VanEck Bitcoin ETF

Previous wording

The trading prices of many digital assets, including bitcoin, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. For instance, there were steep increases in the value of certain digital assets, including bitcoin, over the course of 2021, and multiple market observers asserted that digital assets were experiencing a “bubble.” These increases were followed by steep drawdowns throughout 2022 in digital asset trading prices, including for bitcoin. These episodes of rapid price appreciation followed by steep drawdowns have occurred multiple times throughout bitcoin’s history, including in 2011, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018, before repeating again in 2021-2022. Over the course of 2023, bitcoin prices continued to exhibit extreme volatility.

Current wording

The trading prices of many digital assets, including bitcoin, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. For instance, there were steep increases in the value of certain digital assets, including bitcoin, over the course of 2021, and multiple market observers asserted that digital assets were experiencing a “bubble.” These increases were followed by steep drawdowns throughout 2022 in digital asset trading prices, including for bitcoin. These episodes of rapid price appreciation followed by steep drawdowns have occurred multiple times throughout bitcoin’s history, including in 2011, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018, before repeating again in 2021-2022. Over the course of 2023 and 2024, bitcoin prices continued to exhibit extreme volatility.

Previous wording

Digital assets such as bitcoin were only introduced within the past 15 years, and the value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors over time relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies, such as the recentness of their development, their dependence on the internet and other technologies, their dependence on the role played by users, developers and miners and the potential for malicious activity. Given the recentness of the development of digital asset networks, digital assets may not function as intended and parties may be unwilling to use digital assets, which would dampen the growth, if any, of digital asset networks. Because bitcoin is a digital asset, the value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the fundamental investment characteristics of digital assets, including the fact that digital assets are bearer instruments and loss, theft, compromise, or destruction of the associated private keys could result in permanent loss of the asset.

Current wording

Digital assets such as bitcoin were only introduced within the past 16 years, and the value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors over time relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies, such as the recentness of their development, their dependence on the internet and other technologies, their dependence on the role played by users, developers and miners and the potential for malicious activity. Given the recentness of the development of digital asset networks, digital assets may not function as intended and parties may be unwilling to use digital assets, which would dampen the growth, if any, of digital asset networks. Because bitcoin is a digital asset, the value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the fundamental investment characteristics of digital assets, including the fact that digital assets are bearer instruments and loss, theft, compromise, or destruction of the associated private keys could result in permanent loss of the asset.

Previous wording

The custody of the Trust’s bitcoin is handled by the Bitcoin Custodian, and the transfer of bitcoin to and from Liquidity Providers normally takes place through the Bitcoin Custodian’s Clearing Services and is directed by the Administrator and the Transfer Agent. The Sponsor has evaluated the procedures and internal controls of the Trust’s Bitcoin Custodian to safeguard the Trust’s bitcoin holdings, as well as the procedures and internal controls of the Trust’s Administrator. However, it is possible that, through computer or human error, or through theft or criminal action, the Trust’s bitcoin could be transferred from the Trust’s Bitcoin Account or Clearing Account at the Bitcoin Custodian in incorrect amounts or to unauthorized third parties, or to incorrect destination addresses on the Bitcoin Blockchain. Alternatively, if the Bitcoin Custodian’s internal procedures and controls are inadequate to safeguard the Trust’s bitcoin holdings, and the Trust’s private key(s) is (are) lost, destroyed or otherwise compromised and no backup of the private key(s) is (are) accessible, the Trust will be unable to access its bitcoin, which could adversely affect an investment in the Shares of the Trust. In addition, if the Trust’s private key(s) is (are) misappropriated and the Trust’s bitcoin holdings are stolen, including from or by the Bitcoin Custodian, the Trust could lose some or all of its bitcoin holdings, which could adversely impact an investment in the Shares of the Trust.

Current wording

The custody of the Trust’s bitcoin is handled by the Bitcoin Custodian and the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, and the transfer of bitcoin to and from Liquidity Providers normally takes place through the Bitcoin Custodian’s Clearing Services and is directed by the Administrator and the Transfer Agent. The Sponsor has evaluated the procedures and internal controls of the Trust’s Bitcoin Custodian and the Additional Bitcoin Custodian to safeguard the Trust’s bitcoin holdings, as well as the procedures and internal controls of the Trust’s Administrator. However, it is possible that, through computer or human error, or through theft or criminal action, the Trust’s bitcoin could be transferred from the Trust’s Bitcoin Account or Clearing Account at the Bitcoin Custodian or the the Additional Bitcoin Account at the Additional Bitcoin Custodian in incorrect amounts or to unauthorized third parties, or to incorrect destination addresses on the Bitcoin Blockchain. Alternatively, if the Bitcoin Custodian’s and the Additional Bitcoin Custodian’s internal procedures and controls are inadequate to safeguard the Trust’s bitcoin holdings, and the Trust’s private key(s) is (are) lost, destroyed or otherwise compromised and no backup of the private key(s) is (are) accessible, the Trust will be unable to access its bitcoin, which could adversely affect an investment in the Shares of the Trust. In addition, if the Trust’s private key(s) is (are) misappropriated and the Trust’s bitcoin holdings are stolen, including from or by the Bitcoin Custodian or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, the Trust could lose some or all of its bitcoin holdings, which could adversely impact an investment in the Shares of the Trust.

Previous wording

Such events have occurred in connection with digital assets in the past. For example, in September 2014, the Chinese digital asset exchange Huobi announced that it had sent approximately 900 bitcoins and 8,000 Litecoins (worth approximately $400,000 at the prevailing market prices at the time) to the wrong customers.

Current wording

Such events have occurred in connection with digital assets in the past. For example, in September 2014, the Chinese digital asset exchange Huobi announced that it had sent approximately 900 bitcoins and 8,000 Litecoins (worth approximately $400,000 at the prevailing market prices at the time) to the wrong customers. The Federal Bureau of Investigation published an announcement that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) was responsible for the theft of approximately $1.5 billion USD in virtual assets from cryptocurrency exchange, Bybit, on or about February 21, 2025.

Previous wording

The governance of decentralized networks, such as the Bitcoin network, is by voluntary consensus and open competition. In other words, the Bitcoin network has no central decision-making body or clear manner in which participants can come to an agreement other than through voluntary, widespread consensus. As a result, a lack of widespread consensus in the governance of the Bitcoin network may adversely affect the network’s utility and ability to adapt and face challenges, including technical and scaling challenges. Historically the development of the source code of the Bitcoin network has been overseen by the core developers. However, the Bitcoin network would cease to operate successfully without both miners and users, and the core developers cannot formally compel them to adopt the changes to the source code desired by core developers, or to continue to render services or participate in the Bitcoin network. As a general matter, the governance of the Bitcoin network generally depends on most of members of the Bitcoin community ultimately reaching some form of voluntary agreement on significant changes.

Current wording

The governance of decentralized networks, such as the Bitcoin network, is by voluntary consensus and open competition. In other words, the Bitcoin network has no central decision-making body or clear manner in which participants can come to an agreement other than through voluntary, widespread consensus. As a result, a lack of widespread consensus in the governance of the Bitcoin network may adversely affect the network’s utility and ability to adapt and face challenges, including technical and scaling challenges. Historically the development of the source code of the Bitcoin network has been overseen by the core developers. However, the Bitcoin network would cease to operate successfully without both miners and users, and the core developers cannot formally compel them to adopt the changes to the source code desired by core developers, or to continue to render services or participate in the Bitcoin network. As a general matter, the governance of the Bitcoin network generally depends on most of the members of the Bitcoin community ultimately reaching some form of voluntary agreement on significant changes.

Previous wording

The decentralized governance of the Bitcoin network may make it difficult to find or implement solutions or marshal sufficient effort to overcome existing or future problems, especially protracted ones requiring substantial directed effort and resource commitment over a long period of time, such as scaling challenges. Deeply-held differences of the opinion have led to forks in the past, such as between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, and could lead to additional forks in the future, with potentially divisive effects. The Bitcoin network’s failure to overcome governance challenges could exacerbate problems experienced by the network or cause the network to fail to meet the needs of its users, and could cause users, miners, and developer talent to abandon the Bitcoin network or to choose competing blockchain protocols, or lead to a drop in speculative interest, which could cause the value of bitcoin to decline. If the Bitcoin community is unable to reach consensus in the future, it could have adverse consequences for the network or lead to a fork, which could affect the value of bitcoin.

Current wording

The decentralized governance of the Bitcoin network may make it difficult to find or implement solutions or marshal sufficient effort to overcome existing or future problems, especially protracted ones requiring substantial directed effort and resource commitment over a long period of time, such as scaling challenges. Deeply-held differences of opinion have led to forks in the past, such as between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, and could lead to additional forks in the future, with potentially divisive effects. The Bitcoin network’s failure to overcome governance challenges could exacerbate problems experienced by the network or cause the network to fail to meet the needs of its users, and could cause users, miners, and developer talent to abandon the Bitcoin network or to choose competing blockchain protocols, or lead to a drop in speculative interest, which could cause the value of bitcoin to decline. If the Bitcoin community is unable to reach consensus in the future, it could have adverse consequences for the network or lead to a fork, which could affect the value of bitcoin.

Previous wording

The Bitcoin network is designed to periodically reduce the fixed award given to miners for solving new blocks (the “block reward”), most recently in May 2020, when the block reward reduced from 12.5 to 6.25 bitcoin. Under the source code that governs the Bitcoin network, the supply of new bitcoin is mathematically controlled so that the number of bitcoin grows at a limited rate pursuant to a pre-set schedule. The block reward is automatically halved after every 210,000 blocks are added to the Bitcoin blockchain, approximately every 4 years. As noted above, currently the block reward is 6.25 bitcoin per block and this is expected to decrease by half to become 3.125 bitcoin in approximately early 2024. This deliberately controlled rate of bitcoin creation means that the number of bitcoin in existence will increase at a controlled rate until the number of bitcoin in existence reaches the pre-determined 21 million bitcoin. As of December 31, 2023, approximately 19.6 million bitcoins were outstanding and the date when the 21 million bitcoin limitation will be reached is estimated to be the year 2140.

Current wording

The Bitcoin network is designed to periodically reduce the fixed award given to miners for solving new blocks (the “block reward”), most recently in April 2024, when the block reward reduced from 6.25 to 3.125 bitcoin. Under the source code that governs the Bitcoin network, the supply of new bitcoin is mathematically controlled so that the number of bitcoin grows at a limited rate pursuant to a pre-set schedule. The block reward is automatically halved after every 210,000 blocks are added to the Bitcoin blockchain, approximately every 4 years. As noted above, currently the block reward is 3.125 bitcoin per block. This deliberately controlled rate of bitcoin creation means that the number of bitcoin in existence will increase at a controlled rate until the number of bitcoin in existence reaches the pre-determined 21 million bitcoin. As of December 31, 2024, approximately 19.8 million bitcoins were outstanding and the date when the 21 million bitcoin limitation will be reached is estimated to be the year 2140.

Previous wording

The value of the Shares of the Trust are represented by the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate that may also be subject to momentum pricing due to speculation regarding future appreciation in value of bitcoin, leading to greater volatility that could adversely affect the value of the Shares. Momentum pricing typically is associated with growth stocks and other assets whose valuation, as determined by the investing public, accounts for future appreciation in value, if any. The Sponsor believes that momentum pricing of bitcoins has resulted, and may continue to result, in speculation regarding future appreciation in the value of bitcoin, inflating and making the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate more volatile. As a result, bitcoin may be more likely to fluctuate in value due to changing investor confidence, which could impact future appreciation or depreciation in the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate and could adversely affect the value of the Trust.

Current wording

The value of the Shares of the Trust are represented by the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate that may also be subject to momentum pricing due to speculation regarding future appreciation in value of bitcoin, leading to greater volatility that could adversely affect the value of the Shares. Momentum pricing typically is associated with growth stocks and other assets whose valuation, as determined by the investing public, accounts for future appreciation in value, if any. The Sponsor believes that momentum pricing of bitcoins has resulted, and may continue to result, in speculation regarding future appreciation in the value of bitcoin, inflating and making the MarketVector TMBitcoin Benchmark Rate more volatile. As a result, bitcoin may be more likely to fluctuate in value due to changing investor confidence, which could impact future appreciation or depreciation in the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate and could adversely affect the value of the Trust.

Previous wording

If increases in throughput on the Bitcoin network lag behind growth in usage of bitcoin, average fees and settlement times may increase considerably. For example, the Bitcoin network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. Since January 1, 2019, bitcoin transaction fees have increased from $0.18 per bitcoin transaction, on average, to a high of $60.95 per transaction, on average, on April 20, 2021. As of December 31, 2022, bitcoin transaction fees were $1.17 per transaction, on average. Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for bitcoin (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, bitcoin, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares. In May 2023, events related to the adoption of ordinals, which are a means of inscribing digital content on the bitcoin blockchain, caused transaction fees to temporarily spike above $30 per transaction. As of January 5, 2024, bitcoin transaction fees were averaging $12.17 per transaction.

Current wording

If increases in throughput on the Bitcoin network lag behind growth in usage of bitcoin, average fees and settlement times may increase considerably. For example, the Bitcoin network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. Since January 1, 2019, bitcoin transaction fees have increased from $0.18 per bitcoin transaction, on average, to a high of $60.95 per transaction, on average, on April 20, 2021. As of December 31, 2022, bitcoin transaction fees were $1.17 per transaction, on average. Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for bitcoin (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, bitcoin, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares. In May 2023, events related to the adoption of ordinals, which are a means of inscribing digital content on the bitcoin blockchain, caused transaction fees to temporarily spike above $30 per transaction. As of January 31, 2025, bitcoin transaction fees were averaging $1.54 per transaction.

Previous wording

Many digital asset trading platforms are unlicensed, unregulated, operate without extensive supervision by governmental authorities, and do not provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management team, corporate practices, cybersecurity, and regulatory compliance. In particular, those located outside the United States may be subject to significantly less stringent regulatory and compliance requirements in their local jurisdictions, and may take the position that they are not subject to laws and regulations that would apply to a national securities exchange or designated contract market in the United States, or may, as a practical matter, be beyond the ambit of U.S. regulators. As a result, trading activity on or reported by these digital asset trading platforms is generally significantly less regulated than trading in regulated U.S. securities and commodities markets, and may reflect behavior that would be prohibited in regulated U.S. trading venues.

Current wording

Many digital asset trading platforms are unlicensed, unregulated, may be subject to regulation in a relevant jurisdiction, but may not be complying, may operate without extensive supervision by governmental authorities, and do not provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management team, corporate practices, cybersecurity, and regulatory compliance. In particular, those located outside the United States may be subject to significantly less stringent regulatory and compliance requirements in their local jurisdictions, and may take the position that they are not subject to laws and regulations that would apply to a national securities exchange or designated contract market in the United States, or may, as a practical matter, be beyond the ambit of U.S. regulators. As a result, trading activity on or reported by these digital asset trading platforms is generally significantly less regulated than trading in regulated U.S. securities and commodities markets, and may reflect behavior that would be prohibited in regulated U.S. trading venues.

Previous wording

Given the foundational role that stablecoins play in global digital asset markets, their fundamental liquidity can have a dramatic impact on the broader digital asset market, including the market for bitcoin. Because a large portion of the digital asset market still depends on stablecoins such as Tether and USDC, there is a risk that a disorderly de-pegging or a run on Tether or USDC could lead to dramatic market volatility in digital assets more broadly. Volatility in stablecoins, operational issues with stablecoins (for example, technical issues that prevent settlement), concerns about the sufficiency of any reserves that support stablecoins or potential manipulative activity when unbacked stablecoins are used to pay for other digital assets (including bitcoin), or regulatory concerns about stablecoin issuers or intermediaries, such as exchanges, that support stablecoins, could impact individuals’ willingness to trade on trading venues that rely on stablecoins, reduce liquidity in the bitcoin market, and affect the value of bitcoin, and in turn impact an investment in the Shares. Given Bitfinex has in the past been a component of the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate and Bitfinex and Tether are understood to be under common ownership and management, problems with Tether specifically could potentially affect pricing of transactions on Bitfinex or otherwise disrupt Bitfinex’s operations.

Current wording

Given the foundational role that stablecoins play in global digital asset markets, their fundamental liquidity can have a dramatic impact on the broader digital asset market, including the market for bitcoin. Because a large portion of the digital asset market still depends on stablecoins such as Tether and USDC, there is a risk that a disorderly de-pegging or a run on Tether or USDC could lead to dramatic market volatility in digital assets more broadly. Volatility in stablecoins, operational issues with stablecoins (for example, technical issues that prevent settlement), concerns about the sufficiency of any reserves that support stablecoins or potential manipulative activity when unbacked stablecoins are used to pay for other digital assets (including bitcoin), or regulatory concerns about stablecoin issuers or intermediaries, such as exchanges, that support stablecoins, could impact individuals’ willingness to trade on trading venues that rely on stablecoins, reduce liquidity in the bitcoin market, and affect the value of bitcoin, and in turn impact an investment in the Shares. Given Bitfinex is currently a component of the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate and Bitfinex and Tether are understood to be under common ownership and management, problems with Tether specifically could potentially affect pricing of transactions on Bitfinex or otherwise disrupt Bitfinex’s operations.

Previous wording

There have been a growing a number of attempts to list on national securities exchanges the shares of funds that hold digital assets. These investment vehicles attempt to provide institutional and retail investors exposure to markets for digital assets and related products. The exchange listing of shares of digital asset funds would create more opportunities for institutional and retail investors to invest in the digital asset market. However, the SEC has repeatedly denied such requests. If exchange-listing requests continue to be denied by the SEC, increased investment interest by institutional or retail investors could fail to materialize, which could reduce the demand for digital assets generally and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

There have been a growing number of attempts to list on national securities exchanges the shares of funds that hold digital assets. These investment vehicles attempt to provide institutional and retail investors exposure to markets for digital assets and related products. The exchange listing of shares of digital asset funds would create more opportunities for institutional and retail investors to invest in the digital asset market. However, the SEC has repeatedly denied such requests. If exchange-listing requests continue to be denied by the SEC, increased investment interest by institutional or retail investors could fail to materialize, which could reduce the demand for digital assets generally and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

Risks Associated with the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate

Current wording

Risks Associated with the MarketVector TMBitcoin Benchmark Rate

Previous wording

Although the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate is intended to accurately capture the market price of bitcoin, third parties may be able to purchase and sell bitcoin on public or private markets not included among the constituent trading platforms used in calculating the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate, and such transactions may take place at prices materially higher or lower than the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate. Moreover, there may be variances in the prices of bitcoin on the various constituent trading platforms used in calculating the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate, including as a result of differences in fee structures or administrative procedures on different trading platforms. While the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate provides a U.S. dollar-denominated composite index for the price of bitcoin based on, at any given time, the prices on each such constituent trading platforms or pricing source may not be equal to the value of a bitcoin as represented by the Index. It is possible that the price of bitcoins on the bitcoin trading platforms could be materially higher or lower than the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate price. To the extent the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate price differs materially from the actual prices available on a bitcoin trading platforms used to calculate it, or the global market price of bitcoin, the price of the Shares may no longer track, whether temporarily or over time, the global market price of bitcoin, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust by reducing investors’ confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of bitcoins. To the extent such prices differ materially from the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate, investors may lose confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of bitcoins, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

Although the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate is intended to accurately capture the market price of bitcoin, third parties may be able to purchase and sell bitcoin on public or private markets not included among the constituent trading platforms used in calculating the MarketVector TMBitcoin Benchmark Rate, and such transactions may take place at prices materially higher or lower than the MarketVector TMBitcoin Benchmark Rate. Moreover, there may be variances in the prices of bitcoin on the various constituent trading platforms used in calculating the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate, including as a result of differences in fee structures or administrative procedures on different trading platforms. While the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate provides a U.S. dollar-denominated composite index for the price of bitcoin based on, at any given time, the prices on each such constituent trading platforms or pricing source may not be equal to the value of a bitcoin as represented by the Index. It is possible that the price of bitcoins on the bitcoin trading platforms could be materially higher or lower than the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate price. To the extent the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate price differs materially from the actual prices available on a bitcoin trading platforms used to calculate it, or the global market price of bitcoin, the price of the Shares may no longer track, whether temporarily or over time, the global market price of bitcoin, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust by reducing investors’ confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of bitcoins. To the extent such prices differ materially from the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate, investors may lose confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of bitcoins, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

The global bitcoin market may be subject to fraud and manipulation, see “—Due to the unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of bitcoin trading platforms, they may experience fraud, manipulation, security failures or operational problems, which may adversely affect the value of bitcoin and, consequently, the value of the Shares,” and the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate may be affected to the extent they cause global prices of bitcoin to be subject to factors other than bona fide market forces.

Current wording

The global bitcoin market may be subject to fraud and manipulation, see “—Due to the unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of bitcoin trading platforms, which may be subject to regulation in a relevant jurisdiction, but may not be complying, they may experience fraud, manipulation, security failures or operational problems, which may adversely affect the value of bitcoin and, consequently, the value of the Shares,” and the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate may be affected to the extent they cause global prices of bitcoin to be subject to factors other than bona fide market forces.

Previous wording

The Trust will determine the NAV of the Trust on each Business Day based on the value of bitcoin as reflected by the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate. The methodology used to calculate the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate to value bitcoin in determining the net asset value of the Trust may not be deemed consistent with GAAP. To the extent the methodology used to calculate the MarketVector TMBitcoin Benchmark Rate is deemed inconsistent with GAAP, the Trust will utilize a GAAP-consistent pricing source for purposes of the Trust’s periodic financial statements. Creation and redemption of Baskets, the Sponsor’s management fee and other expenses borne by the Trust will be determined using the Trust’s net asset value determined daily based on the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate. Such net asset value of the Trust determined using the MarketVector TMBitcoin Benchmark Rate may differ, in some cases significantly, from the net asset value reported in the Trust’s periodic financial statements.

Current wording

The Trust will determine the NAV of the Trust on each Business Day based on the value of bitcoin as reflected by the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate. The methodology used to calculate the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate to value bitcoin in determining the net asset value of the Trust may not be deemed consistent with GAAP. To the extent the methodology used to calculate the MarketVector TMBitcoin Benchmark Rate is deemed inconsistent with GAAP, the Trust will utilize a GAAP-consistent pricing source for purposes of the Trust’s periodic financial statements. Creation and redemption of Baskets, the Sponsor’s management fee and other expenses borne by the Trust will be determined using the Trust’s net asset value determined daily based on the MarketVector TMBitcoin Benchmark Rate. Such net asset value of the Trust determined using the MarketVector TMBitcoin Benchmark Rate may differ, in some cases significantly, from the net asset value reported in the Trust’s periodic financial statements.

Previous wording

The Sponsor can remove the Marketvector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate and use a different pricing or valuation methodology instead.

Current wording

The Sponsor can remove the Marketvector TMBitcoin Benchmark Rate and use a different pricing or valuation methodology instead.

Previous wording

The value of the Shares may be influenced by a variety of factors unrelated to the price of bitcoin and the bitcoin trading platforms included in the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate that may have an adverse effect on the price of the Shares. These factors include the following factors:

Current wording

The value of the Shares may be influenced by a variety of factors unrelated to the price of bitcoin and the bitcoin trading platforms included in the MarketVector TMBitcoin Benchmark Rate that may have an adverse effect on the price of the Shares. These factors include the following factors:

Previous wording

In addition, the use of cash creations and redemptions, as opposed to in-kind creations and redemptions, creates transaction costs of buying and selling bitcoin that are not present in an in-kind model. These costs include the bid-ask spread along with the operational costs from the labor and overhead involved in calculating, executing, monitoring, and accounting for transactions in the bitcoin markets and related cash movements. Furthermore, there are timing costs involved in the risk that the bitcoin price moves between the time when the NAV is established for a creation/redemption and the time when the bitcoin is traded (“slippage”). Transaction costs and slippage would be reduced if the Trust were permitted to use an in-kind creation and redemption model. The Trust’s Authorized Participant Agreement provides that transaction costs and slippage related to Basket creation and redemption are the responsibility of the Authorized Participant. Whether Authorized Participants and Liquidity Providers as market participants will find it economically viable or commercially attractive to participate in a cash creation and redemption model for a bitcoin exchange-traded product like the Trust, including a cash creation and redemption model where the Trust selects the Liquidity Provider with whom it executes transactions to buy or sell bitcoin and the Authorized Participant is not permitted to designate the Liquidity Provider from whom bitcoin is purchased or sold in connection with the Authorized Participant’s Basket subscription or redemption, is not known; however, there is a risk they will not. If the Trust is unable to attract sufficient Authorized Participants and Liquidity Providers, it will be unable to maintain an efficient arbitrage mechanism for keeping the trading price of the Shares in line with NAV and the value of the underlying bitcoin held by the Trust, which could negatively affect Shareholders and cause them to purchase or sell Shares at a premium or discount to the value of the underlying bitcoin, causing losses; alternatively, it could be unable to operate, as there would no parties who would be able to create new Shares or redeem existing Shares, leading to the Trust being unsuccessful commercially and the Sponsor deciding to terminate and wind up the Trust’s operations. There can be no assurance that In-Kind Regulatory Approval will ever be obtained or that in-kind subscription or redemption transactions will ever occur, meaning that the Trust may conduct subscriptions and redemptions solely in cash for the foreseeable future and indefinitely if necessary.

Current wording

In addition, the use of cash creations and redemptions, as opposed to in-kind creations and redemptions, creates transaction costs of buying and selling bitcoin that are not present in an in-kind model. These costs include the bid-ask spread along with the operational costs from the labor and overhead involved in calculating, executing, monitoring, and accounting for transactions in the bitcoin markets and related cash movements. Furthermore, there are timing costs involved in the risk that the bitcoin price moves between the time when the NAV is established for a creation/redemption and the time when the bitcoin is traded (“slippage”). In addition, Liquidity Providers must settle bitcoin transactions with the Trust within a contractually specified time period, subject to customary exceptions. If the Liquidity Provider fails to perform its obligations within the contractually specified time period, the Trust would seek to use an alternate Liquidity Provider to execute the bitcoin transaction. However, the pricing or terms of the ultimate bitcoin transaction conducted through the alternate Liquidity Provider, if one is available, after the failure of the original Liquidity Provider to perform its obligations could deviate, potentially significantly, from the pricing or terms of the transaction that the Trust originally entered with the original Liquidity Provider. Transaction costs and slippage would be reduced if the Trust were permitted to use an in-kind creation and redemption model. The Trust’s Authorized Participant Agreement provides that transaction costs and slippage related to Basket creation and redemption are the responsibility of the Authorized Participant. Whether Authorized Participants and Liquidity Providers as market participants will find it economically viable or commercially attractive to participate in a cash creation and redemption model for a bitcoin exchange-traded product like the Trust, including a cash creation and redemption model where the Trust selects the Liquidity Provider with whom it executes transactions to buy or sell bitcoin and the Authorized Participant is not permitted to designate the Liquidity Provider from whom bitcoin is purchased or sold in connection with the Authorized Participant’s Basket subscription or redemption, is not known; however, there is a risk they will not. If the Trust is unable to attract sufficient Authorized Participants and Liquidity Providers, it will be unable to maintain an efficient arbitrage mechanism for keeping the trading price of the Shares in line with NAV and the value of the underlying bitcoin held by the Trust, which could negatively affect Shareholders and cause them to purchase or sell Shares at a premium or discount to the value of the underlying bitcoin, causing losses; alternatively, it could be unable to operate, as there would no parties who would be able to create new Shares or redeem existing Shares, leading to the Trust being unsuccessful commercially and the S…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Although Shares of the Trust are expected to be publicly listed and traded on an exchange, there can be no guarantee that an active trading market for the Trust will develop or be maintained. If Shareholders need to sell their Shares at a time when no active market for them exists, the price Shareholders receive for their Shares, assuming that Shareholders are able to sell them, likely will be lower than the price that Shareholders would receive if an active market did exist and, accordingly, a Shareholder may suffer losses.

Current wording

Although Shares of the Trust are publicly listed and traded on an exchange, there can be no guarantee that an active trading market for the Trust will develop or be maintained. If Shareholders need to sell their Shares at a time when no active market for them exists, the price Shareholders receive for their Shares, assuming that Shareholders are able to sell them, likely will be lower than the price that Shareholders would receive if an active market did exist and, accordingly, a Shareholder may suffer losses.

Previous wording

Security threats to the Trust’s account with the Bitcoin Custodian could result in the halting of Trust operations and a loss of Trust assets or damage to the reputation of the Trust, each of which could result in a reduction in the price of the Shares.

Current wording

Security threats to the Trust’s accounts with the Bitcoin Custodian or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian could result in the halting of Trust operations and a loss of Trust assets or damage to the reputation of the Trust, each of which could result in a reduction in the price of the Shares.

Previous wording

Security breaches, computer malware and computer hacking attacks have been a prevalent concern in relation to digital assets. The Sponsor believes that the Trust’s bitcoins held in the Trust’s Bitcoin Account and Clearing Account with the Bitcoin Custodian will be an appealing target to hackers or malware distributors seeking to destroy, damage or steal the Trust’s bitcoins and will only become more appealing as the Trust’s assets grow. To the extent that the Trust, the Sponsor or the Bitcoin Custodian is unable to identify and mitigate or stop new security threats or otherwise adapt to technological changes in the digital asset industry, the Trust’s bitcoins may be subject to theft, loss, destruction or other attack.

Current wording

Security breaches, computer malware and computer hacking attacks have been a prevalent concern in relation to digital assets. The Sponsor believes that the Trust’s bitcoins held in the Trust’s Bitcoin Account and Clearing Account with the Bitcoin Custodian and the Additional Bitcoin Account with the Additional Bitcoin Custodian will be an appealing target to hackers or malware distributors seeking to destroy, damage or steal the Trust’s bitcoins and will only become more appealing as the Trust’s assets grow. To the extent that the Trust, the Sponsor, the Bitcoin Custodian or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian is unable to identify and mitigate or stop new security threats or otherwise adapt to technological changes in the digital asset industry, the Trust’s bitcoins may be subject to theft, loss, destruction or other attack.

Previous wording

The Sponsor has evaluated the security procedures in place for safeguarding the Trust’s bitcoins. Nevertheless, the security procedures cannot guarantee the prevention of any loss due to a security breach, hack, software defect or act of God that may be borne by the Trust and the security procedures may not protect against all errors, software flaws or other vulnerabilities in the Trust’s technical infrastructure, which could result in theft, loss or damage of its assets. The Sponsor does not control the Bitcoin Custodian’s operations or implementation of such security procedures and there can be no assurance that such security procedures will actually work as designed or prove to be successful in safeguarding the Trust’s assets against all possible sources of theft, loss or damage.

Current wording

The Sponsor has evaluated the security procedures in place for safeguarding the Trust’s bitcoins. Nevertheless, the security procedures cannot guarantee the prevention of any loss due to a security breach, hack, software defect or act of God that may be borne by the Trust and the security procedures may not protect against all errors, software flaws or other vulnerabilities in the Trust’s technical infrastructure, which could result in theft, loss or damage of its assets. The Sponsor does not control the Bitcoin Custodian’s or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian’s operations or implementation of such security procedures and there can be no assurance that such security procedures will actually work as designed or prove to be successful in safeguarding the Trust’s assets against all possible sources of theft, loss or damage.

Previous wording

The security procedures and operational infrastructure may be breached due to the actions of outside parties, error or malfeasance of an employee of the Sponsor, the Bitcoin Custodian, or otherwise, and, as a result, an unauthorized party may obtain access to the Trust’s account with the Bitcoin Custodian, the private keys (and therefore bitcoin) or other data of the Trust. Additionally, outside parties may attempt to fraudulently induce employees of the Sponsor, the Bitcoin Custodian, or the Trust’s other service providers to disclose sensitive information in order to gain access to the Trust’s infrastructure. As the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access, disable or degrade service, or sabotage systems change frequently, or may be designed to remain dormant until a predetermined event and often are not recognized until launched against a target, the Sponsor and the Bitcoin Custodian may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. The Bitcoin Custodian is also dependent on key service providers, including, without limitation, its data centers, and if these were to cease operation or be the subject of operational problems or security threats, it could affect the Trust’s Bitcoin Account or Clearing Account with the Bitcoin Custodian.

Current wording

The security procedures and operational infrastructure may be breached due to the actions of outside parties, error or malfeasance of an employee of the Sponsor, the Bitcoin Custodian, the Additional Bitcoin Custodian or otherwise, and, as a result, an unauthorized party may obtain access to the Trust’s account with the Bitcoin Custodian, the private keys (and therefore bitcoin) or other data of the Trust. Additionally, outside parties may attempt to fraudulently induce employees of the Sponsor, the Bitcoin Custodian, the Additional Bitcoin Custodian or the Trust’s other service providers to disclose sensitive information in order to gain access to the Trust’s infrastructure. As the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access, disable or degrade service, or sabotage systems change frequently, or may be designed to remain dormant until a predetermined event and often are not recognized until launched against a target, the Sponsor, the Bitcoin Custodian and the Additional Bitcoin Custodian may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. The Bitcoin Custodian is also dependent on key service providers, including, without limitation, its data centers, and if these were to cease operation or be the subject of operational problems or security threats, it could affect the Trust’s Bitcoin Account or Clearing Account with the Bitcoin Custodian or the Trust’s Additional Bitcoin Account with the Additional Bitcoin Custodian.

Previous wording

An actual or perceived breach of the Trust’s Bitcoin Account or Clearing Account with the Bitcoin Custodian could harm the Trust’s operations, result in partial or total loss of the Trust’s assets, damage the Trust’s reputation and negatively affect the market perception of the effectiveness of the Trust, all of which could in turn reduce demand for the Shares, resulting in a reduction in the price of the Shares. The Trust may also cease operations, the occurrence of which could similarly result in a reduction in the price of the Shares.

Current wording

An actual or perceived breach of the Trust’s Bitcoin Account or Clearing Account with the Bitcoin Custodian or the Trust’s Additional Bitcoin Account with the Additional Bitcoin Custodian could harm the Trust’s operations, result in partial or total loss of the Trust’s assets, damage the Trust’s reputation and negatively affect the market perception of the effectiveness of the Trust, all of which could in turn reduce demand for the Shares, resulting in a reduction in the price of the Shares. The Trust may also cease operations, the occurrence of which could similarly result in a reduction in the price of the Shares.

Previous wording

If a Liquidity Provider Agreement, the Custody Agreement, an Authorized Participant Agreement or Clearing Agreement is terminated or a Liquidity Provider, an Authorized Participant or the Bitcoin Custodian fails to participate in the creation or redemption processes of the Trust or fails to provide services as required, the Sponsor may need to find and appoint a replacement Liquidity Provider, Authorized Participant or Bitcoin Custodian quickly, which could pose a challenge to the Trust’s ability to create and redeem Shares or the safekeeping of the Trust’s bitcoins, and the Trust’s ability to continue to operate may be adversely affected.

Current wording

If a Liquidity Provider Agreement, the Custody Agreement, the Additional Bitcoin Custody Agreement, an Authorized Participant Agreement or Clearing Agreement is terminated or a Liquidity Provider, an Authorized Participant, the Bitcoin Custodian or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian fails to participate in the creation or redemption processes of the Trust or fails to provide services as required, the Sponsor may need to find and appoint a replacement Liquidity Provider, Authorized Participant, Bitcoin Custodian or Additional Bitcoin Custodian quickly, which could pose a challenge to the Trust’s ability to create and redeem Shares or the safekeeping of the Trust’s bitcoins, and the Trust’s ability to continue to operate may be adversely affected.

Previous wording

The Sponsor could decide to replace the Bitcoin Custodian as the custodian of the Trust’s bitcoins, pursuant to the Custody Agreement. Similarly, the Bitcoin Custodian under the Custody Agreement and Clearing Agreement may terminate the Custody Agreement and Clearing Agreement respectively upon providing the applicable notice to the Trust for any reason, or immediately, upon the occurrence of a Termination Event (as defined below) that is incapable of being cured within ten business days or if it determines in its sole discretion it is necessary to take such action to comply with applicable laws and regulations or in connection with Gemini’s fraud or other compliance program. Under the Custody Agreement, a “Termination Event” occurs when (i) any representation, warranty, certification or statement made by the Trust was or becomes incorrect in any material respect when made; (ii) the Trust materially breaches, or fails in any material respect to perform any of its obligations under the Custody Agreement; (iii) the Trust requests a postponement of maturity or a moratorium with respect to any indebtedness or is adjudged bankrupt or insolvent, or there is commenced against the Trust a case under any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or other similar law now or hereafter in effect, or the Trust files a petition for bankruptcy or an application for an arrangement with its creditors, seeks or consents to the appointment of a receiver, administrator or other similar official for all or any substantial part of its property, admits in writing its inability to pay its debts as they mature, or takes any corporate action in furtherance of any of the foregoing, or fails to meet applicable legal minimum capital requirements; or (iv) a change of control of the Trust, or an event, change or development that causes or is likely to cause a material adverse effect on the Trust, or in the ability of the Trust to fulfill its responsibilities under the Custody Agreement, occurs. Transferring maintenance responsibilities of the Trust’s account at the Bitcoin Custodian to another custodian will likely be complex and could subject the Trust’s bitcoin to the risk of loss during the transfer, which could have a negative impact on the performance of the Shares or result in loss of the Trust’s assets. Also, if the Bitcoin Custodian becomes insolvent, suffers business failure, ceases business operations, defaults on or fails to perform its obligations under the Custody Agreement or Clearing Agreement with the Trust, or abruptly discontinues the services it provides to the Trust for any reason, the Trust’s operations would be adversely affected.

Current wording

The Sponsor could decide to replace the Bitcoin Custodian as the custodian of the Trust’s bitcoins, pursuant to the Custody Agreement. Similarly, the Bitcoin Custodian under the Custody Agreement and Clearing Agreement may terminate the Custody Agreement and Clearing Agreement respectively upon providing the applicable notice to the Trust for any reason, or immediately, upon the occurrence of a Termination Event (as defined below) that is incapable of being cured within ten business days or if it determines in its sole discretion it is necessary to take such action to comply with applicable laws and regulations or in connection with Gemini’s fraud or other compliance program. Under the Custody Agreement, a “Termination Event” occurs when (i) any representation, warranty, certification or statement made by the Trust was or becomes incorrect in any material respect when made; (ii) the Trust materially breaches, or fails in any material respect to perform any of its obligations under the Custody Agreement; (iii) the Trust requests a postponement of maturity or a moratorium with respect to any indebtedness or is adjudged bankrupt or insolvent, or there is commenced against the Trust a case under any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or other similar law now or hereafter in effect, or the Trust files a petition for bankruptcy or an application for an arrangement with its creditors, seeks or consents to the appointment of a receiver, administrator or other similar official for all or any substantial part of its property, admits in writing its inability to pay its debts as they mature, or takes any corporate action in furtherance of any of the foregoing, or fails to meet applicable legal minimum capital requirements; or (iv) a change of control of the Trust, or an event, change or development that causes or is likely to cause a material adverse effect on the Trust, or in the ability of the Trust to fulfill its responsibilities under the Custody Agreement, occurs. Transferring maintenance responsibilities of the Trust’s account at the Bitcoin Custodian to another custodian may be complex and could subject the Trust’s bitcoin to the risk of loss during the transfer, which could have a negative impact on the performance of the Shares or result in loss of the Trust’s assets. Also, if the Bitcoin Custodian becomes insolvent, suffers business failure, ceases business operations, defaults on or fails to perform its obligations under the Custody Agreement or Clearing Agreement with the Trust, or abruptly discontinues the services it provides to the Trust for any reason, the Trust’s operations would be adversely affected.

Previous wording

On October 19, 2023, Gemini, the Bitcoin Custodian for the Trust, was named in a complaint filed by the New York Attorney General (“NYAG Lawsuit”) against Gemini and other entities, including Genesis and its affiliates (collectively, the “Genesis Entities”) in a New York state court, alleging, inter alia, that Gemini had violated New York’s Martin Act by soliciting money from the public, including persons in New York, with false assurances that an investment program called Gemini Earn, pursuant to which customers of Gemini could deposit money in Earn accounts at Gemini that would then be loaned to the Genesis Entities and repaid with interest by them, was a highly liquid investment and that Genesis was a creditworthy borrower based on the Bitcoin Custodian’s ongoing risk monitoring. The NYAG Lawsuit is currently pending. On February 9, 2024, NYAG amended its lawsuit to add additional allegations against defendants other than Gemini. No new allegations were made against Gemini as part of the February 9 amendments. On February 28, 2024, Gemini and the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) announced that they had entered into an administrative consent settlement agreement (the “NYDFS Settlement”) that included findings, primarily with respect to the Gemini Earn program, that Gemini had conducted some of its business in an unsafe and unsound manner, made false or misleading advertising statements, and failed to maintain an effective customer due diligence program, and committed other violations of New York Banking Law and NYDFS regulations. Pursuant to this settlement, Gemini has agreed to ensure that at least $1.1 billion is returned to Gemini Earn users through the Genesis bankruptcy proceedings that are also creditors in the Genesis bankruptcy. In addition, Gemini has agreed to contribute at least $40 million for the benefit of impacted Gemini Earn users and pay a $37 million fine to NYDFS. In determining the appropriate amount of the penalty, the NYDFS acknowledged and commended Gemini’s cooperation and recognized Gemini’s engagement with the NYDFS on the matters identified in the NYDFS Settlement and its ongoing efforts to remediate the shortcomings identified in the NYDFS Settlement and during the NYDFS’ most recent examination of Gemini.

Current wording

On February 28, 2024, Gemini and the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) announced that they had entered into an administrative consent settlement agreement (the “NYDFS Settlement”) that included findings, primarily with respect to the Gemini Earn program, that Gemini had conducted some of its business in an unsafe and unsound manner, made false or misleading advertising statements, and failed to maintain an effective customer due diligence program, and committed other violations of New York Banking Law and NYDFS regulations. Pursuant to this settlement, Gemini has agreed to ensure that at least $1.1 billion is returned to Gemini Earn users through the Genesis bankruptcy proceedings that are also creditors in the Genesis bankruptcy. In addition, Gemini has agreed to contribute at least $40 million for the benefit of impacted Gemini Earn users and pay a $37 million fine to NYDFS. In determining the appropriate amount of the penalty, the NYDFS acknowledged and commended Gemini’s cooperation and recognized Gemini’s engagement with the NYDFS on the matters identified in the NYDFS Settlement and its ongoing efforts to remediate the shortcomings identified in the NYDFS Settlement and during the NYDFS’ most recent examination of Gemini.

Previous wording

Additionally, pursuant to the NYDFS Settlement, Gemini agreed to provide an action plan to NYDFS including implementing the recommendations of an outside consultant in connection with a governance and management assessment, continuing to strengthen its controls, policies and procedures to ensure robust compliance programs in connection with its virtual currency business activity, and continuing its cooperation with the NYDFS to remediate the violations identified in the NYDFS Settlement and previous examinations. The NYDFS Settlement also reserves the NYDFS’s right to bring an action against Gemini if Gemini fails to fulfill its obligations under NYDFS Settlement. The NYDFS Settlement does not resolve any other regulatory proceedings or litigation involving Gemini, including the NYAG Lawsuit. As a regulated entity with financial services licenses in multiple jurisdictions, it is possible that other regulators may decide to initiate their own action with respect to Gemini based on the findings contained in the NYDFS Settlement.

Current wording

Additionally, pursuant to the NYDFS Settlement, Gemini agreed to provide an action plan to NYDFS including implementing the recommendations of an outside consultant in connection with a governance and management assessment, continuing to strengthen its controls, policies and procedures to ensure robust compliance programs in connection with its virtual currency business activity, and continuing its cooperation with the NYDFS to remediate the violations identified in the NYDFS Settlement and previous examinations. The NYDFS Settlement also reserves the NYDFS’s right to bring an action against Gemini if Gemini fails to fulfill its obligations under NYDFS Settlement. The NYDFS Settlement does not resolve any other regulatory proceedings or litigation involving Gemini. As a regulated entity with financial services licenses in multiple jurisdictions, it is possible that other regulators may decide to initiate their own action with respect to Gemini based on the findings contained in the NYDFS Settlement.

Previous wording

Gemini, as the Bitcoin Custodian, could be required, as a result of judicial or regulatory determinations, or could choose, to restrict or curtail the services it offers (whether in or from New York State or generally), its licenses could be impacted, or its financial condition and ability to provide services to the Trust could be affected as a result of the NYDFS Settlement, NYAG Lawsuit, or other litigation. If the Bitcoin Custodian were to be required or choose, as a result of litigation or regulatory action, to restrict, curtail, or terminate the services it offers, it could negatively affect the Trust’s ability to operate, hold bitcoin, or process creations or redemptions of Baskets, which could force the Trust to engage an alternate bitcoin custodian or to liquidate and could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

NYAG Settlement, or other litigation. If the Bitcoin Custodian were to be required or choose, as a result of litigation or regulatory action, to restrict, curtail, or terminate the services it offers, it could negatively affect the Trust’s ability to operate, hold bitcoin, or process creations or redemptions of Baskets, which could force the Trust to engage an alternate bitcoin custodian or to liquidate and could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

The Sponsor may not be able to find a party willing to serve as the custodian or perform clearing services under the same terms as the current Custody Agreement and Clearing Agreement. To the extent that Sponsor is not able to find a suitable party willing to serve as the custodian or to perform clearing services, the Sponsor may be required to terminate the Trust and liquidate the Trust’s bitcoin. In addition, to the extent that the Sponsor finds a suitable party but must enter into a modified Custody Agreement or Clearing Agreement that is less favorable for the Trust or Sponsor, the value of the Shares could be adversely affected.

Current wording

The Sponsor may not be able to find a party willing to serve as the custodian or perform clearing services under the same terms as the current Custody Agreement, Additional Bitcoin Custody Agreement and Clearing Agreement. To the extent that Sponsor is not able to find a suitable party willing to serve as the custodian or to perform clearing services, the Sponsor may be required to terminate the Trust and liquidate the Trust’s bitcoin. In addition, to the extent that the Sponsor finds a suitable party but must enter into a modified Custody Agreement, Additional Bitcoin Custody Agreement or Clearing Agreement that is less favorable for the Trust or Sponsor, the value of the Shares could be adversely affected.

Previous wording

The lack of full insurance and Shareholders’ limited rights of legal recourse against the Trust, Trustee, Sponsor, Administrator, Cash Custodian and Bitcoin Custodian expose the Trust and its Shareholders to the risk of loss of the Trust’s bitcoins for which no person or entity is liable.

Current wording

The lack of full insurance and Shareholders’ limited rights of legal recourse against the Trust, Trustee, Sponsor, Administrator, Cash Custodian, Bitcoin Custodian and Additional Bitcoin Custodian expose the Trust and its Shareholders to the risk of loss of the Trust’s bitcoins for which no person or entity is liable.

Previous wording

The Trust is not a banking institution or otherwise a member of the FDIC or Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) and, therefore, neither, Shareholders cannot be assured that the Bitcoin Custodian will maintain adequate insurance, that such coverage will cover losses with respect to the Trust’s bitcoins, or that sufficient insurance proceeds will be available to cover the Trust’s losses in full. The Bitcoin Custodian’s insurance may not cover the type of losses experienced by the Trust. Alternatively, the Trust may be forced to share such insurance proceeds with other clients or customers of the Bitcoin Custodian, which could reduce the amount of such proceeds that are available to the Trust. The Trust is not a named insured under the Bitcoin Custodian’s insurance policies, though the Bitcoin Custodian has represented to the Sponsor that the insurance covers customer losses, including losses suffered by the Trust, arising from specified events, including fraud, theft, and cybersecurity breaches. In addition, the bitcoin insurance market is limited, and the level of insurance maintained by the Bitcoin Custodian may be substantially lower than the assets of the Trust, or the amount of claims against the Bitcoin Custodian of all of the customers whose losses are covered by the Bitcoin Custodian’s insurance coverage. While the Bitcoin Custodian maintains certain capital reserve requirements depending on the assets under custody, and such capital reserves may provide additional means to cover client asset losses, the Trust cannot be assured that the Bitcoin Custodian will maintain capital reserves sufficient to cover actual or potential losses with respect to the Trust’s digital assets.

Current wording

Neither the Trust nor the Sponsor insure the Trust’s bitcoin. The Trust is not a banking institution or otherwise a member of the FDIC or Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) and, therefore, neither, Shareholders cannot be assured that either the Bitcoin Custodian or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian will maintain adequate insurance in respect of the bitcoin they hold for the Trust, that such coverage will cover losses with respect to the Trust’s bitcoins, or that sufficient insurance proceeds will be available to cover the Trust’s losses in full. The Bitcoin Custodian’s insurance may not cover the type of losses experienced by the Trust. Alternatively, the Trust may be forced to share such insurance proceeds with other clients or customers of the Bitcoin Custodian, which could reduce the amount of such proceeds that are available to the Trust. The Trust is not a named insured under the Bitcoin Custodian’s insurance policies, though the Bitcoin Custodian has represented to the Sponsor that the insurance covers customer losses, including losses suffered by the Trust, arising from specified events, including fraud, theft, and cybersecurity breaches. In addition, the bitcoin insurance market is limited, and the level of insurance maintained by the Bitcoin Custodian may be substantially lower than the assets of the Trust, or the amount of claims against the Bitcoin Custodian of all of the customers whose losses are covered by the Bitcoin Custodian’s insurance coverage. While the Bitcoin Custodian maintains certain capital reserve requirements depending on the assets under custody, and such capital reserves may provide additional means to cover client asset losses, the Trust cannot be assured that the Bitcoin Custodian will maintain capital reserves sufficient to cover actual or potential losses with respect to the Trust’s digital assets.

Previous wording

The Clearing Agreement provides that it is subject to Gemini’s user agreement (the “User Agreement”). Pursuant to User Agreement, Gemini agrees to take reasonable care and use commercially reasonable efforts in executing Gemini’s responsibilities to the Trust pursuant to the User Agreement, or such higher care where required by law or as specified by the User Agreement. Gemini uses commercially reasonable efforts to provide the Trust with a reliable and secure platform. From time to time, interruptions, errors or other deficiencies in service may occur due to a variety of factors, some of which are outside of our control. These factors can contribute to delays, errors in service, or system outages, creating difficulties in accessing the Trust’s account, withdrawing fiat currency or bitcoin, depositing fiat currency or bitcoin, and/or placing and/or canceling orders.

Current wording

The Clearing Agreement provides that it is subject to Gemini’s user agreement (the “User Agreement”). Pursuant to the User Agreement, Gemini agrees to take reasonable care and use commercially reasonable efforts in executing Gemini’s responsibilities to the Trust pursuant to the User Agreement, or such higher care where required by law or as specified by the User Agreement. Gemini uses commercially reasonable efforts to provide the Trust with a reliable and secure platform. From time to time, interruptions, errors or other deficiencies in service may occur due to a variety of factors, some of which are outside of our control. These factors can contribute to delays, errors in service, or system outages, creating difficulties in accessing the Trust’s account, withdrawing fiat currency or bitcoin, depositing fiat currency or bitcoin, and/or placing and/or canceling orders.

Previous wording

Moreover, in the event of an insolvency or bankruptcy of the Bitcoin Custodian in the future, given that the contractual protections and legal rights of customers with respect to digital assets held on their behalf by third parties are relatively untested in a bankruptcy of an entity such as the Bitcoin Custodian in the virtual currency industry, there is a risk that customers’ assets – including the Trust’s assets – may be considered the property of the bankruptcy estate of the Bitcoin Custodian, and customers – including the Trust – may be at risk of being treated as general unsecured creditors of such entities and subject to the risk of total loss or markdowns on value of such assets.

Current wording

Moreover, in the event of an insolvency or bankruptcy of the Bitcoin Custodian or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian in the future, given that the contractual protections and legal rights of customers with respect to digital assets held on their behalf by third parties are relatively untested in a bankruptcy of an entity such as the Bitcoin Custodian and the Additional Bitcoin Custodian in the virtual currency industry, there is a risk that customers’ assets – including the Trust’s assets – may be considered the property of the bankruptcy estate of the Bitcoin Custodian or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, and customers – including the Trust – may be at risk of being treated as general unsecured creditors of such entities and subject to the risk of total loss or markdowns on value of such assets.

Previous wording

The Custody Agreement contains an agreement by the parties to treat the bitcoin credited to the Trust’s Custody Account (as defined in the Custody Agreement) as financial assets under Article 8 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (“Article 8”), in addition to stating that the Bitcoin Custodian will serve as fiduciary and custodian on the Trust’s behalf. It is possible that a court would not treat custodied digital assets as part of the Bitcoin Custodian’s general estate in the event the Bitcoin Custodian were to experience insolvency. However, due to the novelty of digital asset custodial arrangements courts have not yet considered this type of treatment for custodied digital assets and it is not possible to predict with certainty how they would rule in such a scenario. In the case of the Clearing Account, because it is an omnibus account in which the assets of multiple customers – including the Trust’s assets – are held together, it is likely the Trust would be treated as a general unsecured creditor in respect of the Clearing Account held with the Bitcoin Custodian in the event of the Bitcoin Custodian’s insolvency. The Clearing Agreement does not contain an Article 8 opt-in. If the Bitcoin Custodian became subject to insolvency proceedings and a court were to rule that the custodied bitcoin were part of the Bitcoin Custodian’s general estate and not the property of the Trust, then the Trust would be treated as a general unsecured creditor in the Bitcoin Custodian’s insolvency proceedings and the Trust could be subject to the loss of all or a significant portion of its assets. Moreover, in the event of the bankruptcy of the Bitcoin Custodian, an automatic stay could go into effect and protracted litigation could be required in order to recover the assets held with the Bitcoin Custodian, all of which could significantly and negatively impact the Trust’s operations and the value of the Shares.

Current wording

Each of the Custody Agreement and the Additional Bitcoin Custody Agreement contain an agreement by the parties to treat the bitcoin credited to the Trust’s Custody Account (as defined in the Custody Agreement) and the Trust’s Custodial Account (as defined in the Additional Bitcoin Custody Agreement) as financial assets under Article 8 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (“Article 8”), in addition to stating that the Bitcoin Custodian and the Additional Bitcoin Custodian will serve as fiduciary and custodian on the Trust’s behalf. It is possible that a court would not treat custodied digital assets as part of the Bitcoin Custodian’s or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian’s general estate in the event the Bitcoin Custodian or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian were to experience insolvency. However, due to the novelty of digital asset custodial arrangements courts have not yet considered this type of treatment for custodied digital assets and it is not possible to predict with certainty how they would rule in such a scenario. In the case of the Clearing Account, because it is an omnibus account in which the assets of multiple customers – including the Trust’s assets – are held together, it is likely the Trust would be treated as a general unsecured creditor in respect of the Clearing Account held with the Bitcoin Custodian in the event of the Bitcoin Custodian’s insolvency. The Clearing Agreement does not contain an Article 8 opt-in. If the Bitcoin Custodian or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian became subject to insolvency proceedings and a court were to rule that the custodied bitcoin were part of the Bitcoin Custodian’s or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian’s general estate and not the property of the Trust, then the Trust would be treated as a general unsecured creditor in the Bitcoin Custodian’s or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian’s insolvency proceedings and the Trust could be subject to the loss of all or a significant portion of its assets. Moreover, in the event of the bankruptcy of the Bitcoin Custodian or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, an automatic stay could go into effect and protracted litigation could be required in order to recover the assets held with the Bitcoin Custodian or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, all of which could significantly and negatively impact the Trust’s operations and the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

The Shareholders’ recourse against the Sponsor, the Trustee, and the Trust’s other service providers for the services they provide to the Trust, including, without limitation, those relating to the holding of bitcoin or the provision of instructions relating to the movement of bitcoin, is limited. For the avoidance of doubt, neither the Sponsor, the Trustee, nor any of their affiliates, nor any other party has guaranteed the assets or liabilities, or otherwise assumed the liabilities, of the Trust, or the obligations or liabilities of any service provider to the Trust, including, without limitation, the Bitcoin Custodian. Consequently, a loss may be suffered with respect to the Trust’s bitcoin that is not covered by the Bitcoin Custodian’s insurance and for which no person is liable in damages. As a result, the recourse of the Trust or the Shareholders, under applicable law, is limited.

Current wording

The Shareholders’ recourse against the Sponsor, the Trustee, and the Trust’s other service providers for the services they provide to the Trust, including, without limitation, those relating to the holding of bitcoin or the provision of instructions relating to the movement of bitcoin, is limited. For the avoidance of doubt, neither the Sponsor, the Trustee, nor any of their affiliates, nor any other party has guaranteed the assets or liabilities, or otherwise assumed the liabilities, of the Trust, or the obligations or liabilities of any service provider to the Trust, including, without limitation, the Bitcoin Custodian or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian. Consequently, a loss may be suffered with respect to the Trust’s bitcoin that is not covered by the Bitcoin Custodian’s or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian’s insurance and for which no person is liable in damages. As a result, the recourse of the Trust or the Shareholders, under applicable law, is limited.

Previous wording

If the Sponsor determines in good faith that the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate does not reflect an accurate bitcoin price, then the Sponsor will instruct the Administrator to employ an alternative method to determine the fair value of the Trust’s assets. There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment as to which of the rules the Sponsor will apply and the Sponsor may make this determination in its sole discretion. The Administrator may calculate the NAV in a manner that ultimately inaccurately reflects the price of bitcoin. To the extent that the Trust’s NAV and the Trust’s NAV per share, the MarketVector TMBitcoin Benchmark Rate, or the Administrator’s or the Sponsor’s other valuation methodology are incorrectly calculated, neither the Sponsor, the Administrator nor the Trustee may be liable for any error and such misreporting of valuation data could adversely affect the value of the Shares and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust. Moreover, the terms of the Trust Agreement do not prohibit the Sponsor from changing the index used to calculate NAV or other valuation method used to calculate the net asset value of the Trust. Any such change in the index or other valuation method could affect the value of the Shares and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust.

Current wording

If the Sponsor determines in good faith that the MarketVector TMBitcoin Benchmark Rate does not reflect an accurate bitcoin price, then the Sponsor will instruct the Administrator to employ an alternative method to determine the fair value of the Trust’s assets. There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment as to which of the rules the Sponsor will apply and the Sponsor may make this determination in its sole discretion. The Administrator may calculate the NAV in a manner that ultimately inaccurately reflects the price of bitcoin. To the extent that the Trust’s NAV and the Trust’s NAV per Share, the MarketVector TMBitcoin Benchmark Rate, or the Administrator’s or the Sponsor’s other valuation methodology are incorrectly calculated, neither the Sponsor, the Administrator nor the Trustee may be liable for any error and such misreporting of valuation data could adversely affect the value of the Shares and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust. Moreover, the terms of the Trust Agreement do not prohibit the Sponsor from changing the index used to calculate NAV or other valuation method used to calculate the net asset value of the Trust. Any such change in the index or other valuation method could affect the value of the Shares and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust.

Previous wording

The value of the Shares will be adversely affected if the Trust is required to indemnify the Sponsor, the Trustee, the Transfer Agent, the Bitcoin Custodian or the Cash Custodian under the trust documents.

Current wording

The value of the Shares will be adversely affected if the Trust is required to indemnify the Sponsor, the Trustee, the Transfer Agent, the Bitcoin Custodian, the Additional Bitcoin Custodian or the Cash Custodian under the trust documents.

Previous wording

Under the trust documents, each of the Sponsor, the Trustee, the Transfer Agent, the Bitcoin Custodian and the Cash Custodian has a right to be indemnified by the Trust for certain liabilities or expenses that it incurs without gross negligence, bad faith or wilful misconduct on its part. Therefore, the Sponsor, Trustee, Transfer Agent, the Bitcoin Custodian or the Cash Custodian may require that the assets of the Trust be used for indemnification in order to cover losses or liability suffered by them. This would reduce the bitcoin holdings of the Trust and the value of the Shares.

Current wording

Under the trust documents, each of the Sponsor, the Trustee, the Transfer Agent, the Bitcoin Custodian, the Additional Bitcoin Custodian and the Cash Custodian has a right to be indemnified by the Trust for certain liabilities or expenses that it incurs without gross negligence, bad faith or wilful misconduct on its part. Therefore, the Sponsor, Trustee, Transfer Agent, the Bitcoin Custodian, the Additional Bitcoin Custodian or the Cash Custodian may require that the assets of the Trust be used for indemnification in order to cover losses or liability suffered by them. This would reduce the bitcoin holdings of the Trust and the value of the Shares.