Grayscale Digital Large Cap Fund LLC

Current report

The SEC has taken, and may in the future take, the view that some of the digital assets held by the Fund are securities, which has adversely affected, and could adversely affect the value of such digital assets and the price of the Shares and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Fund.

Current report

Depending on its characteristics, a digital asset may be considered a “security” under the federal securities laws. The test for determining whether a particular digital asset is a “security” is complex and difficult to apply, and the outcome is difficult to predict. Public, though non-binding, statements by senior officials at the SEC have indicated that the SEC did not consider Bitcoin or Ether to be securities, and does not currently consider Bitcoin to be a security. In addition, the SEC, by action through delegated authority approving exchange rule filings to list shares of trusts holding Ether as commodity-based ETPs, appears to have implicitly accepted that Ether is not a security. The SEC staff has also provided informal assurances via no action letter to a handful of promoters that their digital assets are not securities. On the other hand, the SEC has brought enforcement actions against the issuers and promoters of several other digital assets on the basis that the digital assets in question are securities, including Fund Components. More recently, the SEC has also brought enforcement actions against Digital Asset Trading Platforms for allegedly operating unregistered securities exchanges on the basis that certain of the digital assets traded on their platforms are securities.

Current report

For example, in June 2023, the SEC brought the Binance Complaint and the Coinbase Complaint alleging violations of a variety of securities laws. In its complaints, the SEC asserted that SOL, ADA, MATIC, FIL, ATOM, SAND, MANA, ALGO, AXS, COTI, CHZ, FLOW, ICP, NEAR, VGX, DASH and NEXO, are securities under the federal securities laws. In addition, in November 2023, the SEC brought the Kraken Complaint, alleging that Kraken operated as an unregistered securities exchange, brokerage and clearing agency, and in its complaint the SEC again asserted that SOL and various other digital assets are securities under the federal securities laws . In July 2024, the SEC amended the Binance Complaint to remove its claims asserting that SOL, ADA, MATIC, FIL, ATOM, SAND, MANA, ALGO, AXS and COTI are securities under the federal securities laws. However, there can be no guarantee that the SEC will not bring similar claims involving these or other digital assets in the future.

Current report

As part of determining whether a Fund Component is a security for purposes of the federal securities laws, the Manager takes into account a number of factors, including the various definitions of “security” under the federal securities laws and federal court decisions interpreting elements of these definitions, such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in the Howey and Reves cases and their progeny, as well as reports, orders, press releases, public statements and speeches by the SEC, its commissioners and its staff providing guidance on when a digital asset may be a security for purposes of the federal securities laws. Finally, the Manager discusses the security status of each Fund Component with external counsel and typically receives a memorandum regarding the status of each Fund Component under the federal securities laws from them. Through this process the Manager believes that it is applying the proper legal standards in determining that the Fund Components are not securities in light of the uncertainties inherent in the Howey and Reves tests.

Current report

In light of these developments, and the uncertainties and fact-based nature of the analysis as to whether a Fund Component is a “security” under the federal securities laws, the Manager acknowledges that the SEC takes the position that certain Fund Components, including SOL and XRP, are each a security and the Manager’s conclusion otherwise does not preclude legal or regulatory action based on the presence of a security.

Current report

As is the case with the Fund Components, analyses from counsel typically review the often-complex facts surrounding a particular digital asset’s underlying technology, creation, use case and usage development, distribution and secondary-market trading characteristics as well as contributions of and marketing or promotional efforts by the individuals or organizations who appear to be involved in these activities, among other relevant facts, usually drawing on publicly available information. This information, usually found on the internet, often includes both information that originated with or is attributed to such individuals or organizations, as well as information from third-party sources and databases that may or may not have a connection to such individuals or organizations, and the availability and nature of such information can change over time. The Manager and counsel often have no independent means of verifying the accuracy or completeness of such information, and therefore of necessity usually must assume that such information is materially accurate and complete for purposes of the Howey and Reves analyses. After having gathered this information, counsel typically analyzes it in light of the Howey and Reves tests, in order to inform a judgment as to whether or not a federal court would conclude that the digital asset in question is or is not a security for purposes of the federal securities laws. Often, certain factors appear to support a conclusion that the digital asset in question is a security, while other factors appear to support the opposite conclusion, and in such a case counsel endeavors to weigh the importance and relevance of the competing factors. This analytical process is further complicated by the fact that, at present, federal judicial case law applying the relevant tests to digital assets is limited and in some situations inconsistent, with no federal appellate court having considered the question on the merits, as well as the fact that because each digital asset presents its own unique set of relevant facts, it is not always possible to directly analogize the analysis of one digital asset to another. Because of this factual complexity and the current lack of a well-developed body of federal case law applying the relevant tests to a variety of different fact patterns, the Manager has not in the past received, and currently does not expect that it would be able to receive, “opinions” of counsel stating that a particular digital asset is or is not a security for federal securities law purposes. The Manager understands that as a matter of practice, counsel is generally able to render a legal “opinion” only when the relevant facts are substantially ascertainable and the applicable law is both well-developed and settled. As a result, given the relative novelty of digital assets, the challenges inherent in fact-gathering for particular digital assets, and the fact that federal courts have only recently been tasked with adjudic…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current report

As such, notwithstanding the Manager’s view that each of the Fund Components are not securities, the SEC has taken and a federal court may in the future take a different view as to the security status of certain Fund Components, such as SOL or XRP. If the Manager determines that a Fund Component is a security under the federal securities laws, whether that determination is initially made by the Manager itself, or because a federal court upholds an allegation that such Fund Component is a security, the Manager does not intend to permit the Fund to continue holding that Fund Component in a way that would violate the federal securities laws. Because the legal tests for determining whether a digital asset is or is not a security often leave room for interpretation, for so long as the Manager believes there to be good faith grounds to conclude that each of the Fund Components is not a security, the Manager does not intend to dissolve the Fund on the basis that any of the Fund Components could at some future point be finally determined to be a security.

Current report

Any enforcement action by the SEC or a state securities regulator asserting that a Fund Component is a security, or a court decision to that effect, would be expected to have an immediate material adverse impact on the trading value of that Fund Component, as well as the Shares. This is because the business models behind most digital assets are incompatible with regulations applying to transactions in securities. If a digital asset is determined to be a security, it is likely to become difficult or impossible for the digital asset to be traded, cleared or custodied in the United States through the same channels used by non-security digital assets, which in addition to materially and adversely affecting the trading value of the digital asset is likely to significantly impact its liquidity and market participants’ ability to convert the digital asset into U.S. dollars. Any assertion that a digital asset is a security by the SEC or another regulatory authority may have similar effects. For example, the SEC has alleged that certain Fund Components are securities. In 2020 the SEC filed a complaint against the issuer of XRP, Ripple Labs, Inc., and two of its executives, alleging that they raised more than $1.3 billion through XRP sales that should have been registered under the federal securities laws, but were not. In the weeks following the SEC’s complaint against XRP’s issuer, XRP’s market capitalization fell to less than $10 billion, which was less than half of its market capitalization in the days prior to the complaint, and certain significant market participants, including the Fund’s authorized participant at the time, announced they would no longer support XRP, among other measures, including the delisting of XRP from major digital asset trading platforms. Following these developments, the Manager removed XRP from the Fund’s portfolio. Subsequently, in July 2023, the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that while XRP is not a “security”, certain sales of XRP to certain buyers (but not other types of sales to other buyers) amounted to “investment contracts” under the Howey test. Following the filing of the court order, the Manager discussed the security status of XRP with external counsel and continues to believe that XRP is not a security. The District Court entered a final judgment in the case on August 7, 2024. In October 2024, the SEC filed a notice of appeal. In July 2023, another judge in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, in litigation between the SEC and the issuer of the UST and LUNA digital assets, suggested that he disagreed with the approach underlying the XRP decision. Likewise, in June and November 2023, the SEC asserted in the Binance, Coinbase and Kraken Complaints that SOL is a “crypto asset security” and at times that it was “offered and sold as an investment contract.” Following the filing of the Coinbase Complaint, Binance Complaint, and the Kraken Complaint, the Manager discussed …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current report

The Binance Complaint, the Coinbase Complaint, the Kraken Complaint and the SEC’s actions against XRP’s issuer and the issuer of the UST and LUNA digital assets, as well as seemingly inconsistent views of different district court judges, underscore the continuing uncertainty around which digital assets are securities and what the correct analysis is to determine each digital asset’s status. For example, the conflicting district court opinions and analyses demonstrate that factors such as how long a digital asset has been in existence, how widely held it is, how large its market capitalization is, the manner in which it is offered, sold or promoted, and whether it has actual use in commercial transactions, ultimately may have limited or no bearing on whether the SEC, a state securities regulator or any particular court will find it to be a security.

Current report

In addition, if a significant portion of the Fund Components are determined to be securities, the Fund could be considered an unregistered “investment company” under the Investment Company Act, which could necessitate the Fund’s liquidation. In this case, the Fund and the Manager may be deemed to have participated in an illegal offering of investment company securities and there is no guarantee that the Manager will be able to register the Fund under the Investment Company Act at such time or take such other actions as may be necessary to ensure the Fund’s activities comply with applicable law, which could force the Manager to liquidate the Fund.

Current report

Moreover, whether or not the Manager or the Fund were subject to additional regulatory requirements as a result of any determination that the Fund’s assets include securities, the Manager may nevertheless decide to terminate the Fund, in order, if possible, to liquidate the Fund’s assets while a liquid market still exists. For example, in response to the SEC’s action against the issuer of XRP, certain significant market participants announced they would no longer support XRP and announced measures, including the delisting of XRP from major digital asset trading platforms, resulting in the Manager’s conclusion that it was likely to be increasingly difficult for U.S. investors, including Grayscale XRP Trust (XRP), an affiliate of the Fund, to convert XRP into U.S. dollars. The Manager subsequently dissolved Grayscale XRP Trust (XRP) and liquidated its assets. Similarly, following the SEC’s complaints against Binance and Coinbase in June 2023, the trading platform Robinhood and crypto service providers Revolut and Bakkt each announced that they would cease support for SOL. Furthermore, if a federal court upholds an allegation that a Fund Component is a security, the Fund itself may be terminated and, if practical, its assets liquidated.