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 and 2024, 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. The average annualized one-year trailing volatility of bitcoin over the past ten years to date remains elevated at 65%. Over the course of 2021, there were steep increases in the value of certain digital assets, including bitcoin, 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. In the 2021-2022 cycle, the price of bitcoin peaked at $67,734 and bottomed at $15,632, representing a 77% drawdown. 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. Digital asset prices have continued to fluctuate in 2025. For example, bitcoin lost approximately 14% of its value according to some sources in mid-October 2025 as part of wider digital asset market turmoil, widely attributed to global trade tensions, which triggered a number of dislocations in the digital asset market (the “October 2025 Flash Crash”), including liquidations of up to $20 billion in collateral in the form of various digital assets (including, but not limited to, bitcoin) securing trades (particularly perpetual futures contracts and various forms of financing transactions), along with reported service interruptions, halted orders, forced unwinding of trades, and other issues, across centralized and decentralized exchanges.

Previous wording

The prices for some digital assets including bitcoin have risen following the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States. Some expect the new administration to adopt a more constructive attitude toward the digital assets industry than prior administrations were perceived to have done and work toward providing greater regulatory clarity and certainty for emerging technologies including blockchain technology and digital assets, thereby fostering their development. Certain members of Congress have also expressed similar sentiments. To the extent market expectations about future activity by the administration or Congress lead digital assets prices and valuations to increase, there can be no assurance such expectations will be fulfilled, or that digital asset prices will rise or maintain their current levels. Some commentators have referred to this as a bubble. There can be no assurance that such a bubble does not currently exist. The failure of the administration and Congress to provide greater regulatory clarity and certainty for blockchain technology and digital assets, such as through promulgating a regulatory framework governing the issuance and operation of digital assets that lives up to industry expectations, could lead to a decline in prices for digital assets including bitcoin, which could cause declines in the value of the Shares and cause Shareholders to suffer losses. Moreover, there can be no assurance that political winds or market perceptions of them will not shift over time.

Current wording

The prices of some digital assets, including bitcoin, have fluctuated significantly following the 2024 election of Donald Trump as president of the United States. Industry participants generally expect the administration to continue to take a constructive approach toward the digital asset industry. Through his executive orders, President Trump has indicated that the administration will work toward providing greater regulatory clarity for blockchain technology and digital assets, thereby fostering their development in the United States. Similarly, the digital asset industry expects favorable legislation from the U.S. Congress, as certain members have expressed interest in advancing digital asset specific legislation. There can be no assurance that market expectations around future activity by the administration or Congress will be fulfilled, or that digital asset prices will rise or maintain their current levels. Some commentators have referred to the digital asset market post-President Trump’s election as a bubble. There can be no assurance that such a bubble does not exist. The failure of the administration and Congress to provide the expected level of regulatory clarity and support for blockchain technology and digital assets, could lead to a decline in digital asset prices, including bitcoin. Such a decline could cause a decline in the value of our Shares and cause our Shareholders to suffer losses. Moreover, there can be no assurance that political dynamics and sentiments toward the digital asset industry, or market perceptions of those sentiments, will not unfavorably shift over time. Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of bitcoin, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares, and could lose all or substantially all of their value.

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 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.

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, 2025, approximately 19.97 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

Bitcoin network mining operations have rapidly evolved over the past several years from individual users mining with computer processors, graphics processing units and first-generation ASIC (application-specific integrated circuit) machines. New processing power is predominantly added to the Bitcoin network currently by “professionalized” mining operations. Such operations may use proprietary hardware or sophisticated ASIC machines acquired from ASIC manufacturers. Significant capital is necessary for mining operations to acquire this hardware, lease operating space (often in data centers or warehousing facilities), afford electricity costs and employ technicians to operate the mining farms. As a result, professionalized mining operations are of a greater scale than prior Bitcoin network validators and have more defined, regular expenses and liabilities. In addition, mining operations may choose to immediately sell bitcoin earned from their operations into the global bitcoin market. In past years, individual miners are believed to have been more likely to hold newly mined bitcoin for more extended periods. The immediate selling of newly mined bitcoin would increase the supply of bitcoin on the bitcoin market, creating downward pressure on the price of bitcoin.

Current wording

Bitcoin network mining operations have rapidly evolved over the past several years from individual users mining with computer processors, graphics processing units and first-generation ASIC (application-specific integrated circuit) machines. New processing power is predominantly added to the Bitcoin network currently by “professionalized” mining operations. Such operations may use proprietary hardware or sophisticated ASIC machines acquired from ASIC manufacturers. Significant capital is necessary for mining operations to acquire this hardware, lease operating space (often in data centers or warehousing facilities), afford electricity costs and employ technicians to operate the mining farms. As a result, professionalized mining operations are of a greater scale than prior Bitcoin network validators and have more defined, regular expenses and liabilities. In addition, mining operations may choose to immediately sell bitcoin earned from their operations into the global bitcoin market. In past years, individual miners are believed to have been more likely to hold newly mined bitcoin for more extended periods. The immediate selling of newly mined bitcoin would increase the supply of bitcoin on the bitcoin market, creating downward pressure on the price of bitcoin. A professional mining operation operating at a low profit margin may be more likely to sell a higher percentage of its newly mined bitcoin rapidly, and it may partially or completely cease operations if its profit margin is negative. In a low profit margin environment, a higher percentage of the new bitcoin mined each day will be sold into the bitcoin market more rapidly, thereby reducing bitcoin prices. The network effect of reduced profit margins resulting in greater sales of newly mined bitcoin could result in a reduction in the price of bitcoin that could adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

Previous 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.

Current wording

Many digital asset trading platforms are unlicensed, may be unregulated, may be subject to regulation in a relevant jurisdiction, but may or may not be in compliance therewith, 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

The bitcoin market globally and in the United States is not subject to comparable regulatory guardrails as exist in regulated securities markets. Furthermore, many bitcoin trading venues lack certain safeguards put in place by exchanges for more traditional assets to enhance the stability of trading on the exchanges and prevent “flash crashes,” such as limit-down circuit breakers. As a result, the prices of bitcoin on trading venues may be subject to larger and/or more frequent sudden declines than assets traded on more traditional exchanges. Tools to detect and deter fraudulent or manipulative trading activities such as market manipulation, front-running of trades, and wash-trading may not be available to or employed by digital asset trading platforms, or may not exist at all.

Current wording

The bitcoin market globally and in the United States is not subject to comparable regulatory guardrails as exist in regulated securities markets. Furthermore, many bitcoin trading venues lack certain safeguards put in place by exchanges for more traditional assets to enhance the stability of trading on the exchanges and prevent “flash crashes,” such as limit-down circuit breakers, as demonstrated by the October 2025 Flash Crash. As a result, the prices of bitcoin on trading venues may be subject to larger and/or more frequent sudden declines than assets traded on more traditional exchanges. Tools to detect and deter fraudulent or manipulative trading activities such as market manipulation, front-running of trades, and wash-trading may not be available to or employed by digital asset trading platforms, or may not exist at all.

Previous wording

The SEC has identified possible sources of fraud and manipulation in the bitcoin market generally, including, among others (1) “wash trading”; (2) persons with a dominant position in bitcoin manipulating bitcoin pricing; (3) hacking of the Bitcoin network and trading platforms; (4) malicious control of the Bitcoin network; (5) trading based on material, non-public information (for example, plans of market participants to significantly increase or decrease their holdings in bitcoin, new sources of demand for bitcoin) or based on the dissemination of false and misleading information; (6) manipulative activity involving purported “stablecoins,” including Tether (for more information, “—Prices of bitcoin may be affected due to stablecoins (including Tether and US Dollar Coin (“USDC”)), the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment”); and (7) fraud and manipulation at bitcoin trading platforms. The effect of potential market manipulation, front-running, wash-trading, and other fraudulent or manipulative trading practices may inflate the volumes actually present in crypto market and/or cause distortions in price, which could adversely affect the Trust or cause losses to Shareholders.

Current wording

The SEC has identified possible sources of fraud and manipulation in the bitcoin market generally, including, among others (1) “wash trading”; (2) persons with a dominant position in bitcoin manipulating bitcoin pricing; (3) hacking of the Bitcoin network and trading platforms; (4) malicious control of the Bitcoin network; (5) trading based on material, non-public information (for example, plans of market participants to significantly increase or decrease their holdings in bitcoin, new sources of demand for bitcoin, or other events which could affect the price of bitcoin) or based on the dissemination of false and misleading information; (6) manipulative activity involving purported “stablecoins,” including Tether (for more information, “-Prices of bitcoin may be affected due to stablecoins (including Tether and US Dollar Coin (“USDC”)), the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment”); and (7) fraud and manipulation at bitcoin trading platforms. The effect of potential market manipulation, front-running, wash-trading, and other fraudulent or manipulative trading practices may inflate the volumes actually present in digital asset markets and/or cause distortions in price, which could adversely affect the Trust or cause losses to Shareholders.

Previous wording

Over the past several years, some digital asset trading platforms have been closed due to fraud and manipulative activity, business failure or security breaches. In many of these instances, the customers of such digital asset trading platforms were not compensated or made whole for the partial or complete losses of their account balances in such digital asset trading platforms. While, generally speaking, smaller digital asset trading platforms are less likely to have the infrastructure and capitalization that make larger digital asset trading platforms more stable, larger digital asset trading platforms are more likely to be appealing targets for hackers and malware and may be more likely to be targets of regulatory enforcement action. For example, the collapse of Mt. Gox, which filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan in late February 2014, demonstrated that even the largest digital asset trading platforms could be subject to abrupt failure with consequences for both users of digital asset exchanges and the digital asset industry as a whole. In particular, in the two weeks that followed the February 7, 2014 halt of bitcoin withdrawals from Mt. Gox, the value of one bitcoin fell on other trading platforms from around $795 on February 6, 2014 to $578 on February 20, 2014. Additionally, in January 2015, Bitstamp announced that approximately 19,000 bitcoin had been stolen from its operational or “hot” wallets. Further, in August 2016, it was reported that almost 120,000 bitcoins worth around $78 million were stolen from Bitfinex. The value of bitcoin and other digital assets immediately decreased over 10% following reports of the theft at Bitfinex. In July 2017, FinCEN assessed a $110 million fine against BTC-E, a now defunct digital asset trading platform, for facilitating crimes such as drug sales and ransomware attacks. In addition, in December 2017, Yapian, the operator of Seoul-based cryptocurrency trading platform Youbit, suspended digital asset trading and filed for bankruptcy following a hack that resulted in a loss of 17% of Yapian’s assets. Following the hack, Youbit users were allowed to withdraw approximately 75% of the digital assets in their platform accounts, with any potential further distributions to be made following Yapian’s pending bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, in January 2018, the Japanese digital asset trading platform, Coincheck, was hacked, resulting in losses of approximately $535 million, and in February 2018, the Italian digital asset trading platform, Bitgrail, was hacked, resulting in approximately $170 million in losses. In May 2019, one of the world’s largest digital asset trading platform, Binance, was hacked, resulting in losses of approximately $40 million. In November 2022, FTX, one of the largest digital asset trading platform by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals and filed for bankruptcy, which revealed a shortfall of customer funds. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned and FTX and many of i…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Over the past several years, some digital asset trading platforms have been closed due to fraud and manipulative activity, business failure or security breaches. In many of these instances, the customers of such digital asset trading platforms were not compensated or made whole for the partial or complete losses of their account balances in such digital asset trading platforms. While, generally speaking, smaller digital asset trading platforms are less likely to have the infrastructure and capitalization that make larger digital asset trading platforms more stable, larger digital asset trading platforms are more likely to be appealing targets for hackers and malware and may be more likely to be targets of regulatory enforcement action. For example, the collapse of Mt. Gox, which filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan in late February 2014, demonstrated that even the largest digital asset trading platforms could be subject to abrupt failure with consequences for both users of digital asset platforms and the digital asset industry as a whole. In particular, in the two weeks that followed the February 7, 2014 halt of bitcoin withdrawals from Mt. Gox, the value of one bitcoin fell on other trading platforms from around $795 on February 6, 2014 to $578 on February 20, 2014. Additionally, in January 2015, Bitstamp announced that approximately 19,000 bitcoin had been stolen from its operational or “hot” wallets. Further, in August 2016, it was reported that almost 120,000 bitcoins worth around $78,000,000 were stolen from Bitfinex. The value of bitcoin and other digital assets immediately decreased over 10% following reports of the theft at Bitfinex. In July 2017, FinCEN assessed a $110,000,000 fine against BTC-E, a now defunct digital asset trading platform, for facilitating crimes such as drug sales and ransomware attacks. In addition, in December 2017, Yapian, the operator of Seoul-based cryptocurrency trading platform Youbit, suspended digital asset trading and filed for bankruptcy following a hack that resulted in a loss of 17% of Yapian’s assets. Following the hack, Youbit users were allowed to withdraw approximately 75% of the digital assets in their platform accounts, with any potential further distributions to be made following Yapian’s pending bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, in January 2018, the Japanese digital asset trading platform, Coincheck, was hacked, resulting in losses of approximately $535,000,000, and in February 2018, the Italian digital asset trading platform, Bitgrail, was hacked, resulting in approximately $170,000,000 in losses. In May 2019, one of the world’s largest digital asset trading platform, Binance, was hacked, resulting in losses of approximately $40,000,000. In November 2022, FTX, one of the largest digital asset trading platform by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals and filed for bankruptcy, which revealed a shortfall of customer funds. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned and FTX and many of i…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

In 2019 there were reports claiming that 80.95% of bitcoin trading volume on digital asset trading platforms was false or noneconomic in nature, with specific focus on unregulated exchanges located outside of the United States. Such reports alleged that certain overseas trading platforms have displayed suspicious trading activity suggestive of a variety of manipulative or fraudulent practices, such as fake or artificial trading volume or trading volume based on non-economic “wash trading”.

Current wording

In 2019 there were reports claiming that 80.95% of bitcoin trading volume on digital asset trading platforms was false or noneconomic in nature, with specific focus on unregulated exchanges located outside of the United States. Such reports alleged that certain overseas trading platforms have displayed suspicious trading activity suggestive of a variety of manipulative or fraudulent practices, such as fake or artificial trading volume or trading volume based on non-economic “wash trading” (where offsetting trades are entered into for other than bona fide reasons, such as the desire to inflate reported trading volumes), and attributed such manipulative or fraudulent behavior to motives like the incentive to attract listing fees from token issuers who seek the most liquid and high-volume platforms on which to list their coins.

Previous wording

While the Trust does not invest in and will not hold stablecoins, it may nonetheless be exposed to risks that stablecoins pose for the bitcoin market and other digital asset markets. Stablecoins are digital assets designed to have a stable value over time as compared to typically volatile digital assets, and are typically marketed as being pegged to a fiat currency, such as the U.S. dollar, at a certain value. Although the prices of stablecoins are intended to be stable, their market value may fluctuate. This volatility has in the past apparently impacted the price of bitcoin. Stablecoins are a relatively new phenomenon, and it is impossible to know all of the risks that they could pose to participants in the bitcoin market. In addition, some have argued that some stablecoins, particularly Tether, are improperly issued without sufficient backing in a way that, when the stablecoin is used to pay for bitcoin, could cause artificial rather than genuine demand for bitcoin, artificially inflating the price of bitcoin, and also argue that those associated with certain stablecoins may be involved in laundering money. On February 17, 2021 the New York Attorney General entered into an agreement with Tether’s operators, including Bitfinex, requiring them to cease any further trading activity with New York persons and pay $18.5 million in penalties for false and misleading statements made regarding the assets backing Tether (the “NYAG Settlement Order”). The NYAG Settlement Order states that Bitfinex and Tether are under common ownership and management. Among other things, the NYAG Settlement Order asserts that Tether’s operators made a series of loans of some of the fiat currency reserves backing Tether stablecoins to Bitfinex, which Bitfinex used in its business, including to bridge liquidity difficulties it faced after Bitfinex lost a substantial amount of customer cash due to the actions of a payment processor it employed. In return, Bitfinex gave Tether a receivable promising to pay the funds back. The NYAG Settlement Order finds, among other things, that representations Tether’s operators made that each Tether stablecoin was backed 1:1 by fiat currency reserves were fraudulent under New York’s Martin Act, because some of the fiat currency reserves were replaced by a receivable issued by an affiliate (Bitfinex) without disclosure to the market. On October 15, 2021, the CFTC announced a settlement with Tether’s operators, Tether Holdings Limited, Tether Operations Limited, Tether Limited, and Tether

Current wording

While the Trust does not invest in stablecoins, it may nonetheless be exposed to risks that stablecoins pose for the bitcoin market and other digital asset markets. Stablecoins are digital assets designed to have a stable value over time as compared to typically volatile digital assets and are typically marketed as being pegged to a fiat currency, such as the U.S. dollar, at a certain value. Although the prices of stablecoins are intended to be stable, their market value may fluctuate. This volatility has in the past apparently impacted the price of bitcoin. Stablecoins are a relatively new phenomenon, and it is impossible to know all of the risks that they could pose to participants in the bitcoin market. Like CBDCs, stablecoins could compete with, or replace, bitcoin and other digital assets as a medium of exchange or store of value. In addition, some have argued that some stablecoins, particularly Tether, are improperly issued without sufficient backing in a way that, when the stablecoin is used to pay for bitcoin, could cause artificial rather than genuine demand for bitcoin, thereby artificially inflating the price of bitcoin. On February 17, 2021, the New York Attorney General entered into an agreement with Tether’s operators, requiring them to cease any further trading activity with New York persons and pay $18.5 million in penalties for false and misleading statements made regarding the assets backing Tether. On October 15, 2021, the CFTC announced a settlement with Tether’s operators in which they agreed to pay $42.5 million in fines to settle charges that, among others, Tether’s claims that it maintained sufficient U.S. dollar reserves to back every Tether stablecoin in circulation with the “equivalent amount of corresponding fiat currency” held by Tether were untrue.

Previous wording

USDC is a reserve-backed stablecoin issued by Circle Internet Financial that is commonly used as a method of payment in digital asset markets, including the bitcoin market. While USDC is designed to maintain a stable value at 1 U.S. dollar at all times, on March 10, 2023, the value of USDC fell below $1.00 for multiple days after Circle Internet Financial disclosed that US$3.3 billion of the USDC reserves were held at Silicon Valley Bank, which had entered Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) receivership earlier that day. Stablecoins are reliant on the U.S. banking system and U.S. treasuries, and the failure of either to function normally could impede the function of stablecoins, and therefore could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

USDC is a reserve-backed stablecoin issued by Circle Internet Financial that is commonly used as a method of payment in digital asset markets, including the bitcoin market. While USDC is designed to maintain a stable value at one U.S. dollar at all times, on March 10, 2023, the value of USDC fell below $1.00 for multiple days after Circle Internet Financial disclosed that $3.3 billion of the USDC reserves were held at Silicon Valley Bank, which had entered FDIC receivership earlier that day. Stablecoins are reliant on the U.S. banking system and U.S. treasuries, and the failure of either to function normally could impede the function of stablecoins, and therefore could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

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 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.

Current wording

Given the foundational role that stablecoins play in global digital asset markets, their liquidity can have a dramatic impact on the broader digital asset market, including the market for bitcoin. A significant portion of the digital asset market continues to depend on stablecoins such as Tether and USDC. As such, any disruption in the operation or perceived stability of these stablecoins such as a disorderly de-pegging event or a loss of market confidence resulting in a run on reserves could lead to substantial market volatility across digital assets more broadly.

Previous wording

Fraud or manipulation may also affect the constituent trading platforms used to calculate the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate. For example, Coinbase paid $6.5 million in 2021 to settle a CFTC enforcement action for reckless false, misleading, or inaccurate reporting as well as wash trading by a former employee on Coinbase’s GDAX platform. According to the CFTC’s order, during the relevant period prior to the enforcement action, Coinbase operated at least two trading programs which generated orders that, at times, matched with one another. Coinbase included the transactional information for these transactions, such as price and volume data, on its website and provided that information to reporting services, either directly or through access to its website, resulting in a perceived volume and level of liquidity of digital assets, including bitcoin, on GDAX that was false, misleading or inaccurate. Additionally, between August and September 2016, the CFTC order finds that a former Coinbase employee intentionally placed buy and sell orders in the Litecoin/bitcoin trading pair on GDAX, which he intended to match with one another and result in no loss or gain while creating the appearance of liquidity and trading interest in

Current wording

Fraud or manipulation may also affect the constituent trading platforms used to calculate the MarketVector TM Bitcoin Benchmark Rate. For example, Coinbase paid $6.5 million in 2021 to settle a CFTC enforcement action for reckless false, misleading, or inaccurate reporting as well as wash trading by a former employee on Coinbase’s GDAX platform. According to the CFTC’s order, during the relevant period prior to the enforcement action, Coinbase operated at least two trading programs which generated orders that, at times, matched with one another. Coinbase included the transactional information for these transactions, such as price and volume data, on its website and provided that information to reporting services, either directly or through access to its website, resulting in a perceived volume and level of liquidity of digital assets, including bitcoin, on GDAX that was false, misleading or inaccurate. Additionally, between August and September 2016, the CFTC order finds that a former Coinbase employee intentionally placed buy and sell orders in the Litecoin/bitcoin trading pair on GDAX, which he intended to match with one another and result in no loss or gain while creating the appearance of liquidity and trading interest in Litecoin. Ultimately, the transactions resulted in wash transactions that depicted a misleading picture of the Litecoin/bitcoin market.

Previous wording

Custodian under the Custody Agreement and the provider of Clearing Services under the Clearing Agreement. Also, the change from the Trust’s originally contemplated model of in-kind creations and redemptions to the current model involving cash creations and redemptions, could cause potential market participants, such as the Authorized Participants and Liquidity Providers, who would otherwise be willing to purchase or redeem Baskets or bitcoin, as applicable, to take advantage of any arbitrage opportunity arising from discrepancies between the price of the Shares and the price of the underlying bitcoin, to decide not to take the risk that, as a result of those difficulties, they may not be able to realize the profit they expect, and reduce their transactions with or even refrain entirely from transacting with the Trust, which could disrupt the processes of creation and redemption of Shares. If such events rise to the level of an emergency or cause creations and redemptions of Shares to be impracticable, the Sponsor may suspend the process of creation and redemption of Baskets. Any disruptions to the process of creating and redeeming Shares could cause trading spreads, and the resulting premium or discount, on Shares compared to NAV to widen. Alternatively, in the case of a Bitcoin network outage or other problems affecting the Bitcoin network, the processing of transactions on the Bitcoin network may be disrupted, which in turn may prevent Liquidity Providers from depositing or withdrawing bitcoin from their accounts at the Bitcoin Custodian, which in turn could affect the creation or redemption of Baskets. If this is the case, the liquidity of the Shares may decline and the price of the Shares may fluctuate independently of the price of bitcoin and may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV. Furthermore, in the event that the market for bitcoin should become relatively illiquid and thereby materially restrict opportunities for arbitraging, the price of Shares may diverge from the value of bitcoin.

Current wording

The processes of creation and redemption of Shares (which depend on timely transfers of bitcoin to and by the Bitcoin Custodian and through the Clearing Services) could be disrupted or encounter challenges due to, for example, the price volatility of bitcoin, the insolvency, business failure or interruption, default, failure to perform, security breach, or other problems affecting the Bitcoin Custodian, in its capacity as Bitcoin Custodian under the Custody Agreement and the provider of Clearing Services under the Clearing Agreement. Authorized Participants and Liquidity Providers, who would otherwise be willing to purchase or redeem Creation Baskets or bitcoin, as applicable, to take advantage of any arbitrage opportunity arising from discrepancies between the price of the Shares and the price of the underlying bitcoin, may decide not to take the risk that, as a result of those difficulties, they may not be able to realize the profit they expect, and reduce their transactions with or even refrain entirely from transacting with the Trust, which could disrupt the processes of creation and redemption of Shares. If such events rise to the level of an emergency or cause creations and redemptions of Shares to be impracticable, the Sponsor may suspend the process of creation and redemption of Creation Baskets. Any disruptions to the process of creating and redeeming Shares could cause trading spreads, and the resulting premium or discount, on Shares compared to NAV to widen. Alternatively, in the case of a Bitcoin network outage or other problems affecting the Bitcoin network, the processing of transactions on the Bitcoin network may be disrupted, which in turn may prevent Liquidity

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”). 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.

Current wording

Creation Baskets may be created or redeemed in exchange for bitcoin or cash. At present, only certain Authorized Participants have the ability to support in-kind creation and redemption activity. 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 able to use an in-kind creation and redemption model. The Trust’s Authorized Participant Agreement provides that transaction costs and slippage related to Creation Basket creation and redemption are the responsibility of the Authorized Participant. Whether Authorized Participants who are unable to support in-kind creation and redemption activity 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 Creation 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 be 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..

Previous wording

Authorized Participants must be registered broker-dealers. Registered broker-dealers are subject to various requirements of the federal securities laws and rules, including financial responsibility rules such as the customer protection rule, the net capital rule and recordkeeping requirements. There has yet to be definitive regulatory guidance on whether and how registered broker-dealers can comply with these rules with regard to transacting in or holding spot bitcoin. Until further regulatory clarity emerges regarding whether registered broker-dealers can hold and deal in bitcoin under such rules, there is a risk that registered broker-dealers participating in the in-kind creation or redemption of Shares for bitcoin may be unable to demonstrate compliance with such requirements. While compliance with these requirements would be the broker-dealer’s responsibility, a national securities exchange is required to enforce compliance by its member broker-dealers with applicable federal securities law and rules. As a result, the SEC is unlikely to permit an exchange to adopt listing rules for a product if it is not clear that the exchange’s members would be able to comply with applicable rules when transacting in the product as designed. To the extent further regulatory clarity emerges, the Sponsor expects the Exchange to seek In-Kind Regulatory Approval to amend its listing rules to permit the Trust to create and redeem Shares in-kind for bitcoin, in which Authorized Participants or their designees would deposit bitcoin directly with the Trust or receive bitcoin directly from the Trust. However, there can be no assurance as to when such regulatory clarity will emerge, or when the Exchange will seek or obtain In-Kind Regulatory Approval, if at all.

Current wording

Authorized Participants must be registered broker-dealers. Registered broker-dealers are subject to various requirements of the federal securities laws and rules, including financial responsibility rules such as the customer protection rule, the net capital rule and recordkeeping requirements. On May 15, 2025, the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets and FINRA’s Office of General Counsel stated that broker-dealers are permitted to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions in connection with spot crypto exchange-traded products; however, there has yet to be definitive regulatory guidance on the specific details of how registered broker-dealers can comply with these rules with regard to transacting in or holding spot bitcoin. Until further regulatory clarity emerges regarding whether registered broker-dealers can hold and deal in bitcoin under such rules, there is a risk that registered broker-dealers participating in the in-kind creation or redemption of Shares for bitcoin may be unable to demonstrate compliance with such requirements. While compliance with rules such as the customer protection rule, the net capital rule and recordkeeping requirements would be the broker-dealer’s responsibility, a national securities exchange is required to enforce compliance by its member broker-dealers with applicable federal securities law and rules. Only certain Authorized Participants, at present, have the ability to also, through their affiliates, support in-kind creation and redemption activity.

Previous wording

Unlike other funds that may invest in diversified assets, the Trust’s investment strategy is concentrated in a single asset class: bitcoin. This concentration maximizes the degree of the Trust’s exposure to a variety of market risks associated with bitcoin. By concentrating its investment strategy solely in bitcoin, any losses suffered as a result of a decrease in the value of bitcoin can be expected to reduce the value of an interest in the Trust and will not be offset by other gains if the Trust were to invest in underlying assets that were diversified.

Current wording

Unlike other funds that may invest in diversified assets, the Trust’s investment strategy is concentrated in a single asset class: bitcoin. This concentration maximizes the degree of the Trust’s exposure to a variety of market risks associated with bitcoin. By concentrating its investment strategy solely in bitcoin, any losses suffered as a result of a decrease in the value of bitcoin can be expected to reduce the value of an interest in the Trust and will not be offset by other gains if the Trust were to invest in underlying asset s that were diversified.

Previous 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.

Current 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 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

On March 22, 2023, Coinbase, Inc., which is an affiliate of the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, and its parent (such parent, “Coinbase Global” and together with Coinbase Inc., the “Relevant Coinbase Entities”) received a “Wells Notice” from the SEC staff stating that the SEC staff made a “preliminary determination” to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against the Relevant Coinbase Entities alleging violations of the federal securities laws, including the Exchange Act and the Securities Act. According to Coinbase Global’s public reporting company disclosure, based on discussions with the SEC staff, the Relevant Coinbase Entities believe these potential enforcement actions would relate to aspects of the Relevant Coinbase Entities’ Coinbase Prime service, spot market, staking service Coinbase Earn, and Coinbase Wallet, and the potential civil action may seek injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil penalties. On June 6, 2023, the SEC filed a complaint against the Relevant Coinbase Entities in federal district court in the Southern District of New York, alleging, inter alia: (i) that Coinbase Inc. has violated the Exchange Act by failing to register with the SEC as a national securities exchange, broker-dealer, and clearing agency, in connection with activities involving certain identified digital assets that the SEC’s complaint alleges are securities, (ii) that Coinbase Inc. has violated the Securities Act by failing to register with the SEC the offer and sale of its staking program, and (iii) that Coinbase Global is jointly and severally liable as a control person under the Exchange Act for Coinbase Inc.’s violations of the Exchange Act to the same extent as Coinbase Inc. The SEC’s complaint seeks a permanent injunction against the Relevant Coinbase Entities to prevent them from violations of the Exchange Act or Securities Act, disgorgement, civil monetary penalties, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate or necessary. While the Additional Bitcoin Custodian is not named in the complaint, if Coinbase Global, as the parent of the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, is required, as a result of a judicial determination, or could choose, to restrict or curtail the services its subsidiaries provide to the Trust, or its financial condition is negatively affected, it could negatively affect the Trust’s ability to operate.

Current wording

On March 22, 2023, Coinbase, Inc., which is an affiliate of the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, and its parent (such parent, “Coinbase Global” and together with Coinbase Inc., the “Relevant Coinbase Entities”) received a “Wells Notice” from the SEC staff stating that the SEC staff made a “preliminary determination” to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against the Relevant Coinbase Entities alleging violations of the federal securities laws, including the Exchange Act and the Securities Act. According to Coinbase Global’s public reporting company disclosure, based on discussions with the SEC staff, the Relevant Coinbase Entities believe these potential enforcement actions would relate to aspects of the Relevant Coinbase Entities’ Coinbase Prime service, spot market, staking service Coinbase Earn, and Coinbase Wallet, and the potential civil action may seek injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil penalties. On June 6, 2023, the SEC filed a complaint against the Relevant Coinbase Entities in federal district court in the Southern District of New York, alleging, inter alia: (i) that Coinbase Inc. has violated the Exchange Act by failing to register with the SEC as a national securities exchange, broker-dealer, and clearing agency, in connection with activities involving certain identified digital assets that the SEC’s complaint alleges are securities, (ii) that Coinbase Inc. has violated the Securities Act by failing to register with the SEC the offer and sale of its staking program, and (iii) that Coinbase Global is jointly and severally liable as a control person under the Exchange Act for Coinbase Inc.’s violations of the Exchange Act to the same extent as Coinbase Inc. The SEC’s complaint seeks a permanent injunction against the Relevant Coinbase Entities to prevent them from violations of the Exchange Act or Securities Act, disgorgement, civil monetary penalties, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate or necessary. On February 27, 2025, the SEC and the Relevant Coinbase Entities filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice, and the case has been dismissed. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the SEC enforcement action, Coinbase Inc. is currently, and it and the Additional Bitcoin Custodian from time to time may be, subject in the future, to a variety of other litigation. Although the Trust does not presently anticipate such an outcome, there can be no assurance that in the future Coinbase Inc. or Coinbase Custody, as Bitcoin Custodian, will not be required, as a result of a judicial determination, or will not choose, to restrict or curtail the services they offer, or their financial condition and ability to provide services to the Trust, will not be negatively affected.

Previous wording

Furthermore, under the Custody Agreement, the Bitcoin Custodian’s liability is limited in various ways, including that the Bitcoin Custodian cannot be held responsible for any failure or delay to act by the Bitcoin Custodian, its service providers, or its banks that is within the time limits permitted by the Custody Agreement, or that is caused by the Trust’s negligence or is required to comply with applicable laws and regulations. The Bitcoin Custodian is not liable for any System Failure or Downtime (both as defined in the Custody Agreement), which prevents the Bitcoin Custodian from fulfilling its obligations under the Custody Agreement, provided that Bitcoin Custodian took reasonable care and used commercially reasonable efforts to prevent or limit such System Failures or Downtime and otherwise complied with the Custody Agreement. The Custody Agreement provides that “Downtime” means scheduled maintenance and a “System Failure” shall mean a failure of any computer hardware, software, computer systems, or telecommunications lines or devices used by the Bitcoin Custodian, or interruption, loss, or malfunction of utility, data center, Internet or network provider services used by the Bitcoin Custodian; provided, however, that a cybersecurity attack, data breach, hack, or other intrusion, or unauthorized disclosure by a third party, the Bitcoin Custodian, a service provider to the Bitcoin Custodian, or an agent or subcontractor of the Bitcoin Custodian, shall not be deemed a System Failure, to the extent such events or any losses arising therefrom are due to the Bitcoin Custodian’s failure to comply with its obligations under the Custody Agreement. The Bitcoin Custodian cannot be held responsible for any circumstances beyond the Bitcoin Custodian’s reasonable control, provided the Bitcoin Custodian took reasonable care and used commercially reasonable efforts in executing its responsibilities to the Trust pursuant to the Custody Agreement, which includes exercising the degree of care, diligence and skill that a prudent and competent professional provider of services similar to the custodial services would exercise in the circumstances, or such higher care where required by law or the Custody Agreement (collectively, the “Standard of Care”). The Bitcoin Custodian makes no guarantees regarding the Bitcoin network’s security, functionality, or availability, and will not be liable for or in connection with any acts, decisions, or omissions made by developers of the Bitcoin network. The Bitcoin Custodian is not liable for any losses or claims arising out of actions that are in the Trust’s control and related to the Trust’s use of the Bitcoin Custodian’s online platform, including but not limited to, the Trust’s failure to follow security protocols, the Bitcoin Custodian’s platform controls, improper instructions, failure to secure the Trust’s credentials from third parties, or anything else in the Trust’s control and is also not liable for any amount g…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Furthermore, under the Custody Agreement, the Bitcoin Custodian’s liability is limited in various ways, including that the Bitcoin Custodian cannot be held responsible for any failure or delay to act by the Bitcoin Custodian, its service providers, or its banks that is within the time limits permitted by the Custody Agreement, or that is caused by the Trust’s negligence or is required to comply with applicable laws and regulations. The Bitcoin Custodian is not liable for any System Failure or Downtime (both as defined in the Custody Agreement), which prevents the Bitcoin Custodian from fulfilling its obligations under the Custody Agreement, provided that Bitcoin Custodian took reasonable care and used commercially reasonable efforts to prevent or limit such System Failures or Downtime and otherwise complied with the Custody Agreement. The Custody Agreement provides that “Downtime” means scheduled maintenance and a “System Failure” shall mean a failure of any computer hardware, software, computer systems, or telecommunications lines or devices used by the Bitcoin Custodian, or interruption, loss, or malfunction of utility, data center, Internet or network provider services used by the Bitcoin Custodian; provided, however, that a cybersecurity attack, data breach, hack, or other intrusion, or unauthorized disclosure by a third party, the Bitcoin Custodian, a service provider to the Bitcoin Custodian, or an agent or subcontractor of the Bitcoin Custodian, shall not be deemed a System Failure, to the extent such events or any losses arising therefrom are due to the Bitcoin Custodian’s failure to comply with its obligations under the Custody Agreement. The Bitcoin Custodian cannot be held responsible for any circumstances beyond the Bitcoin Custodian’s reasonable control, provided the Bitcoin Custodian took reasonable care and used commercially reasonable efforts in executing its responsibilities to the Trust pursuant to the Custody Agreement, which includes exercising the degree of care, diligence and skill that a prudent and competent professional provider of services similar to the custodial services would exercise in the circumstances, or such higher care where required by law or the Custody Agreement (collectively, the “Standard of Care”). The Bitcoin Custodian makes no guarantees regarding the Bitcoin network’s security, functionality, or availability, and will not be liable for or in connection with any acts, decisions, or omissions made by developers of the Bitcoin network. The Bitcoin Custodian is not liable for any losses or claims arising out of actions that are in the Trust’s control and related to the Trust’s use of the Bitcoin Custodian’s online platform, including but not limited to, the Trust’s failure to follow security protocols, the Bitcoin Custodian’s platform controls, improper instructions, failure to secure the Trust’s credentials from third parties, or anything else in the Trust’s control and is also not liable for any amount g…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Subject to the Force Majeure provision and as limited by the limitations of liability in the Custody Agreement, the Bitcoin Custodian shall be liable to the Trust for the Loss (defined below) of any of the Trust’s bitcoin or fiat currency to the extent that such Loss was caused by the negligence, fraud, willful or reckless misconduct of the Bitcoin Custodian or breach by the Bitcoin Custodian of its Standard of Care. The Custody Agreement provides that “Loss” means if, at any time the Trust’s Bitcoin Account or Fiat Account, as applicable, does not hold the bitcoin or fiat currency that had been (1) received by Bitcoin Custodian in connection with the Trust’s Bitcoin Account or Fiat Account pursuant to the Custody Agreement, or (2) duly sent to the Bitcoin Custodian by the Trust or Authorized Participants in connection with the Trust’s Bitcoin Account pursuant to the Custody Agreement but not received because of a failure caused by the Bitcoin Custodian. The Custody Agreement provides that “Loss” shall include situations where the Bitcoin Custodian fails to execute a valid withdrawal request, bitcoin are withdrawn from the Trust’s Bitcoin Account other than pursuant to a withdrawal request, or the Trust is not able to timely withdraw bitcoin from the Bitcoin Account pursuant to a withdrawal request, in each case due to a failure caused by the Bitcoin Custodian; provided, however, that the Bitcoin Custodian’s failure to permit timely withdrawals because it has determined that it cannot do so due to the requirements of applicable laws and regulations or because of the operation of its fraud detection controls shall not be considered a Loss, provided the Bitcoin Custodian is acting reasonably and in good faith. The Custody Agreement provides that should a Loss of the Trust’s bitcoin or fiat currency due to the negligence, fraud, willful or reckless misconduct of the Bitcoin Custodian or a breach by the Bitcoin Custodian of its Standard of Care occur, the Bitcoin Custodian will, as soon as practicable, return to the Trust a quantity of the same digital asset that is equal to the quantity of digital assets involved in the Loss, or return to the Trust a quantity of the same fiat currency that is equal to the quantity of fiat currency involved in the Loss (if the Loss involved the Fiat Account). However, the Trust does not control the Bitcoin Custodian and cannot guarantee that the Bitcoin Custodian will perform its obligations to the Trust under the Custody Agreement, in a timely manner or at all. The Custody Agreement provides that (i) the Bitcoin Custodian does not own or control the underlying software protocols of networks which govern the operation of digital assets (including the Bitcoin Blockchain), (ii) the Bitcoin Custodian makes no guarantees regarding their security, functionality, or availability, and (iii) in no event shall the Bitcoin Custodian be liable for or in connection with any acts, decisions, or omissions made by developers or pro…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Subject to the Force Majeure provision and as limited by the limitations of liability in the Custody Agreement, the Bitcoin Custodian shall be liable to the Trust for the Loss (defined below) of any of the Trust’s bitcoin or fiat currency to the extent that such Loss was caused by the negligence, fraud, wilful or reckless misconduct of the Bitcoin Custodian or breach by the Bitcoin Custodian of its Standard of Care. The Custody Agreement provides that “Loss” means if, at any time the Trust’s Bitcoin Account or Fiat Account, as applicable, does not hold the bitcoin or fiat currency that had been (1) received by Bitcoin Custodian in connection with the Trust’s Bitcoin Account or Fiat Account pursuant to the Custody Agreement, or (2) duly sent to the Bitcoin Custodian by the Trust or Authorized Participants in connection with the Trust’s Bitcoin Account pursuant to the Custody Agreement but not received because of a failure caused by the Bitcoin Custodian. The Custody Agreement provides that “Loss” shall include situations where the Bitcoin Custodian fails to execute a valid withdrawal request, bitcoin are withdrawn from the Trust’s Bitcoin Account other than pursuant to a withdrawal request, or the Trust is not able to timely withdraw bitcoin from the Bitcoin Account pursuant to a withdrawal request, in each case due to a failure caused by the Bitcoin Custodian; provided, however, that the Bitcoin Custodian’s failure to permit timely withdrawals because it has determined that it cannot do so due to the requirements of applicable laws and regulations or because of the operation of its fraud detection controls shall not be considered a Loss, provided the Bitcoin Custodian is acting reasonably and in good faith. The Custody Agreement provides that should a Loss of the Trust’s bitcoin or fiat currency due to the negligence, fraud, wilful or reckless misconduct of the Bitcoin Custodian or a breach by the Bitcoin Custodian of its Standard of Care occur, the Bitcoin Custodian will, as soon as practicable, return to the Trust a quantity of the same digital asset that is equal to the quantity of digital assets involved in the Loss, or return to the Trust a quantity of the same fiat currency that is equal to the quantity of fiat currency involved in the Loss (if the Loss involved the Fiat Account). However, the Trust does not control the Bitcoin Custodian and cannot guarantee that the Bitcoin Custodian will perform its obligations to the Trust under the Custody Agreement, in a timely manner or at all. The Custody Agreement provides that (i) the Bitcoin Custodian does not own or control the underlying software protocols of networks which govern the operation of digital assets (including the Bitcoin Blockchain), (ii) the Bitcoin Custodian makes no guarantees regarding their security, functionality, or availability, and (iii) in no event shall the Bitcoin Custodian be liable for or in connection with any acts, decisions, or omissions made by developers or promo…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Similarly, under the Clearing Agreement, the Bitcoin Custodian’s liability in connection with the Clearing Services is limited as follows, among others: the Bitcoin Custodian does not have any responsibility for any sale or purchase of bitcoin for cash to a Liquidity Provider through the Clearing Services (such a transaction, a “Clearing Transaction”), other than as specifically identified in the Clearing Agreement. The Bitcoin Custodian may rely upon, without liability on its part, any clearing request submitted through Gemini’s platform. Absent gross negligence, willful misconduct or fraud, the Bitcoin Custodian shall not be liable for any loss resulting from a clearing request or the use of Clearing Services. Validation and confirmation procedures used by Gemini are designed only to verify the source of clearing requests and that each party has met its respective obligations in respect of a clearing request and not to detect errors in the content of a clearing request or to prevent duplicate clearing requests. The Trust is responsible for losses resulting from clearing requests provided by it and for any errors made by or on behalf of the Trust, any errors resulting, directly or indirectly, from fraud or the duplication of any clearing request by or on behalf of the Trust, or any losses resulting from the malfunctioning of any devices used by the Trust or loss or compromise of credentials used by the Trust to deliver clearing requests. The Bitcoin Custodian may reject, refuse to settle or otherwise not complete any request to settle a bitcoin transaction through the Clearing Services for any reason necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations or in connection with its fraud or other compliance controls and systems, and the Bitcoin Custodian shall have no liability whatsoever to the Trust, any transaction counterparty or any other party in connection with or arising out of the Bitcoin Custodian rejecting, refusing or otherwise not completing the settlement of a transaction through the Clearing Services. The Bitcoin Custodian will not settle transactions through the Clearing Services: (i) if either party to a Clearing Transaction has not fully funded its accounts held with the Bitcoin Custodian and used in connection with the Clearing Services (in the Trust’s case, the Clearing Account and Fiat Account), as applicable, with the required fiat currency amount or bitcoin amount, as applicable, prior to the agreed expiration time; (ii) if either party to a Clearing Transaction has not confirmed its acceptance of the clearing request to the Bitcoin Custodian prior to the agreed expiration time; (iii) if either party to a transaction is not a Gemini customer; or (iv) for any other reason as determined by the Bitcoin Custodian in its sole discretion to comply with applicable laws and regulation or in connection with the Bitcoin Custodian’s fraud or other compliance controls and systems. Although the Bitcoin Custodian has represented to the …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Similarly, under the Clearing Agreement, the Bitcoin Custodian’s liability in connection with the Clearing Services is limited as follows, among others: the Bitcoin Custodian does not have any responsibility for any sale or purchase of bitcoin for cash to a Liquidity Provider through the Clearing Services (such a transaction, a “Clearing Transaction”), other than as specifically identified in the Clearing Agreement. The Bitcoin Custodian may rely upon, without liability on its part, any clearing request submitted through Gemini’s platform. Absent gross negligence, wilful misconduct or fraud, the Bitcoin Custodian shall not be liable for any loss resulting from a clearing request or the use of Clearing Services. Validation and confirmation procedures used by Gemini are designed only to verify the source of clearing requests and that each party has met its respective obligations in respect of a clearing request and not to detect errors in the content of a clearing request or to prevent duplicate clearing requests. The Trust is responsible for losses resulting from clearing requests provided by it and for any errors made by or on behalf of the Trust, any errors resulting, directly or indirectly, from fraud or the duplication of any clearing request by or on behalf of the Trust, or any losses resulting from the malfunctioning of any devices used by the Trust or loss or compromise of credentials used by the Trust to deliver clearing requests. The Bitcoin Custodian may reject, refuse to settle or otherwise not complete any request to settle a bitcoin transaction through the Clearing Services for any reason necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations or in connection with its fraud or other compliance controls and systems, and the Bitcoin Custodian shall have no liability whatsoever to the Trust, any transaction counterparty or any other party in connection with or arising out of the Bitcoin Custodian rejecting, refusing or otherwise not completing the settlement of a transaction through the Clearing Services. The Bitcoin Custodian will not settle transactions through the Clearing Services: (i) if either party to a Clearing Transaction has not fully funded its accounts held with the Bitcoin Custodian and used in connection with the Clearing Services (in the Trust’s case, the Clearing Account and Fiat Account), as applicable, with the required fiat currency amount or bitcoin amount, as applicable, prior to the agreed expiration time; (ii) if either party to a Clearing Transaction has not confirmed its acceptance of the clearing request to the Bitcoin Custodian prior to the agreed expiration time; (iii) if either party to a transaction is not a Gemini customer; or (iv) for any other reason as determined by the Bitcoin Custodian in its sole discretion to comply with applicable laws and regulation or in connection with the Bitcoin Custodian’s fraud or other compliance controls and systems. Although the Bitcoin Custodian has represented to the S…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous 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.

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 cancelling orders.

Previous wording

The Additional Bitcoin Custodian’s parent, Coinbase Global maintains a commercial crime insurance policy of up to $320 million, which is intended to cover the loss of client assets held by Coinbase Global and all of its subsidiaries, including the Additional Bitcoin Custodian (collectively, Coinbase Global and its subsidiaries are referred to as the “Coinbase Insureds”), including from employee collusion or fraud, physical loss including theft, damage of key material, security breach or hack, and fraudulent transfer. The insurance maintained by Coinbase Global is shared among all of Coinbase’s customers, is not specific to the Trust or to customers of the Additional Bitcoin Custodian and may not be available or sufficient to protect the Trust from all possible losses or sources of losses. Coinbase Global’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 Coinbase Insureds, which could reduce the amount of such proceeds that are available to the Trust. In addition, the bitcoin insurance market is limited, and the level of insurance maintained by Coinbase Global may be substantially lower than the assets of the Trust. While the Additional Bitcoin Custodian maintains certain capital reserve requirements depending on the assets under custody, and such capital reserves may provide additional means to cover Trust asset losses, the Trust cannot be assured that the Additional Bitcoin Custodian will maintain capital reserves sufficient to cover actual or potential losses with respect to the Trust’s digital assets.

Current wording

The Additional Bitcoin Custodian’s parent, Coinbase Global maintains a commercial crime insurance policy of up to $320 million, which is intended to cover the loss of client assets held by Coinbase Global and all of its subsidiaries, including the Additional Bitcoin Custodian (collectively, Coinbase Global and its subsidiaries are referred to as the “Coinbase Insureds”), including from employee collusion or fraud, physical loss including theft, damage of key material, security breach or hack, and fraudulent transfer. The insurance maintained by Coinbase Global is shared among all of Coinbase’s customers, is not specific to the Trust or to customers of the Additional Bitcoin Custodian and may not be available or sufficient to protect the Trust from all possible losses or sources of losses. Coinbase Global’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 Coinbase Insureds, which could reduce the amount of such proceeds that are available to the Trust. In addition, the bitcoin insurance market is limited, and the level of insurance maintained by Coinbase Global may be substantially lower than the assets of the Trust. While the Additional Bitcoin Custodian maintains certain capital reserve requirements depending on the assets under custody, and such capital reserves may provide additional means to cover

Previous wording

The Trust could also suffer losses in the event that a bank or money market fund in which the Trust holds cash, including the cash associated with the Trust’s account at the Cash Custodian or the Trust’s Fiat Account with the Bitcoin Custodian (which is held at the Bitcoin Custodian’s banks or money market funds for the benefit of its customers, including the Trust), fails, becomes insolvent, enters receivership, is taken over by regulators, enters financial distress, or otherwise suffers adverse effects to its financial condition or operational status. Recently, some banks have experienced financial distress. For example, on March 8,

Current wording

The Trust could also suffer losses in the event that a bank or money market fund in which the Trust holds cash, including the cash associated with the Trust’s account at the Cash Custodian or the Trust’s Fiat Account with the Bitcoin Custodian (which is held at the Bitcoin Custodian’s banks or money market funds for the benefit of its customers, including the Trust), fails, becomes insolvent, enters receivership, is taken over by regulators, enters financial distress, or otherwise suffers adverse effects to its financial condition or operational status. Recently, some banks have experienced financial distress.

Previous wording

2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (“DFPI”) announced that Silvergate Bank had entered voluntary liquidation, and on March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank, (“SVB”), was closed by the DFPI, which appointed the FDIC, as receiver. Similarly, on March 12, 2023, the New York Department of Financial Services took possession of Signature Bank and appointed the FDIC as receiver. A joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC on March 12, 2023, stated that depositors in Signature and SVB will have access to all of their funds, including funds held in deposit accounts, in excess of the insured amount. On May 1, 2023, First Republic Bank was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which appointed the FDIC as receiver. Following a bidding process, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, to acquire the substantial majority of the assets and assume certain liabilities of First Republic Bank from the FDIC.

Current wording

For example, on March 8, 2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (“DFPI”) announced that Silvergate Bank had entered voluntary liquidation, and on March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank, (“SVB”), was closed by the DFPI, which appointed the FDIC, as receiver. Similarly, on March 12, 2023, the New York Department of Financial Services took possession of Signature Bank and appointed the FDIC as receiver. A joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC on March 12, 2023, stated that depositors in Signature and SVB will have access to all of their funds, including funds held in deposit accounts, in excess of the insured amount. On May 1, 2023, First Republic Bank was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which appointed the FDIC as receiver. Following a bidding process, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, to acquire the substantial majority of the assets and assume certain liabilities of First Republic Bank from the FDIC.

Previous wording

Digital asset markets in the United States exist in a state of regulatory uncertainty, and adverse legislative or regulatory developments could significantly harm the value of bitcoin or the Shares, such as by banning, restricting or imposing onerous conditions or prohibitions on the use of bitcoins, mining activity, digital wallets, the provision of services related to trading and custodying bitcoin, the operation of the Bitcoin network, or the digital asset markets generally.

Current wording

Digital asset markets in the United States exist in a state of regulatory uncertainty, and adverse legislative or regulatory developments could significantly harm the value of bitcoin or the Shares, such as by banning, restricting or imposing onerous conditions or prohibitions on the use of bitcoins, mining activity, digital wallets, the provision of services related to trading and providing custody services for bitcoin, the operation of the Bitcoin network, or the digital asset markets generally.

Previous wording

There is a lack of consensus regarding the regulation of digital assets, including bitcoin, and their markets. As a result of the growth in the size of the digital asset market, as well as the 2022 Events, the U.S. Congress and a number of U.S. federal and state agencies (including FinCEN, SEC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”), U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”), FINRA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the IRS, state financial institution regulators, and others) have been examining the operations of digital asset networks, digital asset users and the digital asset markets. Many of these state and federal agencies have brought enforcement actions or issued consumer advisories regarding the risks posed by digital assets to investors. Ongoing and future regulatory actions with respect to digital assets generally or bitcoin in particular may alter, perhaps to a materially adverse extent, the nature of an investment in the Shares or the ability of the Trust to continue to operate.

Current wording

There is a lack of consensus regarding the regulation of digital assets, including bitcoin, and their markets. As a result of the growth in the size of the digital asset market, as well as the 2022 Events, the U.S. Congress and a number of U.S. federal and state agencies (including FinCEN, SEC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”), CFTC, FINRA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), state financial institution regulators, and others) have been examining the operations of digital asset networks, digital asset users and the digital asset markets. Many of these state and federal agencies have brought enforcement actions or issued consumer advisories regarding the risks posed by digital assets to investors. Ongoing and future regulatory actions with respect to digital assets generally or bitcoin in particular may alter, perhaps to a materially adverse extent, the nature of an investment in the Shares or the ability of the Trust to continue to operate.

Previous wording

In August 2021, the chair of the SEC stated that he believed investors using digital asset trading platforms are not adequately protected, and that activities on the platforms can implicate the securities laws, commodities laws and banking laws, raising a number of issues related to protecting investors and consumers, guarding against illicit activity, and ensuring financial stability. The chair expressed a need for the SEC to have additional authorities to prevent transactions, products, and platforms from “falling between regulatory cracks,” as well as for more resources to protect investors in “this growing and volatile sector.” The chair called for federal legislation centering on digital asset trading, lending, and decentralized finance platforms, seeking “additional plenary authority” to write rules for digital asset trading and lending. It is not possible to predict whether Congress will grant additional authorities to the SEC or other regulators, what the nature of such additional authorities might be, how they might impact the ability of digital asset markets to function or how any new regulations that may flow from such authorities might impact the value of digital assets generally and bitcoin held by the Trust specifically. The consequences of increased federal regulation of digital assets and digital asset activities could have a material adverse effect on the Trust and the Shares.

Current wording

In August 2021, the chair of the SEC stated that he believed investors using digital asset trading platforms are not adequately protected, and that activities on the platforms can implicate the securities laws, commodities laws and banking laws, raising a number of issues related to protecting investors and consumers, guarding against illicit activity, and ensuring financial stability. The chair expressed a need for the SEC to have additional authorities to prevent transactions, products, and platforms from “falling between regulatory cracks,” as well as for more resources to protect investors in “this growing and volatile sector.” The chair called for federal legislation centering on digital asset trading, lending, and decentralized finance platforms, seeking “additional plenary authority” to write rules for digital asset trading and lending. It is not possible to predict whether, or when, any of these developments will lead to Congress granting additional authorities to the CFTC, SEC or other regulators, what the nature of such additional authorities might be, how additional legislation and/or regulatory oversight might impact the ability of digital asset markets to function or how any new regulations or changes to existing regulations might impact the value of digital assets generally and bitcoin held by the Trust specifically. The consequences of increased federal regulation of digital assets and digital asset activities could have a material adverse effect on the Trust and the Shares.

Previous wording

FinCEN requires any administrator or exchanger of convertible digital assets to register with FinCEN as a money transmitter and comply with the anti-money laundering regulations applicable to money transmitters. Entities which fail to comply with such regulations are subject to fines, may be required to cease operations, and could have potential criminal liability. For example, in 2015, FinCEN assessed a $700,000 fine against a sponsor of a digital asset for violating several requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act by acting as an MSB and selling the digital asset without registering with FinCEN, and by failing to implement and maintain an adequate anti-money laundering program. In 2017, FinCEN assessed a $110 million fine against BTC-e, a now defunct digital asset exchange, for similar violations. The requirement that exchangers that do business in the United States register with FinCEN and comply with anti-money laundering regulations may increase the cost of buying and selling bitcoin and therefore may adversely affect the price of bitcoin and an investment in the Shares.

Current wording

FinCEN requires any administrator or exchanger of convertible virtual currency (“CVC”) to register with FinCEN as a money transmitter and comply with the anti- money laundering regulations applicable to money transmitters. Entities which fail to comply with such regulations are subject to fines, may be required to cease operations, and could have potential criminal liability. For example, in 2015, FinCEN assessed a $700,000 fine against a sponsor of a digital asset for violating several requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act by acting as an MSB and selling the digital asset without registering with FinCEN, and by failing to implement and maintain an adequate anti-money laundering program. In 2017, FinCEN assessed a $110,000,000 fine against BTC-e, a now defunct digital asset exchange, for similar violations. The requirement that exchangers that do business in the United States register with FinCEN and comply with anti- money laundering regulations may increase the cost of buying and selling bitcoin and therefore may adversely affect the price of bitcoin and an investment in the Shares.

Previous wording

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “U.S. Treasury Department”) has added digital currency addresses, including on the Bitcoin Blockchain, to the list of Specially Designated Nationals whose assets are blocked, and with whom U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing. Such actions by OFAC, or by similar organizations in other jurisdictions, may introduce uncertainty in the market as to whether bitcoin that has been associated with such addresses in the past can be easily sold. This “tainted” bitcoin may trade at a substantial discount to untainted bitcoin. Reduced fungibility in the bitcoin markets may reduce the liquidity of bitcoin and therefore adversely affect their price.

Current wording

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “U.S. Treasury Department”) has added digital currency addresses, including addresses on the Bitcoin Blockchain, to the list of Specially Designated Nationals whose assets are blocked, and with whom U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing. Such actions by OFAC, or by similar organizations in other jurisdictions, may introduce uncertainty in the market as to whether bitcoin that has been associated with such addresses in the past can be easily sold. This “tainted” bitcoin may trade at a substantial discount to untainted bitcoin. Reduced fungibility in the bitcoin markets may reduce the liquidity of bitcoin and therefore adversely affect their price.

Previous wording

Law enforcement agencies have often relied on the transparency of blockchains to facilitate investigations. However, certain privacy-enhancing features have been, or are expected to be, introduced to a number of digital asset networks. If the Bitcoin network were to adopt any of these features, these features may provide law enforcement agencies with less visibility into transaction-level data.

Current wording

Law enforcement agencies have often relied on the transparency of blockchains to facilitate investigations. However, certain privacy-enhancing features have been, or are expected to be, introduced to a number of digital asset networks. If the Bitcoin network were to adopt any of these privacy-enhancing features, these features may provide law enforcement agencies with less visibility into transaction-level data. Europol, the European Union’s law enforcement agency, released a report in October 2017 noting the increased use of privacy-enhancing digital assets like Zcash and Monero in criminal activity on the internet. In May 2022, OFAC banned all U.S. persons from using Blender.io, a digital asset mixing application that operates on the Bitcoin Blockchain to obfuscate the origin, destination and counterparties of blockchain transactions, by adding certain digital asset wallet addresses associated with Blender.io to its Specially Designated Nationals list. Blender.io receives a variety of transactions and mixes them together before transmitting them to their ultimate destinations. On March 23, 2022, Lazarus Group, a state-sponsored cyber hacking group associated with North Korea, carried out a major virtual currency heist from a blockchain project linked to the online game Axie Infinity; Blender.io was used in processing some of the illicit proceeds. The U.S. Treasury Department’s press release announcing the sanctions on Blender.io observed that, while most virtual currency activity is licit, virtual currency can be used for illicit activity, including sanctions evasion, through mixers, peer-to-peer exchangers, darknet markets, and exchanges. This includes the facilitation of heists, ransomware schemes, and other cybercrimes. On October 19, 2023, FinCEN published proposed rulemaking to apply the authorities in

Previous wording

The SEC has recently proposed amendments to the custody rules under Rule 406(4)-2 of the Advisers Act. The proposed rule changes would amend the definition of a “qualified custodian” under Rule 206(4)-2(d)(6) and expand the current custody rule in 406(4)-2 to cover all digital assets, including bitcoin, and related advisory activities. If enacted as proposed, these rules would likely impose additional regulatory requirements with respect to the custody and storage of digital assets, including bitcoin. The Sponsor is studying the impact that such amendments may have on the Trust and its arrangements with the Bitcoin Custodian and the Additional Bitcoin Custodian. It is possible that such amendments, if adopted, could prevent the Bitcoin Custodian and the Additional Bitcoin Custodian from serving as service providers to the Trust, or require potentially significant modifications to existing arrangements under the Custody Agreement and the Additional Bitcoin Custody Agreement, which could cause the Trust to bear potentially significant increased costs. If the Sponsor is unable to make such modifications or appoint successor service providers to fill the role that the Bitcoin Custodian or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian currently play, the Trust’s operations (including in relation to creations and redemptions of Baskets and the holding of bitcoin) could be negatively affected, the Trust could dissolve (including at a time that is potentially disadvantageous to Shareholders), and the value of the Shares or an investment in the Trust could be affected.

Current wording

Rules like those previously proposed by the SEC, that amend the change definition of a “qualified custodian” and expand the current custody rule in 406(4)-2 to cover all digital assets, including bitcoin and related advisory activities would likely impose additional regulatory requirements with respect to the custody and storage of digital assets, including bitcoin. The Sponsor is studying the impact that such amendments may have on the Trust and its arrangements with the Bitcoin Custodian and the Additional Bitcoin Custodian. It is possible that such amendments, if adopted, could prevent the Bitcoin Custodian and the Additional Bitcoin Custodian from serving as service providers to the Trust, or require potentially significant modifications to existing arrangements under the Custody Agreement and the Additional Bitcoin Custody Agreement, which could cause the Trust to bear potentially significant increased costs. If the Sponsor is unable to make such modifications or appoint successor service providers to fill the role that the Bitcoin Custodian or the Additional Bitcoin Custodian currently play, the Trust’s operations (including in relation to creations and redemptions of Baskets and the holding of bitcoin) could be negatively affected, the Trust could dissolve (including at a time that is potentially disadvantageous to Shareholders), and the value of the Shares or an investment in the Trust could be affected.

Previous wording

Sponsor may be required to comply with FinCEN regulations, including those that would mandate the Authorized Participant, Liquidity Provider, Trust or the Sponsor to implement anti-money laundering programs, make certain reports to FinCEN and maintain certain records. Similarly, the activities of an Authorized Participant, Liquidity Provider, the Trust or the Sponsor may require it to be licensed as a money transmitter or as a digital asset business, such as under NYDFS’ BitLicense regulation.

Current wording

To the extent that the activities of any Authorized Participant, Liquidity Provider, the Trust or the Sponsor cause it to be deemed a “money services business” under the regulations promulgated by FinCEN under the authority of the BSA, such Authorized Participant, Liquidity Provider, the Trust or the Sponsor may be required to comply with FinCEN regulations, including those that would mandate the Authorized Participant, Liquidity Provider, Trust or the Sponsor to implement anti-money laundering programs, make certain reports to FinCEN and maintain certain records. Similarly, the activities of an Authorized Participant, Liquidity Provider, the Trust or the Sponsor may require it to be licensed as a money transmitter or as a digital asset business, such as under NYDFS’ BitLicense regulation.

Previous wording

Trust expenses, and including deemed sales of bitcoin as a result of the Trust using bitcoin to pay the Sponsor Fee or its expenses) that is otherwise not associated with a distribution to Shareholders. Shareholders may be subject to tax due to the grantor trust status of the Trust even though there is not a corresponding distribution from the Trust.

Current wording

In the normal course of business, it is possible that the Trust could incur a taxable gain in connection with the sale of bitcoin (such as sales of bitcoin to obtain fiat currency with which to pay the Sponsor Fee or Trust expenses, and including deemed sales of bitcoin as a result of the Trust using bitcoin to pay the Sponsor Fee or its expenses) that is otherwise not associated with a distribution to Shareholders. Shareholders may be subject to tax due to the grantor trust status of the Trust even though there is not a corresponding distribution from the Trust.

Previous wording

The Ruling & FAQs do not address whether income recognized by a non-U.S. person as a result of a fork, airdrop or similar occurrence could be subject to the 30% withholding tax imposed on U.S.-source “fixed or determinable annual or periodical” income. Non-U.S. Shareholders should assume that, in the absence of guidance, a withholding agent (including the Sponsor) is likely to withhold 30% of any such income recognized by a Non-U.S. Shareholder in respect of its Shares, including by deducting such withheld amounts from proceeds that such Non-U.S. Shareholder would otherwise be entitled to receive in connection with a distribution of Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. The Sponsor has committed to cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon any Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to which the Trust may become entitled in the future. However, there can be no assurance that these abandonments would be treated as effective for U.S. federal income tax purposes, or that the Sponsor will continue to cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon any Incidental Rights and IR Digital Asset if there are future regulatory developments that would make it feasible for the Trust to retain those assets.

Current wording

The Ruling & FAQs do not address whether income recognized by a non-U.S. person as a result of a fork, airdrop or similar occurrence could be subject to the 30% withholding tax imposed on U.S.-source “fixed or determinable annual or periodical” income. Non-U.S. Shareholders should assume that, in the absence of guidance, a withholding agent (including the Sponsor) is likely to withhold 30% of any such income recognized by a Non-U.S. Shareholder in respect of its Shares, including by deducting such withheld amounts from proceeds that such Non-U.S. Shareholder would otherwise be entitled to receive in connection with a distribution of Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. The Sponsor has committed to cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon any Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to which the Trust may become entitled in the future. However, there can be no assurance that these abandonments would be treated as effective for U.S. federal income tax purposes, or that the Sponsor will continue to cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon any Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency if there are future regulatory developments that would make it feasible for the Trust to retain those assets.

Previous wording

If a Shareholder opposed a jury trial demand based on the waiver, the applicable court would determine whether the waiver was enforceable based on the facts and circumstances of that case in accordance with applicable federal laws. To our knowledge, the enforceability of a contractual pre-dispute jury trial waiver in connection with claims arising under the U.S. federal securities laws has not been finally adjudicated by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, we believe that a contractual pre-dispute jury trial waiver provision is generally enforceable, including under the laws of the State of Delaware, which govern the Trust Agreement. By purchasing Shares in the Trust, Shareholders waive a right to a trial by jury which may limit a Shareholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with the Trust.

Current wording

federal securities laws has not been finally adjudicated by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, we believe that a contractual pre-dispute jury trial waiver provision is generally enforceable, including under the laws of the State of Delaware, which govern the Trust Agreement. By purchasing Shares in the Trust, Shareholders waive a right to a trial by jury which may limit a Shareholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with the Trust.

Previous wording

The Trust may, in its discretion, suspend the right of creation or redemption or may postpone the redemption or purchase settlement date, for (1) any period during which the Exchange is closed other than customary weekend or holiday closings, or trading on the Exchange is suspended or restricted, (2) any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which the fulfillment of a purchase order or the redemption distribution is not reasonably practicable (for example, as a result of a significant technical failure, power outage, or network error), or (3) such other period as the Sponsor determines to be necessary for the protection of the Shareholders of the Trust (for example, where acceptance of the Basket Deposit would have certain adverse tax consequences to the Trust or its Shareholders). In addition, the Trust may reject a redemption order if (1) the order is not in proper form as described in the Authorized Participant Agreement, (2) the fulfillment of the order counsel advises may be illegal under applicable laws and regulations, or (3) if circumstances outside the control of the Sponsor, the person authorized to take redemption orders in the manner provided in the Authorized Participant Agreement, Cash Custodian or the Bitcoin Custodian make it for all practical purposes not feasible for the Shares to be delivered or the redemption distribution to be made. Any such postponement, suspension or rejection could adversely affect a redeeming Authorized Participant. Suspension of creation privileges may adversely impact how the

Current wording

The Trust may, in its discretion, suspend the right of creation or redemption or may postpone the redemption or purchase settlement date, for (1) any period during which the Exchange is closed other than customary weekend or holiday closings, or trading on the Exchange is suspended or restricted, (2) any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which the fulfillment of a purchase order or the redemption distribution is not reasonably practicable (for example, as a result of a significant technical failure, power outage, or network error), or (3) such other period as the Sponsor determines to be necessary for the protection of the Shareholders of the Trust (for example, where acceptance of the Basket Deposit would have certain adverse tax consequences to the Trust or its Shareholders). In addition, the Trust may reject a redemption order if (1) the order is not in proper form as described in the Authorized Participant Agreement, (2) the fulfillment of the order counsel advises may be illegal under applicable laws and regulations, or (3) if circumstances outside the control of the Sponsor, the person authorized to take redemption orders in the manner provided in the Authorized Participant Agreement, Cash Custodian or the Bitcoin Custodian make it for all practical purposes not feasible for the Shares to be delivered or the redemption distribution to be made. Any such postponement, suspension or rejection could adversely affect a redeeming Authorized Participant. Suspension of creation privileges may adversely impact how the Shares are traded and arbitraged on the secondary market, which could cause them to trade at levels materially different (premiums and discounts) from the fair value of their underlying holdings.