Sharps Technology: From Medical Devices To Solana Treasury

Summary Sharps Technology pivoted into a crypto treasury model with a significant Solana allocation, now holding roughly the same SOL amount as peers DFDV and Upexi, both around 2 million SOL. Sharps’ entry into SOL occurred around the $200 price level, below its $293 all-time high, positioning it well for upside if SOL rallies. Sharps’ core safety syringe business continues to face low revenue and inventory buildup, with Q2 revenue at $223k. Q2 net income of $5.5 million was mainly driven by a non-cash fair value gain on warrants remeasured under ASC ￰0￱ Technology (NASDAQ: STSS ) has been on the radar lately since announcing its crypto treasury strategy pivot based on Solana ( SOL-USD ).

In this article, I’ll draw insights from how the SOL pivot, which relies heavily on capital raises, has materially changed Sharp technology’s risk profile and capital ￰1￱ Technology - The Core Business Sharps Technology primarily operates in the medical device sector, focusing on "smart" safety ￰2￱ company's product portfolio includes the Sharps Provensa, SecurGard, and SoloGard, all products aimed to address critical safety and efficiency needlestick injuries, syringe reuse, and broader safety risks within the healthcare ￰3￱ at the company's financial performance in the years leading up to the recent Solana pivot shows what looks like persistent struggle, but it could also be seen as a typical pre-revenue setup if the company keeps making meaningful strides in delivering on ￰4￱ operating in a market projected to grow, with the global safety syringe market valued at about $9 billion in 2025 (according to several market research firms, including Business Research Company , Research and Markets , and Cognitive Market Research ), Sharps consistently reported operating losses and paltry revenue.

Sharps’ filings show a pattern of negative net income year after year, accumulated deficit, and inventory buildup with little to no ￰5￱ reserve in Q2 was $730k, which shows the scale of unsold or slow-moving inventory relative to ￰6￱ filing Revenue was $223k as of the latest filing (Q2 2025) . While EPS flipped GAAP positive to $3.58, which was mainly driven by a large non-cash fair-value gain of about $6.5 million on warrant liabilities remeasured under ASC ￰7￱ loss persisted in Q2 and was about $3 ￰8￱ the warrant remeasurement, adjusted EPS and operating cash flow remained negative. Sharps' trend of low sales and persistent losses could shift moving forward, as sales from previously secured purchase agreements are beginning to convert into ￰9￱ has reported its first revenues tied to those agreements, which include a latest $400,000 SoloGard initial order, though still modest in scale compared to expenses and operating ￰10￱ was also a $100k purchase order for Sharps’ SecureGuard smart syringes by a Hungarian vaccine provider in ￰11￱ there is also an existing five-year, $200 million syringe sales agreement with Nephron Pharmaceuticals with $30 million commitments in the first 12 months, which I believe would likely gain traction as the company’s facility in Hungary has seen recent upgrades in molding and automation technologies (according to the company) to ramp up mass production and ￰12￱ addition to that, ￰13￱ is expected to commence at the InjectEZ facility in South ￰14￱ Technology - The Solana Treasury To each company, their own motive for pivoting to a crypto treasury ￰15￱ size of recent capital raises for crypto strategies has been massive; thus, some firms with failed core businesses have rebranded as crypto treasury vehicles to capture investor ￰16￱ regulators have recently stepped up scrutiny around crypto treasuries as mid-cap companies flood the ￰17￱ analyzing Sharps' crypto pivot and ambitions, I think the first question right off the bat is whether Sharps Technology fits the profile of a company with a struggling core business that pivoted to a crypto treasury to prop up valuation?

This is the reason for opening this piece with a review of the company’s core business and pre-crypto-pivot financial reality and pointing out how the company is transitioning to commercialization through fulfillment of already secured purchase order ￰18￱ Sharps has made progress, I think it still has a lot to prove in that regard, and the coming quarters will be crucial to watch. I think Sharps, to some extent, ticks the boxes when it comes to the question of whether its core business and financial reality stand on their own apart from the crypto ￰19￱ the choice of crypto assets matters a ￰20￱ is similar to how an individual investor's choice of assets (after due diligence) in his personal portfolio could determine stability and growth or exposure to downside risk in the long term.

Sharps’ already-acquired 2 million SOL allocation funded by the $400 million PIPE equity raise early this month is more or less an early-stage bet at this ￰21￱ I think timing is the next best edge for crypto ￰22￱ are forward-looking and reward the early ￰23￱ like how Strategy’s ( MSTR ) early Bitcoin ( BTC-USD ) pivot has paid off and the company still enjoys an attractive cost basis, with an average purchase cost now around $74,000, despite follow-up BTC purchases above $100k. With BTC now trading at $122k, a $74,000 cost basis would be an implied gain of about 62% on MSTR's ￰24￱ other fancy crypto-treasury-focused metrics have been developed, this simple cost basis gap is the number one benchmark for attractiveness.

I believe Sharps’ entry into SOL comes at an interesting point, where SOL is trading just above $200 and still shy of its all-time high of about $293. This positioning will likely put Sharps and other early Solana treasury pivots like DeFi Development ( DFDV ) on the path of becoming one of the more attractive balance sheets among crypto treasuries in the near future if SOL maintains momentum and reaches or goes past its all-time ￰25￱ top that, SOL hasn’t seen a spot ETF approval yet but has the potential to secure one, as it is inarguably one of the strongest and fastest-growing layer-1 networks with an ever-expanding ecosystem and developer ￰26￱ the Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs have proven that demands for the spot ETFs directly influence the price of their underlying crypto ￰27￱ roughly 2 million SOL in Sharps’ treasury and 26.6 million shares outstanding, each share effectively represents about 0.075 SOL, which is derived by dividing the total SOL holdings of around 2 million by the total shares outstanding of 26.6 million, giving 2 million ÷ 26.6 million ≈ 0.075 SOL per share ￰28￱ in a direct peer comp, Upexi ( UPXI ) current shares outstanding are around 58.9 million, and a market cap of $438 million puts its 2,018,419 SOL holding at 0.0343 SOL per share.

Upexi's SPS metric is lower because of its higher share count, which dilutes the per-share SOL ￰29￱ that Upexi also reports an adjusted SPS figure, which reflects the cost basis of its SOL holdings rather than the current market price, providing a more conservative measure of per-share SOL ￰30￱ currently has a higher SPS at 0.0816 SPS compared to UPXI and ￰31￱ Solana treasury companies like to tout the SPS metric as a main measure of crypto exposure, I believe a mere look at the SPS metric, especially in a peer comp, isn't enough; though the metric becomes more useful when trying to gauge how SPS has grown, which implies how share count has changed against the SOL holding over time.

Sharps’ currently has an edge in SOL exposure per dollar, and it boils down to its lower ￰32￱ an SPS of 0.075 and a share price around $6.75, each dollar invested buys roughly 0.0111 SOL (0.075 SPS ÷ 6.75 share price ≈ 0.0111) or around $2.5 worth of SOL, more than DFDV, which has an SPS of 0.0816 and a ~$15 share price, giving about 0.00544 SOL per $1 invested, and Upexi, with 0.0343 SPS and a ~$7.45 share price, offering around 0.0046 SOL per $1. Even though DFDV reports a higher raw SPS and Upexi holds a slightly larger SOL treasury compared to Sharps, the higher valuation of both DFDV and Upexi dilutes the “cost-efficiency” of each share for investors.

Sharps’ combination of meaningful SOL holdings (nearly matching that of DFDV and Upexi, both holding slightly above 2 million SOL currently) and a lower market valuation makes it the most efficient vehicle for investors seeking SOL exposure through equities among the mentioned ￰33￱ has a lower share price, so each $1 buys more of the SOL that each share ￰34￱ top of that, Sharps’ promising core business, which is moving into commercialization, makes it an even stronger contender beyond the SOL per share ￰35￱ the recently announced $100 million share buyback program was the main driver that made the stock see some rally this week, I think STSS has the potential to see a lasting rally and rerate higher to match the valuation of peers if per $1 exposure to SOL remains attractive and if dilution is kept in ￰36￱ While STSS shows strong efficiency in SOL exposure per $1, there are risks that are common risks for all crypto treasury companies, and STSS isn't immune to ￰37￱ a crypto treasury company means heavy balance sheet exposure to crypto volatility, which creates inherent financial risk and ￰38￱ also filed a $1 billion mixed shelf offering ￰39￱ investors expect management to deploy capital prudently at favorable timing and market conditions, the exposure to crypto’s inherent volatility means there could be some pressure that can push the execution decisions of management to suboptimal ￰40￱ is also the risk of dilution from the offering, which could erode the attractive per-share SOL value of STSS if dilution rises faster than accumulated SOL.

Also, Sharps’ medical equipment manufacturing business still remains unproven until the revenue from that business and product line takes proper ￰41￱ Though I've highlighted Sharps’ attractiveness in terms of SOL exposure per $1 invested and the potential to rerate to the valuation of peers also pursuing a SOL treasury strategy, I’d still lean towards a cautious Hold ￰42￱ unproven nature of its core operations and aggressive capital allocation warrant a Hold rating. I believe investors should wait for initial commercial traction or a more sustainable capital strategy before turning fully bullish. Personally, I see the $100 million share buyback as a stretch and a rather bold move that raises questions, given the company’s ongoing operating losses and negative cash flow, which makes the financial prudence of this decision ￰43￱ $100 million share buyback feels ambitious for a company still facing operating losses and negative cash flow, making a cautious Hold the prudent ￰44￱ at this stage, several companies pursuing a crypto treasury strategy are taking similar aggressive capital ￰45￱ like Sharps, DFDV also announced an increase of its share buyback program from $1 million to $100 million recently to so-called “enhance shareholder value.”