Grayscale Ethereum Trust ETF
For the period ended Dec 31, 2024. Filed Feb 28, 2025.
View on SEC.govAbout this filing
A company's yearly report to the SEC, with audited financial statements. It is the fullest account a company gives of its business, its finances and the risks it sees.
FY2024 · Filed Feb 28, 2025
ETHE$17.83-0.8%Stored close · as of Nov 6, 2026
What changed in Risk Factors?
Read the current filingPrevious report: 10-K
Period ended 2023-12-31; filed 2024-02-23.
0000950170-24-019125
Item 1A. Risk FactorsCurrent report: 10-K
Period ended 2024-12-31; filed 2025-02-28.
0000950170-25-029411
Item 1A. Risk FactorsThe baseline is this issuer’s latest earlier reporting period of the same form that was filed before the current report. A previous 10-Q is a different quarter, not a year-over-year comparison. Amendments are excluded.
Compared 219 previous paragraphs and 186 current paragraphs.
10 unchanged; 137 reworded; 38 added; 68 removed; 4 previous and 1 current paragraphs rearranged.
Tables are not compared: 0 previous and 0 current tables excluded. Dates, whitespace, punctuation and numbering changes are ignored; changes to financial figures remain significant.
A changed paragraph is not evidence that risk increased or decreased. An unchanged paragraph does not establish that risk stayed the same.
Added paragraphs (38)
Current report
Competition from the emergence or growth of other digital assets could have a negative impact on the price of Ether and adversely affect the value of the Shares;
Current report
The prices of digital assets may be determined on a relatively small number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms by a relatively small number of market participants, many of whom are speculators or those intimately involved with the issuance of such digital assets, such as validators or developers, which could contribute to price volatility that makes retailers less likely to accept digital assets in the future.
Current report
All networked systems are vulnerable to various types of attacks. As with any computer network, the Ethereum Network could be attacked. For example, following the Merge and the switch to proof-of-stake validation, the Ethereum Network is currently vulnerable to several types of attacks, including:
Current report
“>33% attack” where, if a malicious actor, validator, botnet (a volunteer or hacked collection of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) or group of validators acting in concert were to gain control of more than 33% of the total staked Ether on the Ethereum Network, a malicious actor could temporarily impede or delay block confirmation or even cause a temporary fork in the blockchain. This is designed to be a temporary risk, as the Ethereum Network’s inactivity leak would be expected to eventually penalize the attacker enough for the chain to finalize again (i.e., the honest majority would be expected to reclaim 2/3rd stake as the attacker’s stake is penalized). Moreover, it is not believed that a 33% attack would allow a malicious actor to engage in double-spending or fraudulent block propagation. Even without 33% control, a malicious actor or botnet could create a flood of transactions in order to slow down the Ethereum Network.
Current report
“>66% attack” where, if a malicious actor, validator, botnet (a volunteer or hacked collection of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) or group of validators acting in concert were to gain control of more than 66% of the total staked Ether on the Ethereum Network, a malicious actor could permanently and irreversibly manipulate the blockchain, including censorship, double-spending and fraudulent block propagation. Although the malicious actor or botnet may not be able to generate new tokens or transactions using such control, it could “double-spend” its own tokens (i.e., spend the same tokens in more than one transaction) and prevent the confirmation of other users’ transactions for so long as it maintained control (over 50%). The attacker could finalize their preferred chain without any consideration for the votes of other stakers and could also revert finalized blocks.
Current report
Validators may suffer losses due to Staking, or Staking may prove unattractive to validators, which could adversely affect the Ethereum Network.
Current report
Validation on the Ethereum Network requires Ether to be transferred into smart contracts on the underlying blockchain network not under the control of the person who owns such Ether. If the Ethereum Network source code or protocol were to fail to behave as expected, suffer cybersecurity attacks or hacks, experience security issues, or encounter other problems, such transferred (i.e., staked) Ether may be irretrievably lost. In addition, the Ethereum Network’s underlying protocol dictates requirements for participation in validation activity, and may impose penalties, if the relevant activities are not performed correctly. The Ethereum Network imposes three types of sanctions for validator misbehavior or inactivity, which would result in a portion of staked Ether being destroyed or “burned”: penalties, slashing and inactivity leaks.
Current report
A validator may face penalties if it fails to take certain actions, such as providing a timely attestation to a block proposed by another validator. Under this scenario, a validator’s staked Ether could be burned in an amount equal to the reward to which it would have been entitled for successfully performing the actions.
Current report
A more severe sanction (i.e., “slashing”) is imposed if a validator commits malicious acts related to the proposal or attestation of blocks with invalid transactions. Slashing can result in the validator having a portion of its staked Ether immediately confiscated, withdrawn, or burned by the Ethereum Network, resulting in losses to them. After this initial slashing, the validator is queued for forceful removal from the Ethereum Network’s validator “pool,” and more of the validator’s stake is burned over a period of approximately 36 days (with the exact amount of Ether burned and time period determined by the protocol) regardless of whether the validator makes any further slashable errors, at which point the validator is automatically removed from the validator pool.
Current report
Staked Ether may also be burned through a process known as an “inactivity leak,” which is triggered if the Ethereum protocol has gone too long without finalizing a new block. For a new block to be successfully added to the blockchain, validators that account for at least two-thirds of all staked Ether must agree on the validity of a proposed block. This means that if validators representing more than one-third of the total staked Ether are offline, no new blocks can be finalized. To prevent this, an inactivity leak causes the Ether staked by the inactive validators to gradually “bleed away” until these inactive validators represent less than one-third of the total stake, thereby allowing the remaining active validators to finalize proposed blocks. This provides a further incentive for validators to remain online and continue performing validation activities.
Current report
As well as sanctions, as part of the “activating” and “exiting” processes of Staking, staked Ether will be inaccessible for a variable period of time determined by a range of factors, including network congestion, resulting in potential inaccessibility during those periods. “Activation” is the funding of a validator to be included in the active set of validators, thereby allowing the validator to participate in the Ethereum Network’s proof-of-stake consensus protocol. “Exit” is the request to exit from the active set of validators and no longer participate in the Ethereum Network’s proof-of-stake consensus protocol. As part of these “activating” and “exiting” processes of Staking on the Ethereum Network, any staked Ether will be inaccessible for a period of time and will not earn any income during this period. However, depending on demand, un-staking can take between hours, days or weeks to complete.
Current report
If validators’ staked Ether are slashed or otherwise subject to sanctions by the Ethereum Network, their assets may be confiscated, withdrawn, or burnt by the network, resulting in losses to the validator, or the users who provided the Ether to the validator to stake on their behalf. Any cybersecurity attacks, security issues, hacks, penalties, slashing events, or other problems could damage validators’ willingness to participate in validation, discourage existing and future validators from serving as such, and adversely impact the Ethereum Network’s adoption or the price of Ether. Any disruption of validation on the Ethereum Network could interfere with network operations and cause the Ethereum Network to be less attractive to users and application developers than competing blockchain networks, which could cause the price of Ether to decrease. In addition, the limited liquidity during the “activation” or “exiting” processes could dissuade potential validators from participating, which could interfere with network operations or security and cause the Ethereum Network to be less attractive to users and application developers than competing blockchain networks, which could cause the price of Ether to decrease.
Current report
There can be no guarantee that penalties, slashing or inactivity leaks and resulting losses will not deter validators from Staking. Any such deterrence would affect the Ethereum Network’s ability to process transactions, thus making the Ethereum Network less attractive to potential users thereof and negatively affecting the value of the Shares.
Current report
Liquid staking applications pose centralization concerns, and a single liquid staking application has reportedly controlled around or in excess of 33% of the total staked Ether on the Ethereum Network.
Current report
Validators must deposit 32 Ether to activate a unique validator key pair that is used to sign block proposals and attestations on behalf of its stake (i.e., participate in the proof-of-stake consensus mechanism). For every 32 Ether deposit that is staked, a unique validator key pair is generated. This validator key pair is only used in validation processes (block proposal and attestation, and the staking associated therewith), and is separate from the public-private key pair generated in respect of the blockchain address on the Ethereum Network which is used to hold the Ether. An application built on the Ethereum Network, or a single node operator, can manage many validator key pairs. For example, Lido, an application that provides a so-called “liquid staking” solution that permits holders of Ether to deposit them with Lido, which stakes the Ether while issuing the holder a transferrable token, is reported by some sources to have or have had up to 275,000 validator key pairs (each representing 32 staked Ether) divided across over 30 node operators. At times, Lido has reportedly controlled around or in excess of 33% of the total staked Ether on the Ethereum Network. While it is widely believed that Lido has little incentive to attempt to interfere with transaction finality or block confirmations using its reported 33% stake, since doing so would likely cause its entire stake to be slashed and thus lost (assuming good actors unaffiliated with Lido controlled the remainder), and also because Lido is believed to not control most of the third-party node operators where its Ether is staked, and finally because the occurrence of such manipulation of the Ethereum Network’s consensus process by Lido or any other actor would likely cause Ether to lose substantial value (which would hurt Lido economically), it nevertheless poses centralization concerns. If Lido, or a bad actor with a similar sized stake, were to attempt to interfere with transaction finality or block confirmations, it could negatively affect the use and adoption of the Ethereum Network, the value of Ether, and thus the value of the Shares.
Current report
Thereafter, in November 2022, FTX, the third largest Digital Asset Trading Platform by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals amid rumors of the company’s liquidity issues and likely insolvency. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned and FTX and several affiliates of FTX filed for bankruptcy. The U.S. Department of Justice subsequently brought criminal charges, including charges of fraud, violations of federal securities laws, money laundering, and campaign finance offenses, against FTX’s former CEO and others. In November 2023, FTX’s former CEO was convicted of fraud and money laundering. Similar charges related to violations of anti-money laundering laws were brought in November 2023 against Binance and its former CEO. FTX is also under investigation by the SEC, the Justice Department, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as well as by various regulatory authorities in the Bahamas, Europe and other jurisdictions.
Current report
Many Digital Asset Trading Platforms, both in the United States and abroad, are unlicensed, not subject to, or not in compliance with, regulation in relevant jurisdictions, or operate without extensive supervision by governmental authorities. 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 activity on or reported by regulated U.S. securities and commodities markets, and may reflect behavior that would be prohibited in regulated U.S. trading venues. For example, in 2022 one report claimed that trading volumes on Digital Asset Trading Platforms were inflated by over 70% due to false or non-economic trades, with specific focus on unlicensed trading platforms located outside of the United States. Such reports may indicate that the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market is significantly smaller than expected and that the U.S. makes up a significantly larger percentage of the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market than is commonly understood, or that a much larger portion of digital asset market activity takes place on decentralized finance platforms than is commonly understood. Nonetheless, any actual or perceived false trading in the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market, and any other fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the value of Ether and/or negatively affect the market perception of Ether, which could in turn adversely impact the value of the Shares.
Current report
Competition from the emergence or growth of other digital assets could have a negative impact on the price of Ether and adversely affect the value of the Shares.
Current report
Investors may also invest in Ether through means other than the Shares, including through direct investments in Ether and other financial vehicles, including securities backed by or linked to Ether and digital asset financial vehicles similar to the Trust. The Trust and the Sponsor face competition with respect to the creation of competing exchange-traded spot Ether products, among other digital asset vehicles. Whether the Trust is successful in maintaining its scale and achieving its intended competitive position may be impacted by a range of factors, including its fee structure relative to those competing products. The Trust’s competitors may also charge a substantially lower fee than the Sponsor Fee in an effort to achieve initial market acceptance and scale, which could cause investors to favor such competing products over the Trust.
Current report
The SEC may approve applications under Rule 19b-4 of the Exchange Act to list competing digital assets as exchange-traded products, which could reduce demand for, and the price of, Ether and adversely impact the value of the Shares.
Current report
To date, the SEC has only approved applications under Rule 19b-4 of the Exchange Act to list spot digital asset exchange-traded products which hold Bitcoin and Ether. However, applications for competing digital assets have been filed and are currently pending, and there can be no guarantee the SEC will not one day approve any such application. If applications to list spot digital asset exchange-traded products, other than those which hold Ether, are approved, to the extent such competing digital asset exchange-traded products come to represent a significant proportion of the demand for digital assets generally, demand for, and the price of, Ether could be reduced. Such reduced demand could in turn negatively affect the Index Price, the NAV, the NAV per Share, the value of the Shares, the Principal Market NAV and the Principal Market NAV per Share. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the Trust will be able to maintain its scale and achieve its intended competitive positioning relative to competitors, which could adversely affect the performance of the Trust and the value of the Shares.
Current report
Prior to their uplisting to NYSE Arca, the Shares traded on OTCQX at both premiums and discounts to the NAV per Share, which at times were substantial. The Sponsor believes that the trading price of the Shares has diverged from the NAV per Share in the past due, in part, to the holding period under Rule 144 for Shares purchased in the private placement and the lack of an ongoing redemption program, as a result of which Authorized Participants had been unable to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities when the market value of the Shares deviated from the NAV per Share. Although the Sponsor has observed that the commencement of the Trust’s redemption program, in conjunction with the listing of the Shares on NYSE Arca, has had the effect of reducing the discount at which the Shares had been trading on the OTCQX immediately prior to the commencement of the redemption program, there can be no assurance that the Trust’s redemption program will not be suspended or become unavailable again in the future. In addition, if the Sponsor decides to limit Cash Orders at a time when the Shares are trading at a premium or a discount to the NAV per Share, and In-Kind Regulatory Approval has not been obtained as of such time or the in-kind creation or redemption of Shares is otherwise unavailable for any reason, the arbitrage mechanism may fail to effectively function, which could impact the Shares’ liquidity and/or cause the Shares to trade at premiums and discounts to the NAV per Share, and otherwise have a negative impact on the value of the Shares.
Current report
Pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement, the Trust is required to dissolve under certain circumstances. In addition, the Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, dissolve the Trust for a number of reasons, including if the Sponsor determines, in its sole discretion, that it is desirable or advisable for any reason to discontinue the affairs of the Trust. For example, the Sponsor expects that it may be advisable to discontinue the affairs of the Trust if a federal court upholds an allegation that Ether is a security under the federal securities laws, among other reasons. See “Item 1. Business—Description of the Trust Agreement—Termination of the Trust.”
Current report
The Trust is currently only able to accept Cash Orders, which means that an Authorized Participant will deposit cash into, or accept cash from, the Cash Account in connection with the creation and redemption of Baskets, and a Liquidity Provider will obtain or receive Ether in exchange for cash in connection with such order. However, and in common with other spot digital asset exchange-traded products, the Trust is not at this time able to create and redeem Shares via in-kind transactions with Authorized Participants in exchange for Ether.
Current report
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 Ether. Until further regulatory clarity emerges regarding whether registered broker-dealers can hold and deal in Ether under such rules, there is a risk that registered broker-dealers participating in the in-kind creation or redemption of Shares for Ether 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 NYSE Arca to seek the necessary regulatory approval to amend its listing rules to permit the Trust to create and redeem Shares through In-Kind Orders, in which Authorized Participants or their designees would deposit Ether directly with the Trust or receive Ether directly from the Trust. However, there can be no assurance as to when such regulatory clarity will emerge, or when NYSE Arca will seek or obtain this approval, if at all.
Current report
The Trust is not permitted to engage in Staking, which could negatively affect the value of the Shares.
Current report
At this time, none of the Trust, the Sponsor, the Custodian, nor any other person associated with the Trust may, directly or indirectly, engage in Staking of the Trust’s Ether on behalf of the Trust, meaning no action will be taken pursuant to which any portion of the Trust’s Ether becomes used in Ethereum proof-of-stake validation or is used to earn additional Ether or generate income or other earnings, and there can be no assurance that the Trust, the Sponsor, the Custodian or any other person associated with the Trust will ever be permitted to engage in Staking of the Trust’s Ether or such income generating activity in the future. To the extent (i) the Trust were to amend its Trust Agreement to permit Staking of the Trust’s Ether and (ii) NYSE Arca were to seek and obtain a rule change permitting the listing of a spot Ether investment vehicle engaged in Staking, in the future the Trust may seek to establish a program to use its Ether in the proof-of-stake validation mechanism of the Ethereum Network to receive rewards comprising additional Ether in respect of a portion of its Ether holdings. However, as long as such conditions and requirements have not been satisfied, the Trust will not use its Ether in the proof-of-stake validation mechanism of the Ethereum Network to receive rewards comprising additional Ether in respect of its Ether holdings. The current inability of the Trust to use its Ether in Staking and receive such rewards could place the Shares at a comparative disadvantage relative to an investment in Ether directly or through a vehicle that is not subject to such a prohibition, which could negatively affect the value of the Shares.
Current report
Coinbase Global serves as the Ether custodian and prime execution agent for several competing exchange-traded Ether products, which could adversely affect the Trust’s operations and ultimately the value of the Shares.
Current report
The Prime Broker and Custodian are both affiliates of Coinbase Global. As of the date hereof, Coinbase Global is the largest publicly traded digital asset company in the world by market capitalization and is also the largest digital asset custodian in the world by assets under custody. By virtue of its leading market position and capabilities, and the relatively limited number of institutionally-capable providers of digital asset brokerage and custody services, Coinbase Global serves as the Ether custodian and prime execution agent for several competing exchange-traded Ether products. Therefore, Coinbase Global plays a critical role in supporting the U.S. spot Ether exchange-traded product ecosystem, and its size and market share create the risk that Coinbase Global may fail to properly resource its operations to adequately support all such products that use its services, which could harm the Trust, the shareholders and the value of the Shares. If Coinbase Global were to favor the interests of certain products over others, it could result in inadequate attention or comparatively unfavorable commercial terms to less favored products, which could adversely affect the Trust’s operations and ultimately the value of the Shares.
Current report
Certain of the Authorized Participants engaged by the Trust serve in a similar capacity for several competing exchange-traded Ether products, which could adversely affect the arbitrage mechanism, the Trust’s operations, the performance of the Trust and ultimately the value of the Shares.
Current report
First, the SEC, by action through delegated authority approving exchange rule filings to list shares of trusts holding Ether as commodity-based exchange-traded products, has implicitly taken the view that Ether is a commodity.
Current report
For example, 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 years prior to the SEC’s action, XRP’s market capitalization at times reached over $140 billion. However, in the weeks following the SEC’s complaint, 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. 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. The District Court entered a final judgment in the case on August 7, 2024. On January 15, 2025 the SEC filed an appeal against the judgment with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Current report
In addition, if Ether, or transactions in Ether, is in fact a security, the Trust could be considered an unregistered “investment company” under the Investment Company Act, which could necessitate the Trust’s liquidation. In this case, the Trust and the Sponsor may be deemed to have participated in an illegal offering of investment company securities and there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will be able to register the Trust under the Investment Company Act at such time or take such other actions as may be necessary to ensure the Trust’s activities comply with applicable law, which could force the Sponsor to liquidate the Trust.
Current report
In August 2021, the former 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 former 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 former 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. There have also been several bills introduced in Congress that propose to establish additional regulation and oversight of the digital asset markets. In connection with these developments, the SEC has taken a number of actions. For example, in February 2023, the SEC proposed amendments to the custody rules under Rule 206(4)-2 of the Investment 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 206(4)-2 to cover digital assets 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 and could lead to additional regulatory oversight of the digital asset ecosystem more broadly. It is also possible that a new Administration and a new Congress in the United States propose new laws and regulations related to digital assets. Moreover, the failure of FTX in November 2022 and the resulting market turmoil substantially increased regulatory scrutiny in the United States and globally and led to SEC and criminal investigations, enforcement actions and other regulatory activity across the digital asset ecosystem. For example, in June 2023, the SEC brought enforcement actions against Binance and Coinbase, two of the largest Digital Asset Trading Platforms, alleging that Binance and Coinbase operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. In addition, in November 2023, the SEC brought similar charges against Kraken, alleging that it operated as an unregistered securities exchange, brokerage and clearing agency. On January 23, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology” aimed at supporting “the responsible growth and use of digital assets, blockchain technology, and related technologies across all sectors of the economy.”
Current report
Cash on the basis that he had helped launder more than $2 billion worth of digital assets through Tornado Cash. Additional regulatory action with respect to privacy-enhancing digital assets is possible in the future.
Current report
Several employees of the Sponsor and the Sponsor’s indirect parent company, DCG, are FINRA-registered representatives who historically maintained their licenses through Genesis and currently maintain their licenses through Grayscale Securities;
Removed paragraphs (68)
Previous report
Because of the holding period under Rule 144, the lack of an ongoing redemption program, and the Trust’s ability to halt creations from time to time, there is no arbitrage mechanism to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Index Price and the Shares have historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share;
Previous report
The Shares may trade at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share as a result of the non-current trading hours between OTCQX and the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market;
Previous report
Changes in the policies of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) could adversely impact the value of the Shares;
Previous report
The Trust may be required to disclose information, including information relating to investors, to regulators;
Previous report
The trading prices of many digital assets, including ETH, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of ETH, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value.
Previous report
Many digital asset networks face significant scaling challenges due to the fact that public blockchains generally face a tradeoff between security and scalability. One means through which public blockchains achieve security is decentralization, meaning that no intermediary is responsible for securing and maintaining these systems. For example, a greater degree of decentralization generally means a given digital asset network is less susceptible to manipulation or capture. In practice, this typically means that every single node on a given digital asset network is responsible for securing the system by processing every transaction and maintaining a copy of the entire state of the network. As a result, a digital asset network may be limited in the number of transactions it can process by the capabilities of each single fully participating node. Many developers are actively researching and testing scalability solutions for public blockchains that do not necessarily result in lower levels of security or decentralization, such as off-chain payment channels and Layer 2 networks. Off-chain payment channels would allow parties to transact without requiring the full processing power of a blockchain. Layer 2 networks can increase the scalability of a blockchain by allowing users to transact on a second blockchain deployed on top of a Layer 1 network.
Previous report
Protocols may also be cloned. Unlike a fork, which modifies an existing blockchain, and results in two competing networks, each with the same genesis block, a “clone” is a copy of a protocol’s codebase, but results in an entirely new blockchain and new genesis block. Tokens are created solely from the new “clone” network and, in contrast to forks, holders of tokens of the existing network that was cloned do not receive any tokens of the new network. A “clone” results in a competing network that has characteristics substantially similar to the network it was based on, subject to any changes as determined by the developer(s) that initiated the clone.
Previous report
For example, on September 16, 2022, the Sponsor of the Trust announced that it had declared a distribution and established a record date for the distribution, to shareholders of record as of the close of business on September 26, 2022 (the “Record Date”), of the Incidental Right to the ETH Proof of Work tokens (“ETHPoW”) held by the Trust. On the Record Date, the Trust, acting on behalf of the Record Date Shareholders and pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement governing the Trust, appointed Grayscale Investments, LLC as agent to act on behalf of the Record Date Shareholders and transferred the Incidental Rights to ETHPoW tokens held by the Trust to Grayscale Investments, LLC, in its capacity as agent. As of the Record Date, the Trust determined such Incidental Rights to have a fair value of $0 and no gain or loss was recognized as part of the Incidental Rights distribution, due to the lack of a trading venue accessible to the Authorized Participant of the Trust and uncertainty regarding the ability to safely access and custody the ETHPoW.
Previous report
Moreover, there are likely to be operational, tax, securities law, regulatory, legal and practical issues that significantly limit, or prevent entirely, shareholders’ ability to realize a benefit, through their Shares in the Trust, from any such Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. For instance, the Custodian may not agree to provide access to the IR Virtual Currency. In addition, the Sponsor may determine that there is no safe or practical way to custody the IR Virtual Currency, or that trying to do so may pose an unacceptable risk to the Trust’s holdings in ETH, or that the costs of taking possession and/or maintaining ownership of the IR Virtual Currency exceed the benefits of owning the IR Virtual Currency. Additionally, laws, regulation or other factors may prevent shareholders from benefitting from the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency even if there is a safe and practical way to custody and secure the IR Virtual Currency. For example, it may be illegal to sell or otherwise dispose of the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency, or there may not be a suitable market into which the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency can be sold (immediately after the fork or airdrop, or ever). The Sponsor may also determine, in consultation with its legal advisers, that the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency is, or is likely to be deemed, a security under federal or state securities laws. In such a case, the Sponsor would irrevocably abandon, as of any date on which the Trust creates Shares, such Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency if holding it would have an adverse effect on the Trust and it would not be practicable to avoid such effect by disposing of the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency in a manner that would result in shareholders receiving more than insignificant value thereof. In making such a determination, the Sponsor expects to take into account a number of factors, including the various definitions of a “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, as well as reports, orders, press releases, public statements and speeches by the SEC and its staff providing guidance on when a digital asset may be a security for purposes of the federal securities laws.
Previous report
The Trust has informed the Custodian that it is irrevocably abandoning, as of any date on which the Trust creates Shares, any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency to which it would otherwise be entitled as of such date and with respect to which it has not taken any Affirmative Action at or prior to such date. In order to avert abandonment of an Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency, the Trust will send a notice to the Custodian of its intention to retain such Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency. The Sponsor intends to evaluate each future fork or airdrop on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the Trust’s legal advisers, tax consultants and Custodian. Any inability to recognize the economic benefit of a hard fork or airdrop could adversely affect the value of the Shares. See “Item 1. Business—Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency.”
Previous report
Any name change and any associated rebranding initiative by the core developers of ETH may not be favorably received by the digital asset community, which could negatively impact the value of ETH and the value of the Shares.
Previous report
The value of the Shares relates directly to the value of ETH, the value of which may be highly volatile and subject to fluctuations due to a number of factors.
Previous report
The value of the Shares relates directly to the value of the ETH held by the Trust and fluctuations in the price of ETH could adversely affect the value of the Shares. The market price of ETH may be highly volatile, and subject to a number of factors, including:
Previous report
Consumer preferences and perceptions of ETH specifically and digital assets generally;
Previous report
A “short squeeze” resulting from speculation on the price of ETH, if aggregate short exposure exceeds the number of Shares available for purchase;
Previous report
An active derivatives market for ETH or for digital assets generally;
Previous report
Fees associated with processing an ETH transaction and the speed at which ETH transactions are settled;
Previous report
Digital Asset Trading Platforms are relatively new and, in many ways, unregulated. While many prominent Digital Asset Trading Platforms provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management teams, corporate practices and regulatory compliance, many other Digital Asset Trading Platforms do not provide this information. Furthermore, while Digital Asset Trading Platforms are and may continue to be subject to federal and state licensing requirements in the United States, Digital Asset Trading Platforms do not appear to be subject to regulation in a similar manner as other regulated trading platforms, such as national securities exchanges or designated contract markets. As a result, the marketplace may lose confidence in Digital Asset Trading Platforms, including prominent trading platforms that handle a significant volume of ETH trading.
Previous report
In addition, over the past several years, some Digital Asset Trading Platforms have been closed, been subject to criminal and civil litigation and have entered into bankruptcy proceedings due to fraud and manipulative activity, business failure and/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 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
Previous report
Digital Asset Trading Platforms may be susceptible to “front-running,” which refers to the process when someone uses technology or market advantage to get prior knowledge of upcoming transactions. Front-running is a frequent activity on centralized as well as decentralized exchanges. By using bots functioning on a millisecond-scale timeframe, bad actors are able to take advantage of the forthcoming price movement and make economic gains at the cost of those who had introduced these transactions. The objective of a front runner is to buy tokens at a low price and later sell them at a higher price while simultaneously exiting the position. To the extent that front-running occurs, it may result in investor frustrations and concerns as to the price integrity of Digital Asset Trading Platforms and digital assets more generally.
Previous report
Digital Asset Trading Platforms may be susceptible to wash trading. Wash trading occurs when offsetting trades are entered into for other than bona fide reasons, such as the desire to inflate reported trading volumes. Wash trading may be motivated by non-economic reasons, such as a desire for increased visibility on popular websites that monitor markets for digital assets so as to improve an exchange’s attractiveness to investors who look for maximum liquidity, or it may be motivated by the ability to attract listing fees from token issuers who seek the most liquid and high-volume exchanges on which to list their tokens. Results of wash trading may include unexpected obstacles to trade and erroneous investment decisions based on false information.
Previous report
Competition from the emergence or growth of other digital assets or methods of investing in ETH could have a negative impact on the price of ETH and adversely affect the value of the Shares.
Previous report
Failure of funds that hold digital assets or that have exposure to digital assets through derivatives to receive SEC approval to list their shares on exchanges could adversely affect the value of the Shares.
Previous report
There have been a growing number of attempts to list on national securities exchanges the shares of funds that hold digital assets or that have exposures to digital assets through derivatives. These investment vehicles attempt to provide institutional and retail investors exposure to markets for digital assets and related products. With the exception of funds that hold Bitcoin and certain Ethereum-based derivatives, the SEC has repeatedly denied such requests. In January 2018, the SEC’s Division of Investment Management outlined several questions that sponsors would be expected to address before the SEC will consider granting approval for funds holding “substantial amounts” of cryptocurrencies or “cryptocurrency-related products.” The questions, which focus on specific requirements of the Investment Company Act, generally fall into one of five key areas: valuation, liquidity, custody, arbitrage and potential manipulation. The SEC has not explicitly stated whether each of the questions set forth would also need to be addressed by entities with similar products and investment strategies that instead pursue registered offerings under the Securities Act, although such entities would need to comply with the registration and prospectus disclosure requirements of the Securities Act. After several years of the SEC denying requests to list shares of various digital asset funds holding Bitcoin on national securities exchanges, including the request to list the shares of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) on NYSE Arca in June 2022, the Sponsor petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of the SEC’s final order denying approval to list shares of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) on NYSE Arca as an exchange-traded product. In August 2023, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Sponsor’s petition and vacated the SEC’s order as arbitrary and capricious. The SEC did not seek panel rehearing or rehearing en banc. In October 2023, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the matter to the SEC. Ultimately, on January 10, 2024, the SEC approved NYSE Arca’s 19b-4 application to list the shares of the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) on NYSE Arca as an exchange-traded product, as well as requests to list shares of various other digital asset funds holding Bitcoin on national securities exchanges.
Previous report
On October 2, 2023, NYSE Arca filed an application with the SEC pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act to list the Shares of the Trust on NYSE Arca. As of the date of this filing, the NYSE Arca 19b-4 application has not been approved by the SEC and the Trust has not obtained relief from the SEC under Regulation M, and the Trust makes no representation as to when or if such approval and relief will be obtained. Even though NYSE Arca’s request with respect to Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) was approved, there is no guarantee that a similar application to list Shares of the Trust on NYSE Arca, or another national securities exchange, will also be approved. In particular, Bitcoin is the only digital asset that the SEC has publicly indicated it does not currently view as a security and the SEC is unlikely to approve a request to list the shares of a spot exchange-traded product that holds a digital asset that the SEC believes is a security. Moreover, even if the SEC took the view that a digital asset was not a security, based on prior spot exchange-traded product disapprovals, the existence of a CFTC-regulated futures market for the relevant digital asset would be central to the SEC’s approval of any request to list the shares of a spot exchange-traded product holding such digital asset. As of the date hereof, there are only CFTC-regulated futures markets for Bitcoin and Ethereum. As such, significant barriers to regulatory approval for any request to list the shares of other digital asset investment vehicles, including the Shares of the Trust, remain, and investors should not assume that approval of a spot Bitcoin exchange-traded product would subsequently lead to approval of spot exchange-traded products holding other digital assets, such as the Trust. Accordingly, there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will be successful in listing the Shares of the Trust on NYSE Arca.
Previous report
The exchange listing of shares of digital asset funds would create more opportunities for institutional and retail investors to invest in the digital asset market. If exchange-listing requests continue to be denied by the SEC, increased investment interest by institutional or retail investors could fail to materialize, which could reduce the demand for digital assets generally and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.
Previous report
The Trust relies on the Custodian, the Authorized Participant and other third-party service providers to perform certain functions essential to managing the affairs of the Trust. In addition, the Authorized Participant may rely on one or more Liquidity Providers to source ETH in connection with the creation of Shares. Any disruptions to such service providers’ business operations, resulting from business failures, financial instability, security failures, government mandated regulation or operational problems could have an adverse impact on the Trust’s ability to access critical services and be disruptive to the operations of the Trust and require the Sponsor to replace such service provider. Moreover, the Sponsor could decide to replace a service provider to the Trust, or a Liquidity Provider could be replaced for other reasons.
Previous report
To the extent that Sponsor is not able to find a suitable party willing to serve as the custodian, the Sponsor may be required to terminate the Trust and liquidate the Trust’s ETH. In addition, to the extent that the Sponsor finds a suitable party and must enter into a modified Custodian Agreement that is less favorable for the Trust or Sponsor and/or transfer the Trust’s assets in a relatively short time period, the safekeeping of the Trust’s ETH may be adversely affected, which may in turn adversely affect value of the Shares. Likewise, if the Sponsor and/or the Authorized Participant is required to replace any other service provider, they may not be able to find a party willing to serve in such capacity in a timely manner or at all. If the Sponsor decides, or is required, to replace the Authorized Participant and/or if a Liquidity Provider is replaced or required to be replaced, this could negatively impact the Trust’s ability to create new Shares, which would impact the Shares’ liquidity and could have a negative impact on the value of the Shares.
Previous report
Because of the holding period under Rule 144, the lack of an ongoing redemption program and the Trust’s ability to halt creations from time to time, there is no arbitrage mechanism to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Index Price and the Shares have historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share.
Previous report
Shares purchased in the private placement are subject to a holding period under Rule 144. Pursuant to Rule 144, the minimum holding period for Shares purchased in the private placement is six months. In addition, the Trust does not currently operate an ongoing redemption program and may halt creations from time to time. As a result, the Trust cannot rely on arbitrage opportunities resulting from differences between the value of the Shares and the price of ETH to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Index Price. As a result, the value of the Shares of the Trust may not approximate the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share or meet the Trust’s investment objective, and may trade at a substantial premium over, or substantial discount to, the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share. For example, in the past, the price of the Shares as quoted on OTCQX varied significantly from the NAV per Share due to these factors, among others, and has historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share.
Previous report
The Shares may trade at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share as a result of the non-current trading hours between OTCQX and the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market.
Previous report
The Trust could experience unforeseen issues relating to the performance and effectiveness of the security procedures used to protect the Digital Asset Account, or the security procedures may not protect against all errors, software flaws or other vulnerabilities in the Trust’s technical infrastructure, which could result in theft, loss or damage of its assets; or
Previous report
The restrictions on transfer and redemption may result in losses on the value of the Shares.
Previous report
Shares purchased in the private placement may not be resold except in transactions exempt from registration under the Securities Act and state securities laws, and any such transaction must be approved in advance by the Sponsor. In determining whether to grant approval, the Sponsor will specifically look at whether the conditions of Rule 144 under the Securities Act and any other applicable laws have been met. Any attempt to sell Shares without the approval of the Sponsor in its sole discretion will be void ab initio. See “Item 1. Business—Description of the Shares—Transfer Restrictions” for more information.
Previous report
At this time the Sponsor is not accepting redemption requests from shareholders, and the Trust must obtain relief from the SEC under Regulation M in order to do so. The Trust has not sought such relief as of the date of this Annual Report, and even if such relief is sought in the future, no assurance can be given as to the timing of such relief or that such relief will be granted. Therefore, unless the Trust is permitted to, and does, establish a Share redemption program, shareholders will be unable to (or could be significantly impeded in attempting to) sell or otherwise liquidate investments in the Shares, which could have a material adverse impact on demand for the Shares and their value.
Previous report
Affiliates of the Trust previously entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC concerning the operation of one such affiliate’s former redemption programs.
Previous report
On April 1, 2014, Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC), an affiliate of the Trust, launched a program pursuant to which its shareholders could request redemptions from Genesis, an affiliate of the Trust and the sole Authorized Participant of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) at that time. On September 23, 2014, Genesis received a letter from the staff of the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations summarizing the staff’s findings from an onsite review of Genesis’s broker-dealer activities conducted in June 2014. In its exit report, the staff stated that it had concluded that Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC)’s redemption program, in which its shareholders were permitted to request the redemption of their shares through Genesis, appeared to violate Regulation M under the Exchange Act because such redemptions of shares took place at the same time Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) was in the process of creating shares. On July 11, 2016, Genesis and Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC whereby they agreed to a cease-and-desist order against future violations of Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M under the Exchange Act. Genesis also agreed to pay disgorgement of $51,650.11 in redemption fees it collected, plus prejudgment interest of $2,105.68, for a total of $53,755.79. The Trust currently has not sought an exemption from the SEC under Regulation M in order to instate a redemption program as of the date of this Annual Report, and even if such relief is sought in the future, no assurance can be given as to the timing of such relief or that such relief will be granted.
Previous report
The Shares are qualified for public trading on OTCQX and an active trading market for the Shares has developed. However, there can be no assurance that such trading market will be maintained or continue to develop. In addition, OTCQX can halt the trading of the Shares for a variety of reasons. To the extent that OTCQX halts trading in the Shares, whether on a temporary or permanent basis, investors may not be able to buy or sell Shares, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares. If an active trading market for the Shares does not continue to exist, the market prices and liquidity of the Shares may be adversely affected.
Previous report
The Sponsor is also seeking to list the Shares on NYSE Arca sometime in the future. NYSE Arca must receive approval from the SEC in order to list the Shares. The SEC has approved several futures-based Bitcoin and ETH ETFs since October 2021. The requests to list the shares of digital asset funds submitted by CBOE and the NYSE Arca in 2019 were withdrawn or received disapprovals. Subsequently, NYSE Arca and CBOE filed several new requests to list shares of various digital asset funds in 2021. Several of those requests were denied by the SEC in 2021 and 2022, including a second request by NYSE Arca to list the shares of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC), which was denied in June 2022. In June 2023, NYSE Arca, CBOE and The Nasdaq Stock Market again submitted several new requests to list shares of various digital asset funds. The Sponsor petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of the SEC’s final order denying approval to list shares of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) on NYSE Arca as an exchange-traded product. On August 29, 2023, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Sponsor’s petition and vacated the SEC’s order as arbitrary and capricious. The SEC did not seek panel rehearing or rehearing en banc. On October 23, 2023, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the matter to the SEC. Ultimately, on January 10, 2024, the SEC approved NYSE Arca’s 19b-4 application to list the shares of the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) on NYSE Arca as an exchange-traded product, along with 19b-4 applications related to the listing of 10 other Bitcoin exchange-traded products on various exchanges. Shares of the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) began trading on NYSE Arca on January 11, 2024.
Showing the first 40 of 68 passages. Open the source sections for the rest.
Reworded paragraphs (137)
Previous wording
Extreme volatility of trading prices that many digital assets, including ETH, have experienced in recent periods and may continue to experience, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value;
Current wording
Extreme volatility of trading prices that many digital assets, including Ether, have experienced in recent periods and may continue to experience, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value;
Previous wording
The value of the Shares is dependent on the acceptance of digital assets, such as ETH, which represent a new and rapidly evolving industry;
Current wording
The value of the Shares is dependent on the acceptance of digital assets, such as Ether, which represent a new and rapidly evolving industry;
Previous wording
The value of the Shares relates directly to the value of ETH held by the Trust, the value of which may be highly volatile and subject to fluctuations;
Current wording
The value of the Shares relates directly to the value of Ether held by the Trust, the value of which may be highly volatile and subject to fluctuations;
Previous wording
The Trust relies on third-party service providers to perform certain functions essential to the affairs of the Trust and the replacement of such service providers could pose a challenge to the safekeeping of the Trust’s ETH and to the operations of the Trust.
Current wording
The Trust relies on third-party service providers to perform certain functions essential to the affairs of the Trust and the replacement of such service providers could pose challenges to the safekeeping of the Trust’s Ether and to the operations of the Trust;
Previous wording
A determination that ETH or any other digital asset is a “security” may adversely affect the value of ETH and the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust;
Current wording
A determination that Ether or any other digital asset is a “security” may adversely affect the value of Ether and the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust;
Previous wording
Regulatory changes or actions by the U.S. Congress or any U.S. federal or state agencies may affect the value of the Shares or restrict the use of ETH, validating activity or the operation of the Ethereum Network or the Digital Asset Markets in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares;
Current wording
Regulatory changes or actions by the U.S. Congress or any U.S. federal or state agencies may affect the value of the Shares or restrict the use of Ether, validating activity or the operation of the Ethereum Network or the Digital Asset Markets in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares;
Previous wording
The trading prices of many digital assets, including ETH, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. For instance, following significant increases throughout the majority of 2020, digital asset prices, including ETH, experienced significant volatility throughout 2021 and 2022. This volatility became extreme in November 2022 when FTX halted customer withdrawals. See “—Recent developments in the digital asset economy have led to extreme volatility and disruption in digital asset markets, a loss of confidence in participants of the digital asset ecosystem, significant negative publicity surrounding digital assets broadly and market-wide declines in liquidity.” Digital asset prices, including ETH, have continued to fluctuate widely throughout 2023 and through the date of this Annual Report.
Current wording
The trading prices of many digital assets, including Ether, have experienced extreme volatility throughout their existence, including in recent periods and may continue to do so. For instance, following significant increases throughout the majority of 2020, digital asset prices, including Ether, experienced significant volatility throughout 2021 and 2022. This volatility became extreme in November 2022, when FTX, then a major Digital Asset Trading Platform, halted customer withdrawals. See “—Recent developments in the digital asset economy have led to extreme volatility and disruption in digital asset markets, a loss of confidence in participants of the digital asset ecosystem, significant negative publicity surrounding digital assets broadly and market-wide declines in liquidity.” Digital asset prices, including Ether, have continued to fluctuate widely through the date of this Annual Report.
Previous wording
Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of ETH, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value. Furthermore, negative perception, a lack of stability and standardized regulation in the digital asset economy may reduce confidence in the digital asset economy and may result in greater volatility in the price of ETH and other digital assets, including a depreciation in value. The Trust is not actively managed and will not take any actions to take advantage, or mitigate the impacts, of volatility in the price of ETH. For additional information that quantifies the volatility of ETH prices and the value of the Shares, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Historical NAV and ETH Prices.”
Current wording
Extreme volatility in the future, including declines in the trading prices of Ether, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value. Furthermore, negative perception, a lack of stability and standardized regulation in the digital asset economy may reduce confidence in the digital asset economy and may result in greater volatility in the price of Ether and other digital assets, including a depreciation in value. The Trust is not actively managed and will not take any actions to take advantage, or mitigate the impacts, of volatility in the price of Ether. For additional information that quantifies the volatility of Ether prices and the value of the Shares, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Historical NAV and Ether Prices.”
Previous wording
Digital assets such as ETH were only introduced within the past two decades, and the medium-to-long term value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies and to the fundamental investment characteristics of digital assets.
Current wording
Digital assets such as Ether were only introduced within the past two decades, and the medium-to-long term value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies and to the fundamental investment characteristics of digital assets.
Previous wording
Digital assets such as ETH were only introduced within the past two decades, and the medium-to-long term value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies, such as the recentness of their development, their dependence on the internet and other technologies, their dependence on the role played by users, developers and validators and the potential for malicious activity. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:
Current wording
Digital assets such as Ether were only introduced within the past two decades, and the medium-to-long term value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies, such as the recentness of their development, their dependence on the internet and other technologies, their dependence on the role played by users, developers and validators and the potential for malicious activity. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:
Previous wording
Digital asset networks are dependent upon the internet. A disruption of the internet or a digital asset network, such as the Ethereum Network, would affect the ability to transfer digital assets, including ETH, and, consequently, their value.
Current wording
Digital asset networks and related protocols are dependent upon the internet. A disruption of the internet or a digital asset network or related protocol, such as the Ethereum Network, would affect the ability to transfer digital assets, including Ether, and, consequently, their value.
Previous wording
The acceptance of software patches or upgrades by a significant, but not overwhelming, percentage of the users and validators in a digital asset network, such as the Ethereum Network, could result in a “fork” in such network’s blockchain, resulting in the operation of multiple separate networks.
Current wording
The acceptance of software patches or upgrades to a digital asset network by a significant, but not overwhelming, percentage of the users and validators in a digital asset network, such as the Ethereum Network, could result in a “fork” in such network’s blockchain, resulting in the operation of multiple separate blockchain networks.
Previous wording
Moreover, in the past, flaws in the source code for digital assets have been exposed and exploited, including flaws that disabled some functionality for users, exposed users’ personal information and/or resulted in the theft of users’ digital assets. The cryptography underlying ETH could prove to be flawed or ineffective, or developments in mathematics and/or technology, including advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry and quantum computing, could result in such cryptography becoming ineffective. In any of these circumstances, a malicious actor may be able to take the Trust’s ETH, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, functionality of the Ethereum Network may be negatively affected such that it is no longer attractive to users, thereby dampening demand for ETH. Even if another digital asset other than ETH were affected by similar circumstances, any reduction in confidence in the source code or cryptography underlying digital assets generally could negatively affect the demand for digital assets and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.
Current wording
Moreover, in the past, flaws in the source code for digital asset networks and related protocols have been exposed and exploited, including flaws that disabled some functionality for users, exposed users’ personal information and/or resulted in the theft of users’ digital assets. The cryptography underlying Ether could prove to be flawed or ineffective, or developments in mathematics and/or technology, including advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry and quantum computing, could result in such cryptography becoming ineffective. In any of these circumstances, a malicious actor may be able to take the Trust’s Ether, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, functionality of the Ethereum Network may be negatively affected by such an exploit such that it is no longer attractive to users, thereby dampening demand for Ether. Even if another digital asset other than Ether were affected by similar circumstances, any reduction in confidence in the source code or cryptography underlying digital asset networks and related protocols generally could negatively affect the demand for digital assets and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.
Previous wording
Ethereum Network will include updates to material aspects of its source code. Although some of these upgrades have been successfully implemented, such as the Merge, previously successful upgrades do not guarantee that future upgrades will be successful, and any failure to properly implement future changes could have a material adverse effect on the value of ETH and the value of the Shares. One prospective upgrade is known as the “Dencun” upgrade, which could increase the scalability of the Ethereum Network by allowing easy synchronization with Layer 2 networks capable of processing many more transactions than the Ethereum Blockchain alone. The intended effect would be to increase the rate of transactions that can be processed by the Ethereum Network. As a result, it is possible that the amount of ETH required to sync Layer 2 networks with the Ethereum Blockchain would be reduced and therefore the demand for ETH could be reduced, which could have a material adverse effect on the value of ETH and the value of the Shares. See “Item 1. Business—Overview of the ETH Industry and Market—Modifications to the ETH Protocol” for additional information. In addition, the acceptance of software patches or upgrades by a significant, but not overwhelming, percentage of the users and validators in a digital asset network could result in a “fork” in such network’s blockchain, resulting in the operation of multiple separate networks. See “A temporary or permanent “fork” could adversely affect the value of the Shares” for additional information.
Current wording
The Ethereum Network is in the process of implementing a series of software upgrades and other changes to its protocol, which were previously referred to collectively as Ethereum 2.0 and some of which were implemented during 2022, such as the Merge. These upgrades will result in new iterations of the Ethereum Network. Many of the contemplated upgrades the Ethereum Network will include updates to material aspects of its source code. Although some of these upgrades have been successfully implemented, such as the Merge, previously successful upgrades do not guarantee that future upgrades will be successful, and any failure to properly implement future changes could have a material adverse effect on the value of Ether and the value of the Shares. In March 2024, the Ethereum Network completed a network upgrade called Dencun, which enabled “proto-danksharding.” The purpose of proto-danksharding is to increase scalability of the Ethereum Network by allowing easy synchronization with Layer 2 networks capable of processing many more transactions than the Layer 1 blockchain alone. The intended effect would be to increase the rate of transactions that can be processed by the Ethereum Network. As a result, it is possible that the amount of Ether required to sync Layer 2 networks with the Blockchain would be reduced and therefore the demand for Ether could be reduced, which could have a material adverse effect on the value of Ether and the value of the Shares. See “Item 1. Business—Overview of the Ethereum Industry and Market—Modifications to the Ethereum Protocol” for additional information. In addition, the acceptance of software patches or upgrades by a significant, but not overwhelming, percentage of the users and validators in a digital asset network could result in a “fork” in such network’s blockchain, resulting in the operation of multiple separate networks. See “A temporary or permanent “fork” could adversely affect the value of the Shares” for additional information.
Previous wording
The Ethereum Network is still in the process of developing and making significant decisions that will affect policies that govern the supply and issuance of ETH as well as other Ethereum Network protocols. For example, the Ethereum Network has on three separate occasions reduced the quantity of ETH rewarded per block and may make additional changes in the future, see “Item 1. Business—Overview of the ETH Industry and Market—Creation of New ETH” for additional information. If the Ethereum Network does not successfully develop its policies on supply and issuance, or does so in a manner that is not attractive to network participants, there may not be sufficient network level support for such network, which could lead to a decline in the support and price of ETH.
Current wording
The Ethereum Network is still in the process of developing and making significant decisions that will affect policies that govern the supply and issuance of Ether as well as other Ethereum Network protocols. For example, the Ethereum Network has on three separate occasions reduced the quantity of Ether rewarded per block and may make additional changes in the future, see “Item 1. Business—Overview of the Ethereum Industry and Market—Creation of New Ether” for additional information. If the Ethereum Network does not successfully develop its policies on supply and issuance, or does so in a manner that is not attractive to network participants, there may not be sufficient network level support for such network, which could lead to a decline in the support and price of Ether.
Previous wording
Moreover, because digital assets, including ETH, have been in existence for a short period of time and are continuing to develop, there may be additional risks in the future that are impossible to predict as of the date of this Annual Report.
Current wording
Moreover, because digital assets, including Ether, have existed for a short period of time and are continuing to be developed, there may be additional risks to digital asset networks and related protocols that are impossible to predict as of the date of this Annual Report.
Previous wording
The first digital asset, Bitcoin, was launched in 2009. ETH launched in 2015 and, along with Bitcoin, was one of the first cryptographic digital assets to gain global adoption and critical mass. In general, digital asset networks, including the Ethereum Network and other cryptographic and algorithmic protocols governing the issuance of digital assets represent a new and rapidly evolving industry that is subject to a variety of factors that are difficult to evaluate. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:
Current wording
The first digital asset, Bitcoin, was launched in 2009. Ether was launched in 2015 and, along with Bitcoin, was one of the first cryptographic digital assets to gain global adoption and critical mass. In general, digital asset networks, including the Ethereum Network and related protocols represent a new and rapidly evolving industry that is subject to a variety of factors that are difficult to evaluate. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:
Previous wording
ETH is only selectively accepted by retail and commercial outlets, and use of ETH by consumers remains limited. Banks and other established financial institutions may refuse to process funds for ETH transactions; process wire transfers to or from Digital Asset Trading Platforms, ETH-related companies or service providers; or maintain accounts for persons or entities transacting in ETH. As a result, the prices of ETH are largely determined by speculators and validators, thus contributing to price volatility that makes retailers less likely to accept ETH in the future. While the use of other digital assets, such as Bitcoin, to purchase goods and services from commercial or service businesses is developing, ETH has not yet been accepted in the same manner because it has a slightly different purpose than Bitcoin.
Current wording
Ether is only selectively accepted as a means of payment by retail and commercial outlets, and use of Ether by consumers remains limited. Banks and other established financial institutions, whether voluntarily or in response to regulatory feedback, may refuse to process funds for Ether transactions; process wire transfers to or from Digital Asset Trading Platforms, Ether-related companies or service providers; or maintain accounts for persons or entities transacting in Ether. As a result, the prices of Ether are largely determined by speculators and validators, thus contributing to price volatility that makes retailers less likely to accept Ether in the future. While the use of other digital assets, such as Bitcoin, to purchase goods and services from commercial or service businesses is developing, Ether has not yet been accepted in the same manner because it has a slightly different purpose than Bitcoin.
Previous wording
Banks may not provide banking services, or may cut off banking services, to businesses that provide digital asset-related services or that accept digital assets as payment, which could dampen liquidity in the market and damage the public perception of digital assets generally or any one digital asset in particular, such as ETH, and their or its utility as a payment system, which could decrease the price of digital assets generally or individually.
Current wording
Banks may not provide banking services, or may cut off banking services, to businesses that provide digital asset-related services or that accept digital assets as payment, which could dampen liquidity in the market and damage the public perception of digital assets generally or any one digital asset in particular, such as Ether, and their or its utility as a payment system, which could decrease the price of digital assets generally or individually.
Previous wording
Certain privacy-preserving features have been or are expected to be introduced to a number of digital asset networks. If any such features are introduced to the Ethereum Network, any trading platforms or businesses that facilitate transactions in ETH may be at an increased risk of criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having banking services cut off if there is a concern that these features interfere with the performance of anti-money laundering duties and economic sanctions checks.
Current wording
Certain privacy-preserving features have been or are expected to be introduced to a number of digital asset networks. If any such features are introduced to the Ethereum Network, any trading platforms or businesses that facilitate transactions in Ether may be at an increased risk of criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having banking services cut off if there is a concern that these features interfere with the performance of anti-money laundering duties and economic sanctions checks.
Previous wording
Users, developers and validators may otherwise switch to or adopt certain digital assets at the expense of their engagement with other digital asset networks, which may negatively impact those networks, including the Ethereum Network.
Current wording
Users, developers and validators may switch to or adopt certain digital asset networks or protocols at the expense of their engagement with other digital asset networks and protocols, which may negatively impact those networks and protocols, including the Ethereum Network.
Previous wording
Smart contracts are a new technology and ongoing development may magnify initial problems, cause volatility on the networks that use smart contracts and reduce interest in them, which could have an adverse impact on the value of ETH.
Current wording
Smart contracts are a new technology and ongoing development may magnify initial problems, cause volatility on the networks that use smart contracts and reduce interest in them, which could have an adverse impact on the value of Ether.
Previous wording
Smart contracts are programs that run on a blockchain that execute automatically when certain conditions are met. Since smart contracts typically cannot be stopped or reversed, vulnerabilities in their programming can have damaging effects. For example, in June 2016, a vulnerability in the smart contracts underlying The DAO, a distributed autonomous organization for venture capital funding, allowed an attack by a hacker to syphon approximately $60 million worth of ETH from The DAO’s accounts into a segregated account. In the aftermath of the theft, certain developers and core contributors pursued a “hard fork” of the Ethereum Network in order to erase any record of the theft. Despite these efforts, the price of ETH dropped approximately 35% in the aftermath of the attack and subsequent hard fork. In addition, in July 2017, a vulnerability in a smart contract for a multi-signature wallet software developed by Parity led to a $30 million theft of ETH, and in November 2017, a new vulnerability in Parity’s wallet software led to roughly $160 million worth of ETH being indefinitely frozen in an account. Other smart contracts, such as bridges between blockchain networks and DeFi protocols have also been manipulated, exploited or used in ways that were not intended or envisioned by their creators such that attackers syphoned over $3.8 billion worth of digital assets from smart contracts in 2022. Initial problems and continued problems with the development, design and deployment of smart contracts may have an adverse effect on the value of ETH, which could have a negative impact on the value of the Shares.
Current wording
Smart contracts are programs that run on a blockchain that execute automatically when certain conditions are met. Since smart contracts typically cannot be stopped or reversed, vulnerabilities in their programming can have damaging effects. For example, in June 2016, a vulnerability in the smart contracts underlying The DAO, a distributed autonomous organization for venture capital funding, allowed an attack by a hacker to syphon approximately $60 million worth of Ether from The DAO’s accounts into a segregated account. In the aftermath of the theft, certain developers and core contributors pursued a “hard fork” of the Ethereum Network in order to erase any record of the theft. Despite these efforts, the price of Ether dropped approximately 35% in the aftermath of the attack and subsequent hard fork. In addition, in July 2017, a vulnerability in a smart contract for a multi-signature wallet software developed by Parity led to a $30 million theft of Ether, and in November 2017, a new vulnerability in Parity’s wallet software led to roughly $160 million worth of Ether being indefinitely frozen in an account. Other smart contracts, such as bridges between blockchain networks and DeFi protocols have also been manipulated, exploited or used in ways that were not intended or envisioned by their creators such that attackers syphoned over $3.8 billion worth of digital assets from smart contracts in 2022. Initial problems and continued problems with the development, design and deployment of smart contracts may have an adverse effect on the value of Ether, which could have a negative impact on the value of the Shares.
Previous wording
Layer 2 solutions on the Ethereum Network were only recently conceived and may not properly function as intended, which could have an adverse impact on the value of ETH and an investment in the Shares.
Current wording
Layer 2 solutions on the Ethereum Network were only recently conceived and may not properly function as intended, which could have an adverse impact on the value of Ether and an investment in the Shares.
Previous wording
So-called “Layer 2” solutions are protocols built on top of an underlying smart contract platform blockchain intended to provide scalability to the underlying blockchain by increasing transaction efficiency. For example, Arbitrum is a smart contract platform protocol built on top of the Ethereum Blockchain; it is intended to provide scalability to Ethereum by allowing users to transact on a second blockchain deployed on the Ethereum Network. Under this model, Ethereum functions as the base layer, or “Layer 1” blockchain. Such solutions are intended to improve upon the transaction speed, cost and efficiency of transactions on their respective Layer 1. Layer 2 solutions therefore rely, to various degrees, on the functionality of the underlying Layer 1 blockchain.
Current wording
So-called “Layer 2” solutions are protocols built on top of an underlying smart contract platform blockchain intended to provide scalability to the underlying blockchain by increasing transaction efficiency. For example, Arbitrum is a smart contract platform protocol built on top of the Blockchain; it is intended to provide scalability to Ethereum by allowing users to transact on a second blockchain deployed on the Ethereum Network. Under this model, Ethereum functions as the base layer, or “Layer 1” blockchain. Such solutions are intended to improve upon the transaction speed, cost and efficiency of transactions on their respective Layer 1. Layer 2 solutions therefore rely, to various degrees, on the functionality of the underlying Layer 1 blockchain.
Previous wording
The details of how this is done vary significantly between different Layer 2 technologies and implementations. For example, “rollups” perform transaction execution outside the Layer 1 blockchain and then post the data, typically in batches, back to the Layer 1 Ethereum blockchain where consensus is reached. “Zero knowledge rollups” are generally designed to run the computation needed to validate the transactions off-chain, on the Layer 2 protocol, and submit a proof of validity of a batch of transactions (not the entire transactions themselves). By contrast, “optimistic rollups” assume transactions are valid by default and only run computation, via a fraud proof, in the event of a challenge. Other proposed Layer 2 scaling solutions include, among others, “state channels”, which are designed to allow participants to run a large number of transactions on the Layer 2 side channel protocol and only submit two transactions to the main Layer 1 Ethereum blockchain (the transaction opening the state channel, and the transaction closing the channel), “side chains”, in which an entire Layer 2 blockchain network with similar capabilities to the existing Layer 1 Ethereum blockchain runs in parallel with the existing Layer 1 Ethereum blockchain and allows smart contracts and DApps to run on the Layer 2 side chain without burdening the main Layer 1 network, and others. To date, the Ethereum Network community has not coalesced overwhelmingly around any particular Layer 2 solution, though this could change. There is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the speed and throughput of settlement of Ethereum Network transactions will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could cause the Ethereum Network to not adequately resolve scaling challenges and adversely impact the adoption of ether and the Ethereum Network and the value of the Shares. There is no guarantee that any potential scaling solution, whether a change to the Layer 1 blockchain or the introduction of a Layer 2 solution like rollups, state channels or side chains, will achieve widespread adoption. It is possible that proposed changes to the Layer 1 Ethereum Network could divide the community, potentially even causing a hard fork, or that the decentralized governance of the Ethereum Network causes network participants to fail to coalesce overwhelmingly around any particular solution, causing the Ethereum Network to suffer reduced adoption or causing users or validators to migrate to other blockchain networks. It is also possible that scaling solutions could fail to work as intended or could introduce bugs, coding defects or flaws, security risks, or other problems that could cause them to suffer operational disruptions. For example, in multiple instances throughout 2022 and 2023, the Arbitrum network experienced outages due to failures in its primary node responsible for submitting transactions to Ethereum.
Current wording
The details of how this is done vary significantly between different Layer 2 technologies and implementations. For example, “rollups” perform transaction execution outside the Layer 1 blockchain and then post the data, typically in batches, back to the Layer 1 blockchain where consensus is reached. “Zero knowledge rollups” are generally designed to run the computation needed to validate the transactions off-chain, on the Layer 2 protocol, and submit a proof of validity of a batch of transactions (not the entire transactions themselves). By contrast, “optimistic rollups” assume transactions are valid by default and only run computation, via a fraud proof, in the event of a challenge. Other proposed Layer 2 scaling solutions include, among others, “state channels”, which are designed to allow participants to run a large number of transactions on the Layer 2 side channel protocol and only submit two transactions to the main Layer 1 blockchain (the transaction opening the state channel, and the transaction closing the channel), “side chains”, in which an entire Layer 2 blockchain network with similar capabilities to the existing Layer 1 blockchain runs in parallel with the existing Layer 1 blockchain and allows smart contracts and DApps to run on the Layer 2 side chain without burdening the main Layer 1 network, and others. To date, the Ethereum Network community has not coalesced overwhelmingly around any particular Layer 2 solution, though this could change. There is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the speed and throughput of settlement of Ethereum Network transactions will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could cause the Ethereum Network to not adequately resolve scaling challenges and adversely impact the adoption of Ether and the Ethereum Network and the value of the Shares. There is no guarantee that any potential scaling solution, whether a change to the Layer 1 blockchain or the introduction of a Layer 2 solution like rollups, state channels or side chains, will achieve widespread adoption. It is possible that proposed changes to the Layer 1 Ethereum Network could divide the community, potentially even causing a hard fork, or that the decentralized governance of the Ethereum Network causes network participants to fail to coalesce overwhelmingly around any particular solution, causing the Ethereum Network to suffer reduced adoption or causing users or validators to migrate to other blockchain networks. It is also possible that scaling solutions could fail to work as intended or could introduce bugs, coding defects or flaws, security risks, or other problems that could cause them to suffer operational disruptions. For example, in multiple instances throughout 2022 and 2023, the Arbitrum network experienced outages due to failures in its primary node responsible for submitting transactions to Ethereum.
Previous wording
Further, smart contracts deployed on one Layer 2 solution may not be interoperable with smart contracts deployed on other Layer 2 solutions. In particular, the advent of Layer 2 solutions presents the possibility of fracturing liquidity of DeFi DApps on a smart contract platform’s mainchain by splitting such liquidity among multiple, non-interoperable Layer 2 solutions, which could limit their use case or reduce efficiency. As Layer 2 solutions grow in popularity and total value locked, these types of difficulties may lead to transactional congestion or forfeiture of value held on the Ethereum Network, which in turn could have an adverse impact on the value of ETH.
Current wording
Further, smart contracts deployed on one Layer 2 solution may not be interoperable with smart contracts deployed on other Layer 2 solutions. In particular, the advent of Layer 2 solutions presents the possibility of fracturing liquidity of DeFi DApps on a smart contract platform’s mainchain by splitting such liquidity among multiple, non-interoperable Layer 2 solutions, which could limit their use case or reduce efficiency. As Layer 2 solutions grow in popularity and total value locked, these types of difficulties may lead to transactional congestion or forfeiture of value held on the Ethereum Network, which in turn could have an adverse impact on the value of Ether.
Previous wording
The governance of decentralized networks, such as the Ethereum Network, is by voluntary consensus and open competition. As a result, there may be a lack of consensus or clarity on the governance of any particular decentralized digital asset network, which may stymie such network’s utility and ability to grow and face challenges. The foregoing notwithstanding, the protocols for some decentralized networks, such as the Ethereum Network, are informally managed by a group of core developers that propose amendments to the relevant network’s source code. Core developers’ roles evolve over time, largely based on self-determined participation. If a significant majority of users and validators were to adopt amendments to the Ethereum Network based on the proposals of such core developers, the Ethereum Network would be subject to new protocols that may adversely affect the value of ETH.
Current wording
The governance of some digital asset networks and protocols, such as the Ethereum Network, is generally by voluntary consensus and open competition. For such networks and protocols, there may be a lack of consensus or clarity on that network’s or protocol’s governance, which may stymie such network’s or protocol’s utility, adaptability and ability to grow and face challenges. The foregoing notwithstanding, the underlying software for some digital asset networks and protocols, such as the Ethereum Network, is informally or formally managed or developed by a group of core developers that propose amendments to the relevant network’s or protocol’s source code. Core developers’ roles may evolve over time, generally based on self-determined participation. If a significant majority of users and validators were to adopt amendments to a decentralized network based on the proposals of such core developers, such network would be subject to new source code that may adversely affect the value of the relevant digital asset.
Previous wording
As of December 31, 2023, the Ethereum Network handled approximately 12 transactions per second. In an effort to increase the volume of transactions that can be processed on a given digital asset network, many digital assets are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. For example, in 2024, the Ethereum Network may begin the final stages of implementing an upgrade referred to as Dencun that includes proto-danksharding. See “Item 1. Business—Overview of the ETH Industry and Market—Creation of New ETH” and “—Modifications to the ETH Protocol” for additional information.
Current wording
As of December 31, 2024, the Ethereum Network handled approximately 14 transactions per second. In an effort to increase the volume of transactions that can be processed on a given digital asset network, many digital assets are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. For example, in March 2024, the Ethereum Network completed a network upgrade called Dencun, which enabled “proto-danksharding.” See “Item 1. Business—Overview of the Ethereum Industry and Market—Creation of New Ether” and “—Modifications to the Ethereum Protocol” for additional information.
Previous wording
As corresponding increases in throughput lag behind growth in the use of digital asset networks, average fees and settlement times may increase considerably. For example, the Ethereum Network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. Since January 1, 2021, ETH average daily transaction fees have ranged from $0.97 per transaction on October 2, 2022, to as high as $200.27 per transaction on May 1, 2022. As of December 31, 2023, ETH average daily transaction fees were $3.82 per transaction. Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for ETH (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, ETH, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.
Current wording
As corresponding increases in throughput lag behind growth in the use of digital asset networks, average transaction fees and settlement times may increase considerably. For example, the Ethereum Network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. Since January 1, 2022, Ether average daily transaction fees have ranged from $0.56 per transaction, on August 31, 2024, to as high as $200.27 per transaction, on May 1, 2022. As of December 31, 2024, Ether average daily transaction fees stood at $3.52 per transaction. Increased transaction fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for Ether (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, Ether, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.
Previous wording
There is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the scale of settlement of Ethereum Network transactions will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.
Current wording
There is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the scale of settlement or throughput of Ethereum Network transactions will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.
Previous wording
Digital asset networks are often developed by a diverse set of contributors and the perception that high-profile contributors may no longer contribute to the network may have an adverse effect on the market price of any related digital assets. For example, in June 2017, an unfounded rumor circulated that Ethereum protocol developer Vitalik Buterin had died. Following the rumor, the price of ETH decreased approximately 20% before recovering after Buterin himself dispelled the rumor. Some have speculated that the rumor led to the decrease in the price of ETH. In the event a high-profile contributor to the Ethereum Network, such as Vitalik Buterin, is perceived as no longer contributing to the Ethereum Network due to death, retirement, withdrawal, incapacity, or otherwise, whether or not such perception is valid, it could negatively affect the price of ETH, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.
Current wording
Digital asset networks and related protocols are often developed by a diverse set of contributors, but are also often developed by identifiable and high-profile contributors. The perception that certain high-profile contributors may no longer contribute to the applicable digital asset network or protocol may have an adverse effect on the market price of any related digital assets. For example, in June 2017, an unfounded rumor circulated that Ethereum protocol developer Vitalik Buterin had died. Following the rumor, the price of Ether decreased approximately 20% before recovering after Buterin himself dispelled the rumor. Some have speculated that the rumor led to the decrease in the price of Ether. In the event a high-profile contributor to the Ethereum Network, such as Vitalik Buterin, is perceived as no longer contributing to the Ethereum Network due to death, retirement, withdrawal, incapacity, or otherwise, whether or not such perception is valid, it could negatively affect the price of Ether, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.
Previous wording
As of December 31, 2023, the largest 100 ETH wallets held approximately 51.7% of the ETH in circulation. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant number of ETH, even if they individually only hold a small amount, and it is possible that some of these wallets are controlled by the same person or entity. As a result of this concentration of ownership, large sales or distributions by such holders could have an adverse effect on the market price of ETH.
Current wording
As of December 31, 2024, the largest 100 Ether wallets held approximately 21.9% of the Ether in circulation. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant amount of Ether, even if they individually only hold a small amount, and it is possible that some of these wallets are controlled by the same person or entity. As a result of this concentration of ownership, large sales or distributions by such holders could have an adverse effect on the market price of Ether.
Previous wording
In 2021, the Ethereum Network implemented the EIP-1559 upgrade. EIP-1559 changed the methodology used to calculate transaction fees paid to ETH validators in such a manner that reduced the total net issuance of ETH fees paid to validators. If the digital asset awards for validating blocks or the transaction fees for recording transactions on the Ethereum Network are not sufficiently high to incentivize validators, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit or otherwise regulate validating activities, validators may cease expending validating power to validate blocks and confirmations of transactions on the Ethereum Blockchain could be slowed. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:
Current wording
In 2021, the Ethereum Network implemented the EIP-1559 upgrade. EIP-1559 changed the methodology used to calculate transaction fees paid to Ether validators (then called “miners”) in such a manner that reduced the total net issuance of Ether fees paid to miners. If the digital asset awards for validating blocks or the transaction fees for recording transactions on the Ethereum Network are not sufficiently high to incentivize validators, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit or otherwise regulate validating activities, validators may cease expending validating power to validate blocks and confirmations of transactions on the Blockchain could be slowed. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:
Previous wording
If the profit margins of digital asset validating operations are not sufficiently high, digital asset validators are more likely to immediately sell tokens earned by validating, resulting in an increase in liquid supply of that digital asset, which would generally tend to reduce that digital asset’s market price.
Current wording
Over the past several years, digital asset validating operations have evolved from individual users validating with computer processors, graphics processing units and first-generation application specific integrated circuit machines to “professionalized” validating operations using proprietary hardware or sophisticated machines. If the profit margins of digital asset validating operations are not sufficiently high, digital asset validators are more likely to immediately sell digital assets earned by validating, resulting in an increase in liquid supply of that digital asset, which would generally tend to reduce that digital asset’s market price.
Previous wording
A reduction in digital assets staked by validators on the Ethereum Network could increase the likelihood of a malicious actor or botnet obtaining control. See “—If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 50% of the validating power on the Ethereum Network, or otherwise obtains control over the Ethereum Network through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could manipulate the Blockchain to adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.”
Current wording
A reduction in digital assets staked by validators on the Ethereum Network could increase the likelihood of a malicious actor or botnet obtaining control. See “—If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 33% of the validating power on the Ethereum Network, or otherwise obtains control over the Ethereum Network through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could manipulate the Blockchain to adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.”
Previous wording
Validators have historically accepted relatively low transaction confirmation fees on most digital asset networks. If validators demand higher transaction fees for recording transactions in the Ethereum Blockchain or a software upgrade automatically charges fees for all transactions on the Ethereum Network, the cost of using ETH may increase and the marketplace may be reluctant to accept ETH as a means of payment. Alternatively, validators could collude in an anti-competitive manner to reject low transaction fees on the Ethereum Network and force users to pay higher fees, thus reducing the attractiveness of the Ethereum Network. Higher transaction confirmation fees resulting through collusion or otherwise may adversely affect the attractiveness of the Ethereum Network, the value of ETH and the value of the Shares.
Current wording
Validators have historically accepted relatively low transaction confirmation fees on most digital asset networks. If validators demand higher transaction fees for recording transactions in the Blockchain or a software upgrade automatically charges fees for all transactions on the Ethereum Network, the cost of using Ether may increase and the marketplace may be reluctant to accept Ether as a means of payment. Alternatively, validators could collude in an anti-competitive manner to reject low transaction fees on the Ethereum Network and force users to pay higher fees, thus reducing the attractiveness of the Ethereum Network. Higher transaction confirmation fees resulting through collusion or otherwise may adversely affect the attractiveness of the Ethereum Network, the value of Ether and the value of the Shares.
Previous wording
To the extent that any validators cease to record transactions that do not include the payment of a transaction fee in validated blocks or do not record a transaction because the transaction fee is too low, such transactions will not be recorded on the Ethereum Blockchain until a block is validated by a validator who does not require the payment of transaction fees or is willing to accept a lower fee. Any widespread delays in the recording of transactions could result in a loss of confidence in the digital asset network.
Current wording
To the extent that any validators cease to record transactions that do not include the payment of a transaction fee in validated blocks or do not record a transaction because the transaction fee is too low, such transactions will not be recorded on the Blockchain until a block is validated by a validator who does not require the payment of transaction fees or is willing to accept a lower fee. Any widespread delays in the recording of transactions could result in a loss of confidence in the digital asset network.
Previous wording
During the course of ordering transactions and validating blocks, validators may be able to prioritize certain transactions in return for increased transaction fees, an incentive system known as “Maximal Extractable Value” or MEV. For example, in blockchain networks that facilitate DeFi protocols in particular, such as the Ethereum Network, users may attempt to gain an advantage over other users by increasing offered transaction fees. Certain software solutions, such as Flashbots, have been developed which facilitate validators in capturing MEV produced by these increased fees. The MEV incentive system may lead to an increase in transaction fees on the Ethereum Network, which may diminish its use. Users or other stakeholders on the Ethereum Network could also view the existence of MEV as unfair manipulation of decentralized digital asset networks, and refrain from using DeFi protocols or the Ethereum Network generally. In addition, it’s possible regulators or legislators could enact rules which restrict the use of MEV, which could diminish the popularity of the Ethereum Network among users and validators. Any of these or other outcomes related to MEV may adversely affect the value of ETH and the value of the Shares.
Current wording
During the course of ordering transactions and validating blocks, validators may be able to prioritize certain transactions in return for increased transaction fees, an incentive system known as “Maximal Extractable Value” or MEV. For example, in blockchain networks that facilitate DeFi protocols in particular, such as the Ethereum Network, users may attempt to gain an advantage over other users by increasing offered transaction fees. Certain software solutions, such as Flashbots, have been developed which facilitate validators in capturing MEV produced by these increased fees. The MEV incentive system may lead to an increase in transaction fees on the Ethereum Network, which may diminish its use. Users or other stakeholders on the Ethereum Network could also view the existence of MEV as unfair manipulation of decentralized digital asset networks, and refrain from using DeFi protocols or the Ethereum Network generally. In addition, it’s possible regulators or legislators could enact rules which restrict the use of MEV, which could diminish the popularity of the Ethereum Network among users and validators. Any of these or other outcomes related to MEV may adversely affect the value of Ether and the value of the Shares.
Previous wording
If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 50% of the validating power on the Ethereum Network, or otherwise obtains control over the Ethereum Network through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could manipulate the Blockchain to adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.
Current wording
If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 33% of the validating power on the Ethereum Network, or otherwise obtains control over the Ethereum Network through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could manipulate the Blockchain to adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.
Showing the first 40 of 137 pairs. Open the source sections for the rest.
Rearranged current paragraphs (1)
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
Historically, the Shares have traded at both premiums and discounts to the NAV per Share, which at times were substantial. If the Shares trade on NYSE Arca in the future at a premium, investors who purchase Shares on NYSE Arca will pay more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares directly from Authorized Participants. In contrast, if the Shares trade on NYSE Arca in the future at a discount, investors who purchase Shares directly from Authorized Participants will pay more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares on NYSE Arca. The premium or discount at which the Shares have traded has fluctuated over time. For example, from June 20, 2019 to July 22, 2024, the maximum premium of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX over the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 956%, the average premium was 191%, the maximum discount of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX below the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 60%, and the average discount was 23%. The closing price of the Shares, as quoted on OTCQX at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day between June 20, 2019 and July 22, 2024, has been quoted at a discount on 849 days.
Rearranged previous paragraphs (4)
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
The Ethereum Network is in the process of implementing a series of software upgrades and other changes to its protocol, which were previously referred to collectively as Ethereum 2.0 and some of which were implemented during 2022, such as the Merge. These upgrades will result in new iterations of the Ethereum Network. Many of the contemplated upgrades the
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
If the digital asset award or transaction fees for recording transactions on the Ethereum Network are not sufficiently high to incentivize validators, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit or otherwise regulate validating activities, validators may cease expanding validating power or demand high transaction fees, which could negatively impact the value of ETH and the value of the Shares.
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
The value of the Shares may be influenced by a variety of factors unrelated to the value of ETH.
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
The Sponsor and Genesis, which previously served as an Authorized Participant and distributor and marketer for the Shares, are affiliated parties that share a common parent company, DCG;