Sharplink CEO: Selling off ETH Now is Like Selling Amazon During the Internet Bubble

marsbitPublished on 2026-05-30Last updated on 2026-05-30

Abstract

Sharplink CEO Joseph Chalom argues that selling Ethereum (ETH) now is akin to selling Amazon during the internet bubble. He asserts that the Ethereum Foundation (EF) is correctly focusing on core protocol development, security, and decentralization, which form the bedrock of institutional trust. Chalom, a former BlackRock executive, emphasizes Ethereum's leading position in processing stablecoin settlements, tokenizing real-world assets, and hosting high-value DeFi transactions. He contends that Ethereum's decentralization is a strength, not a weakness, and is crucial for its role as a future financial settlement layer. Comparing ETH to early Amazon, he believes the market underestimates its potential total addressable market, which is the entire global financial system, not just crypto trading. Chalom views the current market fear and negative sentiment, highlighted by a prominent figure liquidating ETH holdings, as a potential buying opportunity for disciplined capital, drawing parallels to Warren Buffett's strategy. He calls for ecosystem participants to amplify Ethereum's narrative and actively support what he sees as an impending "super-cycle" of institutional adoption, noting Sharplink's significant investments and initiatives in the space.

Original |Joseph Chalom, CEO of Sharplink

Compiled | Odaily Planet Daily Qin Xiaofeng(@QinXiaofeng 888 )

Editor's Note: This week, former staunch ETH bull and Bankless co-founder David Hoffman published an article explaining why he sold off his ETH, which resonated strongly within the Ethereum community. The article garnered an astonishing 1.8 million reads on the X platform. Amidst the overwhelming public sentiment, Sharplink (Nasdaq: SBET), the second-largest listed company with an ETH treasury, couldn't sit idly by. (Odaily Note: Sharplink's treasury holds approximately 868,000 ETH, valued at nearly $1.8 billion, second only to BitMine.)

On May 30th, Sharplink CEO Joseph Chalom published an article titled "Ethereum Going Back on Offense" to bolster confidence among ETH holders. He stated that the Ethereum Foundation (EF) is fulfilling its core mission, focusing on the core protocol, security, and decentralization, which is the very foundation of institutional trust. He likened ETH today to Amazon during the internet bubble, undervalued and misunderstood (Odaily Note: Standard Chartered Bank has made a similar analogy, emphasizing the severe disconnect between ETH fundamentals and its price). Joseph Chalom believes the current market fear presents a prime buying opportunity, and that all parties in the ecosystem need to voice their support actively to drive an institutional adoption supercycle.

Below is the full text of Joseph Chalom's article, compiled by Odaily Planet Daily. Enjoy~

————————————————

The current controversies surrounding the Ethereum Foundation (EF) and the noise driven by ETH price volatility are overshadowing the broader picture. While I understand these discussions, they are not what will determine who leads the financial infrastructure of the next decade.

This is a perspective from a stakeholder. Before leading Sharplink, I spent twenty years as a senior executive at BlackRock, overseeing fintech business and digital asset strategy. That experience gave me a deep understanding of what institutions truly need before deploying capital into new infrastructure.

I want to cut through the noise and offer a different perspective on where Ethereum stands today and where it is headed.

The Ethereum Foundation is Fulfilling its Core Mission

Take a step back. What has been delivered over the past decade? On the attributes most valued for institutional adoption—trust, security, and liquidity—Ethereum is far ahead. It is winning, and by a significant margin.

Look at the data: Ethereum settles the majority of the world's stablecoin value; it hosts far more tokenized real-world asset projects than any other blockchain; it is the default venue for high-value DeFi transactions. In these dimensions, competitors are playing catch-up.

This is no accident. It's the result of years of rigorous protocol development by the Ethereum Foundation (EF). Ethereum is the only blockchain that has successfully launched major upgrades at its base layer for a decade running: The Merge, EIP-1559, Dencun, Pectra, Fusaka. The upcoming Glamsterdam upgrade will bring a step-change in scaling, while the EF is leading the industry toward the quantum-resistant era. This is the most ambitious technical roadmap in the entire industry.

Decentralization is a Feature, Not a Bug

Some of the fiercest criticism of the EF frames decentralization as a weakness. This viewpoint completely inverts the logic for institutions. The Ethereum ecosystem has the largest developer community of any blockchain—and the vast majority of those developers are not affiliated with the EF.

No foundation should have full control over a blockchain. Institutions are not looking to lock themselves in, only to migrate from one proprietary system to another. They need assurance that the underlying properties they rely on cannot be arbitrarily changed by a centralized owner. In fact, no blockchain should be dependent on a single entity.

Ethereum's credible neutrality and decentralization are precisely why it is becoming the future settlement layer for finance. These are not flaws.

Between a foundation focused on security, privacy, quantum resistance, and the core protocol, versus one optimized for short-term marketing, I choose the former every time.

ETH's Value Parallels Amazon

History is filled with examples where foundational innovation was overlooked by critics enamored with newer, trendier upstarts—only for the pessimists to be proven wrong. Amazon is the archetypal case.

Early on, the consensus on Amazon was that it was just an online bookseller propped up by the internet bubble and consistently losing money. Shorts focused solely on its profit & loss statement, missing Jeff Bezos's long-term vision—he was building an entirely new structure for e-commerce. Its total addressable market (TAM) was never just book sales, but the entire retail economy, later expanding into cloud computing and media. Analysts fixated on Amazon's short-term stock price missed the bigger opportunity.

Today, Ethereum and ETH are in the same position. Their TAM is not cryptocurrency trading; it is the entire global financial system. ETH's intrinsic value is tied to the network's expansion. And the Ethereum network is at an inflection point for step-change growth in transaction volume—encompassing stablecoins, tokenized RWAs, DeFi, and the emerging wave of agentic finance. To secure such enormous transaction volume, Ethereum will be the in-demand incentive layer and ultimate trust infrastructure, with a corresponding monetary premium.

No ETH, no Ethereum. The asset and the network are inseparable.

It's Time to Make Money When Others Capitulate

In nearly every market cycle, the moment of maximum retail capitulation and lowest sentiment is precisely when disciplined capital moves in to build positions. Warren Buffett built Berkshire by buying quality assets at the point of maximum pessimism—from GEICO in the 1970s to Bank of America and Goldman Sachs during the 2008 financial crisis.

For much of the past year, the Fear & Greed Index has reflected extreme fear. The smartest investors buy quality assets when the market is most fearful. They invest counter-cyclically, not pro-cyclically.

In the crypto winter following FTX's collapse, most institutions ran from Bitcoin and ETH exposure or shelved product launches. When I was at BlackRock, we did the opposite. We doubled down, invested in infrastructure, built ecosystem partnerships, and launched products bridging TradFi with crypto.

We can all learn a lot from Buffett and BlackRock.

Ethereum Needs New Voices

The EF is fulfilling its core mission. Going forward, it will focus even more on CROPS. (Odaily Note: CROPS is an internal framework prioritizing censorship resistance, openness, privacy, and security. This shift means the Ethereum Foundation will focus on making Ethereum a "haven technology," prioritizing fundamental, long-term protocol security, user privacy, and resistance to censorship/control, rather than pursuing aggressive scaling and raw speed).

For most, it's clear the current gap is in go-to-market leadership; meanwhile, institutions are broadly eager to embrace Ethereum. I firmly believe stakeholders and participants in the ecosystem need to play a larger role in Ethereum's narrative and institutional adoption.

Since last summer, digital asset treasury companies and Ethereum's core stewards have played a crucial part in this. This includes Sharplink, Tom Lee of BitMine, Joe Lubin of Consensys, Etherealize, Nethermind, Aave, Morpho, the EEA, and other ecosystem stakeholders. We also work closely with the small team within the EF focused on institutional education and adoption.

Sharplink is actively investing in this ecosystem. We were the first company to stake billions in ETH capital and have deployed hundreds of millions into high-quality DeFi protocols. We recently announced a $125 million DeFi yield fund with Galaxy Digital to provide capital to existing and emerging protocols.

That said, we can and will do more—actively advocating for Ethereum and proactively supporting the coming institutional adoption supercycle.

The future of Ethereum is happening now.

Recommended Reading:

"Bankless Co-founder's Confession on Selling ETH: Ethereum Did the Rightest Thing, But 'ETH as Money' Has No Future"

"Bankless Founder Sells Off ETH, Ethereum Faith Collective Shattered"

Related Reads

Circle Blacklists Zama Protocol Address, Freezing $12.6M In User Funds – Details

Circle has blacklisted a smart contract address for the Zama protocol's Confidential USDC (cUSDC), freezing approximately $12.6 million in user funds. The action, identified by on-chain investigator ZachXBT, targeted a publicly documented contract on Ethereum. Investigations suggest the frozen funds may be indirectly connected to ongoing controversy and legal issues surrounding Overnight Finance, an asset-management protocol. A wallet linked to Overnight Finance had deposited a large sum into the Zama contract amidst governance disputes and allegations of a possible rug pull. This move by Circle, reportedly made without prior warning to Zama, has reignited criticism over transparency and unilateral enforcement by centralized stablecoin issuers. It highlights concerns about how external legal and governance risks can impact unrelated users in interconnected DeFi systems. Circle has not provided an official explanation for the freeze.

bitcoinist21m ago

Circle Blacklists Zama Protocol Address, Freezing $12.6M In User Funds – Details

bitcoinist21m ago

Why More AI Agents Does Not Equal Higher Productivity?

Editor's Note: As AI Agents become cheaper and easier to use, a new constraint emerges: the cost isn't in launching more Agents, but in the human attention required to manage, judge, and integrate their outputs. This hidden cost is called the "orchestration tax." The article argues that a developer's cognitive bandwidth is the key bottleneck—a serial, non-parallelizable resource akin to a Global Interpreter Lock (GIL). While many Agents can run concurrently, their results ultimately require human judgment for review, conflict resolution, and final integration. Therefore, more Agents don't automatically mean higher productivity; they can simply create longer queues, lead to cognitive fatigue, and create the illusion of busyness without real output. The core solution is to design workflows around this scarce human attention. Key strategies include: scaling the number of Agents to match review capacity (not UI capacity), categorizing tasks (delegating independent ones, keeping complex judgment-heavy ones serial), batch reviewing results to minimize context-switching costs, automating verifiable checks to reserve human judgment for critical decisions, and protecting focused, uninterrupted thinking time. Ultimately, the critical skill is not launching many Agents, but architecting systems that respect the fundamental limit of human attention. Unpaid "orchestration tax" accumulates as both technical and cognitive debt, undermining system understanding and quality. True productivity comes from thoughtfully managing the single-threaded resource—your focus.

marsbit1h ago

Why More AI Agents Does Not Equal Higher Productivity?

marsbit1h ago

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

Three Years Later: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's launch, I made 20 predictions about its future. Now, in mid-2026, I've used AI agents to fact-check each one against the latest data. Overall, most major directional forecasts were correct, with only one outright error (incorrectly stating GPT-4 had 100 trillion parameters). Key successes included predicting that RAG and retrieval architectures would become the standard for handling knowledge and hallucinations, that natural language interfaces (LUI) would create a massive new industry layer beyond the models themselves, and that China would develop viable large language models, significantly closing the performance gap with Western counterparts within about three years. Predictions about the absence of mass unemployment, the rise of a new "robot network" for agent communication, and ChatGPT not possessing consciousness also held true in their core arguments. However, the "devil was in the details." Errors frequently involved specific numbers, timelines, or overlooking distributional effects. I tended to overestimate the speed of adoption (e.g., for agent networks) while underestimating the ultimate scale of capabilities or costs (e.g., AI winning IMO gold without tools, or the extreme capital required for frontier models). Other misjudgments included: underestimating how AI would reinforce, not dissolve, information filter bubbles; incorrectly assuming AI-generated content would easily circumvent copyright (it has instead triggered record-breaking settlements); and misidentifying where value would be captured (it accrued overwhelmingly to the compute layer, like Nvidia, not just the application or model layers). Key lessons from reviewing these predictions are: 1) Directional and mechanistic insights are far more reliable than precise numbers or absolute statements. 2) There's a consistent bias to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude. 3) Errors often lie in missing distributional impacts within a generally correct aggregate trend. 4) Predictions phrased with nuance and caveats aged the best. 5) Some fundamental debates (e.g., on machine consciousness or the ultimate value chain) remain unresolved even after three years. This exercise is less about scoring the past and more about establishing rules for clearer thinking about the next three years of AI.

marsbit7h ago

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

marsbit7h ago

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

Looking Back After Three Years: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's debut and before GPT-4's release, I made over twenty predictions about AI's future based on limited information and intuition. Now, in May 2026, I revisited those forecasts using an AI-driven analysis with 41 Opus 4.8 agents to cross-reference them with the latest data. The assessment used symbols: ✅ Correct, 🟢 Mostly Correct, 🟡 Partially Correct, ❌ Incorrect. Overall, the directional judgments held up well, with only one major factual error regarding GPT-4's rumored parameter size (incorrectly cited as 100T). However, nuances and degrees of accuracy revealed more. **What Was Largely Correct:** Predictions about mechanisms and directions proved accurate. The rise of RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) as the standard architecture for combating AI hallucination was confirmed, as was the transformative potential of LUI (Language User Interface) in creating a new industry layer atop GUIs. The emergence of "robot networks" (agent-to-agent communication protocols) and China's rapid catch-up in developing capable large models (closing the performance gap with top models to ~2.7%) were also on point. The analysis affirmed that LLMs lack consciousness and that the Turing Test merely measures perceived intelligence. **What Was Off Target:** Errors often involved specific numbers, over-optimistic timelines, or misjudged distributions. The prediction that value would primarily accrue to the application layer was half-right but missed NVIDIA's dominance as the profitable infrastructure layer. Forecasts about AI circumventing copyright issues and fostering a "global common ground" by averaging human viewpoints were incorrect; instead, major copyright settlements occurred and AI personalization is increasing. Estimates for model training costs ("$5-10 billion cap") were significantly off, underestimating frontier costs and overestimating replication costs. The notion that LLMs could never do complex math without tools was disproven by later models winning IMO gold. **Key Patterns from the Review:** 1. **Direction over precision:** Judgments about mechanisms and trends were more reliable than specific numbers or definitive statements. 2. **Timing bias:** There was a tendency to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude and transformation. 3. **The distribution blind spot:** Aggregate-level correctness often masked uneven impacts (e.g., on young professionals' employment). 4. **The value of qualifiers:** Predictions framed with caution (e.g., "reportedly," "for now," "prototype in 2-3 years") aged better. 5. **Some debates continue:** Issues like the nature of "emergent abilities" or machine consciousness remain unresolved. This three-year review highlights that while seeing the big picture is crucial, humility regarding specifics, timelines, and disparate impacts is essential for future forecasting.

链捕手10h ago

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

链捕手10h ago

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

The article issues a stark warning about a potential AI investment bubble. It notes that while the AI boom shares similarities with the TMT bubble of the late 1990s, its scale is vastly larger, currently driving 93% of U.S. GDP growth. Major hyperscale cloud providers like Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle are planning to invest trillions in AI data centers over the coming years. However, calculations based on analyst projections for 2025-2030 reveal a concerning math problem: expected capital expenditure growth far outpaces projected revenue growth. Even under an extremely optimistic scenario of zero costs, the implied return on investment for most of these tech giants (except Amazon) is deeply negative. This suggests that the current trajectory could lead to one of history's largest shareholder value destruction events. The piece outlines two potential escapes: AI generating vastly more revenue than currently anticipated—a near-impossible task—or a significant cutback in the planned investment splurge. The latter scenario could trigger a domino effect, severely impacting the entire tech supply chain (from Nvidia to TSMC), potentially pushing the U.S. economy into recession, and causing a major stock market downturn. The author suggests upcoming high-profile IPOs by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic might represent a transfer of risk from early investors to public market participants. While the peak of the hype cycle might sustain investment through 2026, the fundamental financial dilemma remains unresolved, setting the stage for a potential market correction in 2027 or 2028, similar to the years following Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" warning.

marsbit11h ago

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

marsbit11h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ETH (ETH) are presented below.

活动图片

Top Questions