure through ether.fi. This exposes our underlying ETH to potential slashing, forfeiture or other penalties arising from issues outside of the Ethereum staking protocol itself, including operational failures, validator or operator misconduct, or technical problems with the AVSs being secured. The AVSs and other services secured through restaking are themselves new, with limited operating history, and there can be no assurance that they will function as designed. We have deployed a portion of our ETH treasury into weETH issued by ether.fi, and any losses sustained in connection with that deployment — whether from slashing, smart contract exploits, protocol failure or otherwise — could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and the market price of our Common Stock. In addition, we have bridged weETH from the Ethereum mainnet to Linea, a zkEVM Layer 2 network, using ether.fi’s weETH OFT bridge powered by LayerZero v2. Cross-chain bridges have historically been a frequent target of exploits in decentralized finance, and any failure, vulnerability or exploit affecting the bridge, the messaging layer or the destination network — or any disruption to or change in the Linea sequencer, prover, governance or future upgrades — could result in delays in accessing, or partial or total loss of, the weETH we have bridged. 68 Both decentralized finance protocols and liquid staking and liquid restaking protocols typically rely on the use of smart contracts. Smart contracts are computer programs that run on a digital asset network or related protocol that execute automatically when certain conditions are met. Because smart contract functions typically cannot be stopped or reversed, vulnerabilities in or unforeseen consequences of their programming can have damaging effects for the underlying digital asset network or protocol and the value of digital assets that use or interact with such smart contracts. For example, in June 2016, a vulnerability in the smart contracts underlying a protocol that was deployed on the Ethereum network, The DAO, a distributed autonomous organization for venture capital funding, allowed an attack by a hacker to syphon approximately $60 million worth of ETH from The DAO into a separate account. In the aftermath of the theft, certain developers of and core contributors to the Ethereum network pursued a “hard fork” of the Ethereum network in order to erase any record of the theft. Despite these efforts, the price of ETH dropped approximately 35% in the aftermath of the attack and subsequent hard fork. In addition, in July 2017, a vulnerability in a smart contract for a multi-signature wallet software developed by Parity led to a $30 million theft of ETH, and in November 2017, a new vulnerability in Parity’s wallet software led to roughly $160 million worth of ETH being indefinitely frozen in an account. Other smart contracts, such as bridges between separate digital asset networks, have also been manipulated, exploited or used in ways that were not intended or envisioned by their creators. Initial and continued problems with the development, design and deployment of smart contracts may have an adverse effect on the value of protocols, including liquid staking, liquid restaking and decentralized finance protocols, built on smart contract platforms or other digital assets that rely on smart contract technology, including any liquid staking or liquid restaking tokens such as LsETH and weETH. Liquid restaking tokens such as weETH are exposed not only to risks at the liquid staking protocol layer but also to risks at the additional restaking and AVS layers and, where bridged to other networks, to risks of the cross-chain bridge and the destination network. If any of the smart contracts with which we interact — whether decentralized finance, liquid staking, liquid restaking, cross-chain bridging or otherwise — suffer from such manipulation or exploit, or otherwise do not function as intended or as we anticipate, our ETH and any LsETH, weETH or similar tokens we hold may be exposed. The AI industry is subject to developing and evolving regulatory frameworks globally, which are expected to become increasingly complex as AI continues to evolve, and our efforts to, or our failure or inability to comply with, these regulations or regulatory action against us could adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition or business. The rapid pace of innovation in the field of AI has led to developing and evolving regulatory frameworks globally, which are expected to become increasingly complex. U.S. and regulators and lawmakers have started proposing and adopting, or are currently considering, regulations and guidance specifically on the use of AI. In the U.S., there is ongoing tension between the states and the federal government over how best to regulate the use of AI. Colorado passed a Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence bill introducing state-level oversight of “high-risk” AI systems. It is possible that new laws and regulations will be adopted in the U.S. and in non-U.S. jurisdictions, or that existing laws and regulations may be interpreted, in ways that would affect our operations. We may be unable to anticipate or respond to these changes, and may need to expend additional resources to adjust our offerings where legal frameworks diverge. Further, the cost to comply with such laws or regulations could be significant and would increase our operating expenses, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. We face risks relating to the custody of our ETH, including the loss or destruction of private keys required to access our ETH and cyberattacks or other data loss relating to our ETH. We hold our ETH with regulated custodians that have duties to safeguard our private keys. Our custodial services contracts do not restrict our ability to reallocate our ETH among our custodians, and our ETH holdings may be concentrated with a single custodian from time to time. In light of the significant amount of ETH we hold, we will seek to engage additional custodians to achieve a greater degree of diversification in the custody of our ETH as the extent of potential risk of loss is dependent, in part, on the degree of diversification. If there is a decrease in the availability of digital asset custodians that we believe can safely custody our ETH, for example, due to regulatory developments or enforcement actions that cause custodians to discontinue or limit their services in the United States, we may need to enter into agreements that are less favorable than our current agreements or take other measures to custody our ETH, and our ability to seek a greater degree of diversification in the use of custodial services would be materially adversely affected. 69 ETH is controllable only by the possessor of both the unique public key and private key(s) relating to the local or online digital wallet in which the ETH is held. While the ETH blockchain ledger requires a public key relating to a digital wallet to be published when used in a transaction, private keys must be safeguarded and kept private in order to prevent a third party from accessing the ETH held in such wallet. To the extent the private key(s) for a digital wallet are lost, destroyed, or otherwise compromised and no backup of the private key(s) is accessible, neither we nor our custodians will be able to access the ETH held in the related digital wallet. Furthermore, we cannot provide assurance that our digital wallets, nor the digital wallets of our custodians held on our behalf, will not be compromised as a result of a cyberattack. ETH, as well as other digital assets and blockchain technologies, have been, and may in the future be, subject to security breaches, cyberattacks, or other malicious activities. As of the date of this filing, the insurance that covers losses of our Ether holdings may cover none or only a small fraction of the value of the entirety of our Ether holdings, and there can be no guarantee that such insurance will be maintained as part of the custodial services we have or that such coverage will cover losses with respect to our Ether. Moreover, our use of custodians exposes us to the risk that the Ether our custodians hold on our behalf could be subject to insolvency proceedings and we could be treated as a general unsecured creditor of the custodian, inhibiting our ability to exercise ownership rights with respect to such Ether. Any loss associated with such insolvency proceedings is unlikely to be covered by any insurance coverage we maintain related to our Ether. The legal framework governing digital asset ownership and rights in custodial or insolvency contexts remains uncertain and continues to evolve, which could result in unexpected losses, protracted recovery processes or adverse treatment in insolvency proceedings. As part of our treasury management strategy, we may engage in staking, restaking, or other permitted activities that involve the use of “smart contracts” or decentralized applications. The use of smart contracts or decentralized applications entails certain risks including risks stemming from the existence of an “admin key” or coding flaws that could be exploited, potentially allowing a bad actor to issue or otherwise compromise the smart contract or decentralized application, potentially leading to a loss of our Ether. Like all software code, smart contracts are exposed to risk that the code contains a bug or other security vulnerability, which can lead to loss of assets that are held on or transacted through the contract or decentralized application. Smart contracts and decentralized applications may contain bugs, security vulnerabilities or poorly designed permission structures that could result in the irreversible loss of Ether or other digital assets. Exploits, including those stemming from admin key misuse, admin key compromise, or protocol flaws, have occurred in the past and may occur in the future.