Franklin Templeton Digital Holdings Trust

Previous wording

The trading prices of many digital assets, including bitcoin, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. For instance, the averageone-year trailing volatility of bitcoin over the past ten years to date remains elevated at 81%. There were steep increases in the value of certain digital assets, including bitcoin, over the course of 2021, and multiple market observers asserted that digital assets were experiencing a “bubble.” These increases were followed by steep drawdowns throughout 2022 in digital asset trading prices, including for bitcoin. In the 2021-2022 cycle, the price of bitcoin peaked at $67,734 and bottomed at $15,632, marking a steep 77% drawdown. These episodes of rapid price appreciation followed by steep drawdowns have occurred multiple times throughout bitcoin’s history, including in 2011, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018, before repeating again in 2021-2022.

Current wording

The trading prices of many digital assets, including bitcoin, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. For instance, the average one-year trailing volatility of bitcoin over the past ten years to date remains elevated at 81%. There were steep increases in the value of certain digital assets, including bitcoin, over the course of 2021, and multiple market observers asserted that digital assets were experiencing a “bubble.” These increases were followed by steep drawdowns throughout 2022 in digital asset trading prices, including for bitcoin. In the 2021-2022 cycle, the price of bitcoin peaked at $67,734 and bottomed at $15,632, marking a steep 77% drawdown. These episodes of rapid price appreciation followed by steep drawdowns have occurred multiple times throughout bitcoin’s history, including in 2011, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018, before repeating again in 2021-2022.

Previous wording

Digital assets such as bitcoin were only introduced within the past 15 years, and the value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors over time relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies, such as the recentness of their development, their dependence on the internet and other technologies, their dependence on the role played by users, developers and miners and the potential for malicious activity.

Current wording

Digital assets such as bitcoin were only introduced within the past 16 years, and the value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors over time relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies over time, such as the recentness of their development, their dependence on the internet and other technologies, their dependence on the role played by users, developers and miners and the potential for malicious activity.

Previous wording

The governance of decentralized networks, such as the Bitcoin 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 Bitcoin 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 onself-determined participation. If a significant majority of users and miners adopt amendments to a decentralized network based on the proposals of such core developers, such network will be subject to new protocols that may adversely affect the value of the relevant digital asset.

Current wording

The governance of decentralized networks, such as the Bitcoin 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 Bitcoin 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 miners adopt amendments to a decentralized network based on the proposals of such core developers, such network will be subject to new protocols that may adversely affect the value of the relevant digital asset.

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 Bitcoin network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. Since January 1, 2019, bitcoin transaction fees have increased from $0.18 per bitcoin transaction, on average, to a high of $60.95 per transaction, on average, on April 20, 2021. As of December 31, 2023, bitcoin transaction fees were $4.45 per transaction, on average. Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for bitcoin (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, bitcoin, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares. In May 2023, events related to the adoption of ordinals, which are a means of inscribing digital content on the bitcoin blockchain, caused transaction fees to temporarily spike above $30 per transaction.

Current 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 Bitcoin network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. Since January 1, 2019, bitcoin transaction fees have increased from $0.18 per bitcoin transaction, on average, to a high of $60.95 per transaction, on average, on April 20, 2021. As of December 31, 2023, bitcoin transaction fees were $4.45 per transaction, on average. Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for bitcoin (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, bitcoin, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares. In May 2023, events related to the adoption of ordinals, which are a means of inscribing digital content on the bitcoin blockchain, caused transaction fees to temporarily spike above $30 per transaction. As of March 31, 2025, bitcoin transaction fees were $1.27 per transaction, on average.

Previous wording

The Bitcoin network operates using open-source protocols, meaning that any user can download the software, modify such software and then propose that the users and miners of bitcoin adopt the modification. When a modification is introduced and a substantial majority of users and miners consent to the modification, the change is implemented and the network remains uninterrupted. However, if less than a substantial majority of users and miners consent to the proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the software prior to its modification, the consequence would be what is known as a “hard fork” of the Bitcoin network, with one group running thepre-modified software and the other running the modified software. The effect of such a fork would be the existence of two versions of bitcoin running in parallel on separate networks using separate blockchain ledgers, yet lacking interchangeability. For example, in August 2017, Bitcoin “forked” into Bitcoin and a new digital asset, Bitcoin Cash, as a result of a several-year dispute over how to increase the rate of transactions that the Bitcoin network can process.

Current wording

The Bitcoin network operates using open-source protocols, meaning that any user can download the software, modify such software and then propose that the users and miners of bitcoin adopt the modification. When a modification is introduced and a substantial majority of users and miners consent to the modification, the change is implemented and the network remains uninterrupted. However, if less than a substantial majority of users and miners consent to the proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the software prior to its modification, the consequence would be what is known as a “hard fork” of the Bitcoin network, with one group running the pre-modified software and the other running the modified software. The effect of such a fork would be the existence of two versions of bitcoin running in parallel on separate networks using separate blockchain ledgers, yet lacking interchangeability. For example, in August 2017, Bitcoin “forked” into Bitcoin and a new digital asset, Bitcoin Cash, as a result of a several-year dispute over how to increase the rate of transactions that the Bitcoin network can process.

Previous wording

Furthermore, a hard fork can lead to new security concerns. For example, when the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks split in July 2016, replay attacks, in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast to nefarious effect on the other network, plagued Ethereum exchanges through at least October 2016. An Ethereum exchange announced in July 2016 that it had lost 40,000 Ethereum Classic, worth about $100,000 at that time, as a result of replay attacks. Similar replay attack concerns occurred in connection with the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision networks split in November 2018. Another possible result of a hard fork is an inherent decrease in the level of security due to significant amounts of mining power remaining on one network or migrating instead to the new forked network. After a hard fork, it may become easier for an individual miner or mining pool’s hashing power to exceed 50% of the processing power of a digital asset network that retained or attracted less mining power, thereby making digital asset networks that rely onproof-of-work more susceptible to attack.

Current wording

Furthermore, a hard fork can lead to new security concerns. For example, when the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks split in July 2016, replay attacks, in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast to nefarious effect on the other network, plagued Ethereum exchanges through at least October 2016. An Ethereum exchange announced in July 2016 that it had lost 40,000 Ethereum Classic, worth about $100,000 at that time, as a result of replay attacks. Similar replay attack concerns occurred in connection with the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision networks split in November 2018. Another possible result of a hard fork is an inherent decrease in the level of security due to significant amounts of mining power remaining on one network or migrating instead to the new forked network. After a hard fork, it may become easier for an individual miner or mining pool’s hashing power to exceed 50% of the processing power of a digital asset network that retained or attracted less mining power, thereby making digital asset networks that rely on proof-of-work more susceptible to attack.

Previous wording

As another example of the effects of hard forks on digital assets, on September 15, 2022, the Ethereum Network completed its merge, moving from aproof-of-work model to aproof-of-stake model. Ethereum proof-of-work miners who disagreed with the new consensus mechanism forked the network which resulted in the Ethereum proof-of-work network. Ethereum proof-of-work network was driven by a small but vocal group of miners who wished to hold onto revenue as Ethereum switched toproof-of-stake. The vast majority of token holder votes preferred the newproof-of-stake consensus method. There was no material impact on the Ethereum network as a result of the fork. All ether holders were airdropped Ethereum proof-of-work network tokens as a result of the hard fork. However, not all liquidity providers were able to trade the new token and the Ethereum proof-of-work network token almost immediately lost most of its value.

Current wording

As another example of the effects of hard forks on digital assets, on September 15, 2022, the Ethereum Network completed its merge, moving from a proof-of-work model to a proof-of-stake model. Ethereum proof-of-work miners who disagreed with the new consensus mechanism forked the network which resulted in the Ethereum proof-of-work network. Ethereum proof-of-work network was driven by a small but vocal group of miners who wished to hold onto revenue as Ethereum switched to proof-of-stake. The vast majority of token holder votes preferred the new proof-of-stake consensus method. There was no material impact on the Ethereum network as a result of the fork. All ether holders were airdropped Ethereum proof-of-work network tokens as a result of the hard fork. However, not all liquidity providers were able to trade the new token and the Ethereum proof-of-work network token almost immediately lost most of its value.

Previous wording

The Fund will not hold any crypto asset other than bitcoin. Accordingly, Shareholders may not receive the benefits of any forks, the Fund may not be able to participate in an airdrop, and the timing of receiving any benefits from a fork, airdrop or similar event is uncertain. We refer to the right to receive any such benefit as an “Incidental Right” and any such virtual currency acquired through an Incidental Right as “IR Virtual Currency.” The Sponsor has the right, in the Sponsor’s sole discretion, to determine: (i) with respect to any fork, airdrop or similar event, what action the Fund shall take, and (ii) what action to take in connection with the Fund’s entitlement to or ownership of Incidental Rights or any IR Virtual Currency. The Sponsor intends to evaluate each fork, airdrop or similar occurrence on acase-by-case basis in consultation with the Fund’s legal advisors, tax consultants, the Administrator, and the Bitcoin Custodian. The Sponsor is under no obligation to realize any economic benefit from any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency on behalf of the Fund. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to any airdrop of anynon-bitcoin crypto asset, including Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, or in the event of a fork where it has been determined, in the discretion of the Sponsor, that the crypto asset received by the Fund is not bitcoin, or any similar event, the Sponsor will cause the Fund to irrevocably abandon suchnon-bitcoin crypto asset and, in the event that the Fund seeks to change this position, an application would need to be filed with the SEC by Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., the listing exchange, seeking approval to amend its listing rules. For the avoidance of doubt, the only crypto asset to be held by the Fund will be bitcoin; the Fund does not have the ability or intention to hold any other crypto asset, and specific regulatory approval would be required in order to do so.

Current wording

The Fund will not hold any crypto asset other than bitcoin. Accordingly, Shareholders may not receive the benefits of any forks, the Fund may not be able to participate in an airdrop, and the timing of receiving any benefits from a fork, airdrop or similar event is uncertain. We refer to the right to receive any such benefit as an “Incidental Right” and any such virtual currency acquired through an Incidental Right as “IR Virtual Currency.” The Sponsor has the right, in the Sponsor’s sole discretion, to determine: (i) with respect to any fork, airdrop or similar event, what action the Fund shall take, and (ii) what action to take in connection with the Fund’s entitlement to or ownership of Incidental Rights or any IR Virtual Currency. The Sponsor intends to evaluate each fork, airdrop or similar occurrence on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the Fund’s legal advisors, tax consultants, the Administrator, and the Bitcoin Custodian. The Sponsor is under no obligation to realize any economic benefit from any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency on behalf of the Fund. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to any airdrop of any non-bitcoin crypto asset, including Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, or in the event of a fork where it has been determined, in the discretion of the Sponsor, that the crypto asset received by the Fund is not bitcoin, or any similar event, the Sponsor will cause the Fund to irrevocably abandon such non-bitcoin crypto asset and, in the event that the Fund seeks to change this position, an application would need to be filed with the SEC by Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., the listing exchange, seeking approval to amend its listing rules. For the avoidance of doubt, the only crypto asset to be held by the Fund will be bitcoin; the Fund does not have the ability or intention to hold any other crypto asset, and specific regulatory approval would be required in order to do so.

Previous wording

Risk of manipulative activity (e.g., wash trading, front running or other fraudulent practices). Many digital asset exchanges are unlicensed, unregulated, operate without extensive supervision by governmental authorities, and do not provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management team, corporate practices, cybersecurity, and regulatory compliance. In particular, those located outside the United States may be subject to significantly less stringent regulatory and compliance requirements in their local jurisdictions, and may take the position that they are not subject to laws and regulations that would apply to a national securities exchange or designated contract market in the United States, or may, as a practical matter, be beyond the ambit of U.S. regulators. As a result, trading activity on or reported by these digital asset exchanges is generally significantly less regulated than trading in regulated U.S. securities and commodities markets, and may reflect behavior that would be prohibited in regulated U.S. trading venues. For example, in 2019 there were reports claiming that 80.95% of bitcoin trading volume on digital asset exchanges was false or noneconomic in nature, with specific focus on unregulated exchanges located outside of the United States. Such reports alleged that certain overseas exchanges have displayed suspicious trading activity suggestive of a variety of manipulative or fraudulent practices, such as fake or artificial trading volume or trading volume based onnon-economic “wash trading” (where offsetting trades are entered into for other than bona fide reasons, such as the desire to inflate reported trading volumes), and attributed such manipulative or fraudulent behavior to motives like the incentive to attract listing fees from token issuers who seek the most liquid and high-volume exchanges on which to list their coins.

Current wording

Risk of manipulative activity (e.g., wash trading, front running or other fraudulent practices). Many digital asset exchanges are unlicensed, unregulated, operate without extensive supervision by governmental authorities, and do not provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management team, corporate practices, cybersecurity, and regulatory compliance. In particular, those located outside the United States may be subject to significantly less stringent regulatory and compliance requirements in their local jurisdictions, and may take the position that they are not subject to laws and regulations that would apply to a national securities exchange or designated contract market in the United States, or may, as a practical matter, be beyond the ambit of U.S. regulators. As a result, trading activity on or reported by these digital asset exchanges is generally significantly less regulated than trading in regulated U.S. securities and commodities markets, and may reflect behavior that would be prohibited in regulated U.S. trading venues. For example, in 2019 there were reports claiming that 80.95% of bitcoin trading volume on digital asset exchanges was false or noneconomic in nature, with specific focus on unregulated exchanges located outside of the United States. Such reports alleged that certain overseas exchanges have displayed suspicious trading activity suggestive of a variety of manipulative or fraudulent practices, such as fake or artificial trading volume or trading volume based on non-economic “wash trading” (where offsetting trades are entered into for other than bona fide reasons, such as the desire to inflate reported trading volumes), and attributed such manipulative or fraudulent behavior to motives like the incentive to attract listing fees from token issuers who seek the most liquid and high-volume exchanges on which to list their coins.

Previous wording

Other academics and market observers have put forth evidence to support claims that manipulative trading activity has occurred on certain bitcoin exchanges. For example, in a 2017 paper titled “Price Manipulation in the Bitcoin Ecosystem” sponsored by the Interdisciplinary Cyber Research Center at Tel Aviv University, a group of researchers used publicly available trading data, as well as leaked transaction data from a 2014 Mt. Gox security breach, to identify and analyze the impact of “suspicious trading activity” on Mt. Gox between February and November 2013, which, according to the authors, caused the price of bitcoin to increase from around $150 to more than $1,000 over atwo-month period. In August 2017, it was reported that a trader or group of traders nicknamed “Spoofy” was placing large orders on Bitfinex without actually executing them, presumably in order to influence other investors into buying or selling by creating a false appearance that greater demand existed in the market. In December 2017, an anonymous blogger (publishing under the pseudonym Bitfinex’d) cited publicly available trading data to support his or her claim that a trading bot nicknamed “Picasso” was pursuing apaint-the-tape-style manipulation strategy by buying and selling bitcoin and bitcoin cash between affiliated accounts in order to create the appearance of substantial trading activity and thereby influence the price of such assets. Even in the United States, there have been allegations of wash trading even on regulated venues. Any actual or perceived false trading in the digital asset exchange market, and any other fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the value of bitcoin and/or negatively affect the market perception of bitcoin.

Current wording

Other academics and market observers have put forth evidence to support claims that manipulative trading activity has occurred on certain bitcoin exchanges. For example, in a 2017 paper titled “Price Manipulation in the Bitcoin Ecosystem” sponsored by the Interdisciplinary Cyber Research Center at Tel Aviv University, a group of researchers used publicly available trading data, as well as leaked transaction data from a 2014 Mt. Gox security breach, to identify and analyze the impact of “suspicious trading activity” on Mt. Gox between February and November 2013, which, according to the authors, caused the price of bitcoin to increase from around $150 to more than $1,000 over a two-month period. In August 2017, it was reported that a trader or group of traders nicknamed “Spoofy” was placing large orders on Bitfinex without actually executing them, presumably in order to influence other investors into buying or selling by creating a false appearance that greater demand existed in the market. In December 2017, an anonymous blogger (publishing under the pseudonym Bitfinex’d) cited publicly available trading data to support his or her claim that a trading bot nicknamed “Picasso” was pursuing a paint-the-tape-style manipulation strategy by buying and selling bitcoin and bitcoin cash between affiliated accounts in order to create the appearance of substantial trading activity and thereby influence the price of such assets. Even in the United States, there have been allegations of wash trading even on regulated venues. Any actual or perceived false trading in the digital asset exchange market, and any other fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the value of bitcoin and/or negatively affect the market perception of bitcoin.

Previous wording

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

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

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

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Given the foundational role that stablecoins play in global digital asset markets, their fundamental liquidity can have a dramatic impact on the broader digital asset market, including the market for bitcoin. Because a large portion of the digital asset market still depends on stablecoins such as Tether and USDC, there is a risk that a disorderlyde-pegging or a run on Tether or USDC could lead to dramatic market volatility in digital assets more broadly. Volatility in stablecoins, operational issues with stablecoins (for example, technical issues that prevent settlement), concerns about the sufficiency of any reserves that support stablecoins or potential manipulative activity when unbacked stablecoins are used to pay for other digital assets (including bitcoin), or regulatory concerns about stablecoin issuers or intermediaries, such as exchanges, that support stablecoins, could impact individuals’ willingness to trade on trading venues that rely on stablecoins, reduce liquidity in the bitcoin market, and affect the value of bitcoin, and in turn impact an investment in the Shares.

Current wording

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

Previous wording

Bitcoin was the first digital asset to gain global adoption and critical mass, and as a result, it has a “first to market” advantage over other digital assets. As of December 31, 2023 , bitcoin was the largest digital asset by market capitalization and had the largest combined mining power. Despite this first to market advantage, as of December 31, 2023 , there were over 10,000 alternative digital assets tracked by CoinMarketCap.com, having a total market capitalization of approximately $ 1.65 trillion (including the approximately $ 833 billion market capitalization of bitcoin), as calculated using market prices and total available supply of each digital asset. In addition, many consortiums and financial institutions are also researching and investing resources into private or permissioned smart contract platforms rather than open platforms like the Bitcoin network. Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets and smart contracts platforms, such as Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche, Polkadot, or Cardano, could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, bitcoin and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

Bitcoin was the first digital asset to gain global adoption and critical mass, and as a result, it has a “first to market” advantage over other digital assets. As of March 31, 2025 , bitcoin was the largest digital asset by market capitalization and had the largest combined mining power. Despite this first to market advantage, as of March 31, 2025 , there were 10,000 alternative digital assets tracked by CoinGecko.com, having a total market capitalization of approximately $2.8 trillion (including the approximately $1.6 trillion market capitalization of bitcoin), as calculated using market prices and total available supply of each digital asset. In addition, many consortiums and financial institutions are also researching and investing resources into private or permissioned smart contract platforms rather than open platforms like the Bitcoin network. Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets and smart contracts platforms, such as Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche, Polkadot, or Cardano, could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, bitcoin and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

The Fund and the Sponsor face significant competition with respect to the development and launch of competing investment products that could have a detrimental effect on the Fund’s ability to achieve scale. The Sponsor’s competitors may have greater financial, technical and human resources than the Sponsor. These competitors may also compete with the Sponsor in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be effective competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. The Sponsor’s competitors may be able to launch similar products to the Fund before the launch of the Fund due to, for example, the satisfaction of all regulatory requirements required to launch before the Fund is able to do so. Accordingly, the Sponsor’s competitors may commercialize a product involving bitcoin more rapidly, effectively or for a lower fee than the Sponsor is able to, which could adversely affect the Sponsor’s competitive position, the likelihood that the Fund will achieve market acceptance and sustainable revenues and/or economic viability or scale. For exchange-traded products similar to the Fund, there have been significant “first-mover” advantages in terms of asset gathering, trading volume and media coverage. In many cases, the first mover in an asset class has been able to maintain these advantages for extended periods. In January 2024, the SEC approved several spot bitcoin exchange-traded products and many or all of such products, including the Fund, could fail to acquire substantial assets, or fail to retain acquired assets due to competition and/or market conditions. The Fund’s ability to attract assets could be impaired to the extent the Fund’s competitors have a lower expense ratio than the Fund.

Current wording

The Fund and the Sponsor face significant competition with respect to the development and launch of competing investment products that could have a detrimental effect on the Fund’s ability to achieve scale. The Sponsor’s competitors may have greater financial, technical and human resources than the Sponsor. These competitors may also compete with the Sponsor in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel. Smaller or early stage companies may also prove to be effective competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. In January 2024, the SEC approved several spot bitcoin exchange-traded products and many or all of such products, including the Fund, could fail to retain acquired assets due to competition and/or market conditions. The Fund’s ability to attract assets could be impaired to the extent the Fund’s competitors have a lower expense ratio than the Fund.

Previous wording

In addition, the Fund will compete with direct investments in bitcoin, bitcoin futures-based products, other digital assets and other potential financial vehicles, possibly including securities backed by or linked to digital assets and other investment vehicles that focus on other digital assets. Market and financial conditions, and other conditions beyond the Fund’s control, may make it more attractive to invest directly or in other vehicles, which could adversely affect the performance of the Fund.

Current wording

In addition, the Fund competes with direct investments in bitcoin, bitcoin futures-based products, other digital assets and other potential financial vehicles, possibly including securities backed by or linked to digital assets and other investment vehicles that focus on other digital assets. Market and financial conditions, and other conditions beyond the Fund’s control, may make it more attractive to invest directly or in other vehicles, which could adversely affect the performance of the Fund.

Previous wording

Only Authorized Participants may engage in creation or redemption transactions directly with the Fund. The Fund has a limited number of institutions that act as Authorized Participants and the Fund’s Authorized Participants serve in the same capacity for various competitor products. Authorized Participants are not obligated to make a market in the Fund’s Shares or submit purchase and redemption orders for Creation Units. Authorized Participants that act in the same capacity for several competing products may be incentivized to prioritize making a market in a competing product’s shares over the Fund’s Shares, which may reduce liquidity in the Fund’s Shares or otherwise negatively affect the Fund. In addition, the Fund may also fail to attract or maintain adequate liquidity in the secondary market due to such competition, resulting in asub-standard number of Authorized Participants willing to make a market in the Shares, which in turn could result in a significant premium or discount in the Shares for extended periods and the Fund’s failure to reflect the performance of the price of bitcoin. To the extent that these institutions exit the business or are unable to proceed with creation and/or redemption orders with respect to the Fund and no other Authorized Participant is able or willing to step forward to create or redeem Creation Units, the Fund’s Shares may trade at a discount to NAV and face trading halts and/or delisting. This risk may be more pronounced in volatile market conditions. In addition, due to the novelty of the Fund’s product structure and volatility in the bitcoin markets, risks relating to a limited number of Authorized Participants are heightened.

Current wording

Only Authorized Participants may engage in creation or redemption transactions directly with the Fund. The Fund has a limited number of institutions that act as Authorized Participants and the Fund’s Authorized Participants serve in the same capacity for various competitor products. Authorized Participants are not obligated to make a market in the Fund’s Shares or submit purchase and redemption orders for Creation Units. Authorized Participants that act in the same capacity for several competing products may be incentivized to prioritize making a market in a competing product’s shares over the Fund’s Shares, which may reduce liquidity in the Fund’s Shares or otherwise negatively affect the Fund. In addition, the Fund may also fail to attract or maintain adequate liquidity in the secondary market due to such competition, resulting in a sub-standard number of Authorized Participants willing to make a market in the Shares, which in turn could result in a significant premium or discount in the Shares for extended periods and the Fund’s failure to reflect the performance of the price of bitcoin. To the extent that these institutions exit the business or are unable to proceed with creation and/or redemption orders with respect to the Fund and no other Authorized Participant is able or willing to step forward to create or redeem Creation Units, the Fund’s Shares may trade at a discount to NAV and face trading halts and/or delisting. This risk may be more pronounced in volatile market conditions. In addition, due to the novelty of the Fund’s product structure and volatility in the bitcoin markets, risks relating to a limited number of Authorized Participants are heightened.

Previous wording

Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies are also permitted to elect to delay adoption of new or revised accounting standards until companies that are not subject to periodic reporting obligations are required to comply, if such accounting standards apply tonon-reporting companies.

Current wording

Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies are also permitted to elect to delay adoption of new or revised accounting standards until companies that are not subject to periodic reporting obligations are required to comply, if such accounting standards apply to non-reporting companies.

Previous wording

If the processes of creation and redemption of Shares (which depend on timely transfers of bitcoin to and by the Bitcoin Custodian) encounter any unanticipated difficulties due to, for example, the price volatility of bitcoin, the insolvency, business failure or interruption, default, failure to perform, security breach, or other problems affecting the Prime Broker or Bitcoin Custodian, the change from the originally contemplatedin-kind creations and redemptions to cash creations and redemptions, the closing of bitcoin trading platforms due to fraud, failures, security breaches or otherwise, or network outages or congestion, spikes in transaction fees demanded by miners, or other problems or disruptions affecting the Bitcoin network, then potential market participants, such as the Authorized Participants and their customers, who would otherwise be willing to purchase or redeem Creation Units to take advantage of any arbitrage opportunity arising from discrepancies between the price of the Shares and the price of the underlying bitcoin may not take the risk that, as a result of those difficulties, they may not be able to realize the profit they expect. In certain such cases, as further described in “Creations and Redemptions,” the Sponsor may, suspend the process of creation and redemption of Creation Units. During such times, trading spreads, and the resulting premium or discount, on Shares may widen. Alternatively, in the case of a network outage or other problems affecting the Bitcoin network, the processing of transactions on the Bitcoin network may be disrupted, which in turn may impede processing of bitcoin transactions on behalf of the Fund by the Prime Broker or other executing broker/agent, which in turn could affect the creation or redemption of Creation Units. If this is the case, the liquidity of the Shares may decline and the price of the Shares may fluctuate independently of the price of bitcoin and may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV. Furthermore, in the event that the market for bitcoin should become relatively illiquid and thereby materially restrict opportunities for arbitraging, the price of Shares may diverge from the value of bitcoin.

Current wording

If the processes of creation and redemption of Shares (which depend on timely transfers of bitcoin to and by the Bitcoin Custodian) encounter any unanticipated difficulties due to, for example, the price volatility of bitcoin, the insolvency, business failure or interruption, default, failure to perform, security breach, or other problems affecting the Prime Broker or Bitcoin Custodian, the change from the originally contemplated in-kind creations and redemptions to cash creations and redemptions, the closing of bitcoin trading platforms due to fraud, failures, security breaches or otherwise, or network outages or congestion, spikes in transaction fees demanded by miners, or other problems or disruptions affecting the Bitcoin network, then potential market participants, such as the Authorized Participants and their customers, who would otherwise be willing to purchase or redeem Creation Units to take advantage of any arbitrage opportunity arising from discrepancies between the price of the Shares and the price of the underlying bitcoin may not take the risk that, as a result of those difficulties, they may not be able to realize the profit they expect. In certain such cases, as further described in “Creations and Redemptions,” the Sponsor may, suspend the process of creation and redemption of Creation Units. During such times, trading spreads, and the resulting premium or discount, on Shares may widen. Alternatively, in the case of a network outage or other problems affecting the Bitcoin network, the processing of transactions on the Bitcoin network may be disrupted, which in turn may impede processing of bitcoin transactions on behalf of the Fund by the Prime Broker or other executing broker/agent, which in turn could affect the creation or redemption of Creation Units. If this is the case, the liquidity of the Shares may decline and the price of the Shares may fluctuate independently of the price of bitcoin and may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV. Furthermore, in the event that the market for bitcoin should become relatively illiquid and thereby materially restrict opportunities for arbitraging, the price of Shares may diverge from the value of bitcoin.

Previous wording

The Fund’s use of cash creations and redemptions, in contrast to other types of exchange-traded products that transactin-kind, may adversely affect the arbitrage transactions by Authorized Participants intended to keep the price of the Shares closely linked to the price of bitcoin and, as a result, the price of the Shares may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV.

Current wording

The Fund’s use of cash creations and redemptions, in contrast to other types of exchange-traded products that transact in-kind, may adversely affect the arbitrage transactions by Authorized Participants intended to keep the price of the Shares closely linked to the price of bitcoin and, as a result, the price of the Shares may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV.

Previous wording

Unlike many other exchange-traded products, the Fund transacts exclusively for cash rather thanin-kind. The Fund’s use of cash creations and redemptions could cause delays in trade execution due to potential operational issues arising from implementing a cash creation and redemption model, which involves additional operational steps and therefore entails greater execution risk. Such delays could cause the execution price associated with the Fund’s bitcoin trades to materially deviate from the Index price used to determine the NAV. Even though the Authorized Participant is responsible for the dollar cost of such difference in prices pursuant to the terms of the Authorized Participant Agreement, Authorized Participants could default on their obligations to the Fund. In addition, potential execution risks and additional costs could lead to Authorized Participants who would otherwise be willing to purchase or redeem Creation Units to benefit from any arbitrage opportunity arising from discrepancies between the price of the Shares and the price of the Fund’s underlying bitcoin, to elect to not participate in the Fund’s Share creation and redemption processes. This could adversely affect the efficiency of the arbitrage mechanism intended to keep the price of the Shares closely linked to the price of bitcoin, and as a result, the price of the Shares may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV and/or causebid-ask spreads to widen. If the arbitrage mechanism is not effective, purchases or sales of Shares on the secondary market could occur at a premium or discount to NAV, which could harm Shareholders by causing them buy Shares at a price higher than the value of the underlying bitcoin held by the Fund or sell Shares at a price lower than the value of the underlying bitcoin held by the Fund, causing Shareholders to suffer losses.

Current wording

Unlike many other exchange-traded products, the Fund transacts exclusively for cash rather than in-kind. The Fund’s use of cash creations and redemptions could cause delays in trade execution due to potential operational issues arising from implementing a cash creation and redemption model, which involves additional operational steps and therefore entails greater execution risk. Such delays could cause the execution price associated with the Fund’s bitcoin trades to materially deviate from the Index price used to determine the NAV. Even though the Authorized Participant is responsible for the dollar cost of such difference in prices pursuant to the terms of the Authorized Participant Agreement, Authorized Participants could default on their obligations to the Fund. In addition, potential execution risks and additional costs could lead to Authorized Participants who would otherwise be willing to purchase or redeem Creation Units to benefit from any arbitrage opportunity arising from discrepancies between the price of the Shares and the price of the Fund’s underlying bitcoin, to elect to not participate in the Fund’s Share creation and redemption processes. This could adversely affect the efficiency of the arbitrage mechanism intended to keep the price of the Shares closely linked to the price of bitcoin, and as a result, the price of the Shares may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV and/or cause bid-ask spreads to widen. If the arbitrage mechanism is not effective, purchases or sales of Shares on the secondary market could occur at a premium or discount to NAV, which could harm Shareholders by causing them buy Shares at a price higher than the value of the underlying bitcoin held by the Fund or sell Shares at a price lower than the value of the underlying bitcoin held by the Fund, causing Shareholders to suffer losses.

Previous wording

Should the Sponsor’s experience prove inadequate or unsuitable for managing a cryptoasset-based investment vehicle like the Fund, it could result in suboptimal decision-making, increased operational risks, and potential legal or regulatorynon-compliance. These factors could adversely affect the Fund’s operations, leading to potential losses for investors or a decrease in the Fund’s overall value.

Current wording

Should the Sponsor’s experience prove inadequate or unsuitable for managing a cryptoasset-based investment vehicle like the Fund, it could result in suboptimal decision-making, increased operational risks, and potential legal or regulatory non-compliance. These factors could adversely affect the Fund’s operations, leading to potential losses for investors or a decrease in the Fund’s overall value.

Previous wording

The Sponsor believes that the security procedures in place for the Fund, including but not limited to, offline storage, or cold storage, multiple encrypted private key “shards”, and other measures, are reasonably designed to safeguard the Fund’s bitcoins. Nevertheless, the security procedures cannot guarantee the prevention of any loss due to a security breach, software defect or act of God that may be borne by the Fund and the security procedures may not protect against all errors, software flaws or other vulnerabilities in the Fund’s technical infrastructure, which could result in theft, loss or damage of its assets. The Sponsor does not control the Bitcoin Custodian’s or Prime Broker’s operations or their implementation of such security procedures and there can be no assurance that such security procedures will actually work as designed or prove to be successful in safeguarding the Fund’s assets against all possible sources of theft, loss or damage. Assets not held in cold storage, such as assets held in a trading account, may be more vulnerable to security breach, hacking or loss than assets held in cold storage. Furthermore, assets held in a trading account, including the Fund’s Trading Balance (as defined below) at the Prime Broker, are held on an omnibus, rather than segregated basis, which creates greater risk of loss. Even though bitcoin is only moved into the Trading Balance in connection with and to the extent of purchases and sales of bitcoin by the Fund and such bitcoin is swept from the Fund’s Trading Balance to the Fund’s Vault Balance daily pursuant to a regularend-of-day sweep process, there are no policies that would limit the amount of bitcoin that can be held temporarily in the Trading Balance maintained by the Prime Broker. This could create greater risk of loss of the Fund’s bitcoin, which would cause Shareholders to suffer losses.

Current wording

The Sponsor believes that the security procedures in place for the Fund, including but not limited to, offline storage, or cold storage, multiple encrypted private key “shards”, and other measures, are reasonably designed to safeguard the Fund’s bitcoins. Nevertheless, the security procedures cannot guarantee the prevention of any loss due to a security breach, software defect or act of God that may be borne by the Fund and the security procedures may not protect against all errors, software flaws or other vulnerabilities in the Fund’s technical infrastructure, which could result in theft, loss or damage of its assets. The Sponsor does not control the Bitcoin Custodian’s or Prime Broker’s operations or their implementation of such security procedures and there can be no assurance that such security procedures will actually work as designed or prove to be successful in safeguarding the Fund’s assets against all possible sources of theft, loss or damage. Assets not held in cold storage, such as assets held in a trading account, may be more vulnerable to security breach, hacking or loss than assets held in cold storage. Furthermore, assets held in a trading account, including the Fund’s Trading Balance (as defined below) at the Prime Broker, are held on an omnibus, rather than segregated basis, which creates greater risk of loss. Even though bitcoin is only moved into the Trading Balance in connection with and to the extent of purchases and sales of bitcoin by the Fund and such bitcoin is swept from the Fund’s Trading Balance to the Fund’s Vault Balance daily pursuant to a regular end-of-day sweep process, there are no policies that would limit the amount of bitcoin that can be held temporarily in the Trading Balance maintained by the Prime Broker. This could create greater risk of loss of the Fund’s bitcoin, which would cause Shareholders to suffer losses.

Previous wording

On March 22, 2023, the Prime Broker and its parent (such parent, “Coinbase Global” and together with Coinbase Inc., the “Relevant Coinbase Entities”) received a “Wells Notice” from the SEC staff stating that the SEC staff made a “preliminary determination” to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against the Relevant Coinbase Entities alleging violations of the federal securities laws, including the Exchange Act and the Securities Act. According to Coinbase Global’s public reporting company disclosure, based on discussions with the SEC staff, the Relevant Coinbase Entities believe these potential enforcement actions would relate to aspects of the Relevant Coinbase Entities’ Coinbase Prime service, spot market, staking service Coinbase Earn, and Coinbase Wallet and the potential civil action may seek injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil penalties. On June 6, 2023, the SEC filed a complaint against the Relevant Coinbase Entities in federal district court in the Southern District of New York, alleging, inter alia: (i) that Coinbase Inc. has violated the Exchange Act by failing to register with the SEC as a national securities exchange, broker-dealer, and clearing agency, in connection with activities involving certain identified digital assets that the SEC’s complaint alleges are securities, (ii) that Coinbase Inc. has violated the Securities Act by failing to register with the SEC the offer and sale of its staking program, and (iii) that Coinbase Global is jointly and severally liable as a control person under the Exchange Act for Coinbase Inc.’s violations of the Exchange Act to the same extent as Coinbase Inc. The SEC’s complaint against the Relevant Coinbase Entities does not allege that bitcoin is a security nor does it allege that Coinbase Inc.’s activities involving bitcoin caused the alleged registration violations, and the Bitcoin Custodian was not named as a defendant. The SEC’s complaint seeks a permanent injunction against the Relevant Coinbase Entities to prevent them from violations of the Exchange Act or Securities Act, disgorgement, civil monetary penalties, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate or necessary. Coinbase Inc., as Prime

Current wording

On March 22, 2023, the Prime Broker and its parent (such parent, “Coinbase Global” and together with Coinbase Inc., the “Relevant Coinbase Entities”) received a “Wells Notice” from the SEC staff stating that the SEC staff made a “preliminary determination” to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against the Relevant Coinbase Entities alleging violations of the federal securities laws, including the Exchange Act and the Securities Act. According to Coinbase Global’s public reporting company disclosure, based on discussions with the SEC staff, the Relevant Coinbase Entities believe these potential enforcement actions would relate to aspects of the Relevant Coinbase Entities’ Coinbase Prime service, spot market, staking service Coinbase Earn, and Coinbase Wallet and the potential civil action may seek injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil penalties. On June 6, 2023, the SEC filed a complaint against the Relevant Coinbase Entities in federal district court in the Southern District of New York, alleging, inter alia: (i) that Coinbase Inc. has violated the Exchange Act by failing to register with the SEC as a national securities exchange, broker-dealer, and clearing agency, in connection with activities involving certain identified digital assets that the SEC’s complaint alleges are securities, (ii) that Coinbase Inc. has violated the Securities Act by failing to register with the SEC the offer and sale of its staking program, and (iii) that Coinbase Global is jointly and severally liable as a control person under the Exchange Act for Coinbase Inc.’s violations of the Exchange Act to the same extent as Coinbase Inc. On February 27, 2025, the SEC announced that it had filed a joint stipulation with Coinbase Inc. and Coinbase Global Inc. to dismiss the ongoing civil enforcement action against the two entities. The SEC’s complaint against the Relevant Coinbase Entities does not allege that bitcoin is a security nor does it allege that Coinbase Inc.’s activities involving bitcoin caused the alleged registration violations, and the Bitcoin Custodian was not named as a defendant. In the event of any future SEC or other governmental, regulatory or other enforcement action or litigation, Coinbase Inc., as Prime Broker, could be required, as a result of a judicial determination, or could choose, to restrict or curtail the services it offers, or its financial condition and ability to provide services to the Fund could be affected. If the Prime Broker were to be required, or choose as a result of a regulatory action or litigation, to restrict or curtail the services it offers, it could negatively affect the Fund’s ability to operate or process creations or redemptions of Creation Units, which could force the Fund to liquidate or adversely affect the price of the Shares. While the Bitcoin Custodian was not named in the complaint, if Coinbase Global, as the parent of the Bitcoin Custodian, is required, as a result of a judicial determination, or c…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Alternatively, the Sponsor could decide to replace Coinbase Custody as the Bitcoin Custodian with custody of the Fund’s bitcoins, and Coinbase Inc. as Prime Broker. Similarly, Coinbase Custody or Coinbase Inc. could terminate services under the Custodian Agreement or the Prime Broker Agreement respectively upon providing the applicable notice to the Fund for any reason, or immediately for Cause (a “Termination for Cause” is defined in the Prime Broker Agreement as (i) the Fund materially breaches any provision of the Prime Broker Agreement; (ii) the Fund takes any action to dissolve or liquidate, in whole or part; (iii) the Fund becomes insolvent, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, becomes subject to direct control of a trustee, receiver or similar authority; (iv) the Fund becomes subject to any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding under any applicable laws, rules and regulations, such termination being effective immediately upon any declaration of bankruptcy; (v) the Prime Broker becomes aware of any facts or circumstances with respect to the Fund’s financial, legal, regulatory or reputational position which may affect Fund’s ability to comply with its obligations under the Prime Broker Agreement; (vi) termination is required pursuant to a facially valid subpoena, court order or binding order of a government authority; (vii) the Fund’s Prime Broker Account is subject to any pending litigation, investigation or government proceeding and/or Prime Broker reasonably perceives a heightened risk of legal regulatorynon-compliance associated with Fund’s use of Prime Broker services; or (viii) the Prime Broker reasonably suspects Fund of attempting to circumvent Prime Broker’s controls or uses the Prime Broker Services in a manner Prime Broker otherwise deems inappropriate or potentially harmful to itself or third parties. Transferring maintenance responsibilities of the Fund’s account at the at the Prime Broker or at the Bitcoin Custodian to another prime broker or custodian will likely be complex and could subject the Fund’s bitcoin to the risk of loss during the transfer, which could have a negative impact on the performance of the Shares or result in loss of the Fund’s assets. As Prime Broker, Coinbase Inc. does not guarantee uninterrupted access to the Trading Platform or the services it provides to the Fund as Prime Broker. Under certain circumstances, Coinbase Inc. is permitted to halt or suspend trading on its trading platform, or impose limits on the amount or size of, or reject, the Fund’s orders, including in the event of, among others, delays, suspension of operations, failure in performance, or interruption of service that are directly due to a cause or condition beyond the reasonable control of Coinbase Inc., or the acceptance of the Fund’s order would cause the amount of Trade Credits extended to exceed the maximum amount of Trade Credit (as defined below) that the Fund’s agreement with the Trade Credit Lender permits to be o…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Alternatively, the Sponsor could decide to replace Coinbase Custody as the Bitcoin Custodian with custody of the Fund’s bitcoins, and Coinbase Inc. as Prime Broker. Similarly, Coinbase Custody or Coinbase Inc. could terminate services under the Custodian Agreement or the Prime Broker Agreement respectively upon providing the applicable notice to the Fund for any reason, or immediately for Cause (a “Termination for Cause” is defined in the Prime Broker Agreement as (i) the Fund materially breaches any provision of the Prime Broker Agreement; (ii) the Fund takes any action to dissolve or liquidate, in whole or part; (iii) the Fund becomes insolvent, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, becomes subject to direct control of a trustee, receiver or similar authority; (iv) the Fund becomes subject to any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding under any applicable laws, rules and regulations, such termination being effective immediately upon any declaration of bankruptcy; (v) the Prime Broker becomes aware of any facts or circumstances with respect to the Fund’s financial, legal, regulatory or reputational position which may affect Fund’s ability to comply with its obligations under the Prime Broker Agreement; (vi) termination is required pursuant to a facially valid subpoena, court order or binding order of a government authority; (vii) the Fund’s Prime Broker Account is subject to any pending litigation, investigation or government proceeding and/or Prime Broker reasonably perceives a heightened risk of legal regulatory non-compliance associated with Fund’s use of Prime Broker services; or (viii) the Prime Broker reasonably suspects Fund of attempting to circumvent Prime Broker’s controls or uses the Prime Broker Services in a manner Prime Broker otherwise deems inappropriate or potentially harmful to itself or third parties. Transferring maintenance responsibilities of the Fund’s account at the at the Prime Broker or at the Bitcoin Custodian to another prime broker or custodian will likely be complex and could subject the Fund’s bitcoin to the risk of loss during the transfer, which could have a negative impact on the performance of the Shares or result in loss of the Fund’s assets. As Prime Broker, Coinbase Inc. does not guarantee uninterrupted access to the Trading Platform or the services it provides to the Fund as Prime Broker. Under certain circumstances, Coinbase Inc. is permitted to halt or suspend trading on its trading platform, or impose limits on the amount or size of, or reject, the Fund’s orders, including in the event of, among others, delays, suspension of operations, failure in performance, or interruption of service that are directly due to a cause or condition beyond the reasonable control of Coinbase Inc., or the acceptance of the Fund’s order would cause the amount of Trade Credits extended to exceed the maximum amount of Trade Credit (as defined below) that the Fund’s agreement with the Trade Credit Lender permits to be …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

The Shareholders’ recourse against the Sponsor, the Trustee, and the Fund’s other service providers for the services they provide to the Fund, including, without limitation, those relating to the holding of bitcoin or the provision of instructions relating to the movement of bitcoin, is limited. For the avoidance of doubt, neither the Sponsor, the Trustee, nor any of their affiliates, nor any other party has guaranteed the assets or liabilities, or otherwise assumed the liabilities, of the Fund, or the obligations or liabilities of any service provider to the Fund, including, without limitation, the Bitcoin Custodian and Prime Broker. The Prime Broker Agreement provides that none of the Coinbase Entities have recourse, whether byset-off or otherwise, with respect to any amounts owed or liabilities incurred by the Fund, to or against any assets of the Sponsor or any affiliate of such Sponsor. Consequently, a loss may be suffered with respect to the Fund’s bitcoin that is not covered by the Bitcoin Custodian’s insurance and for which no person is liable in damages. As a result, the recourse of the Fund or the Shareholders, under applicable law, is limited.

Current wording

The Shareholders’ recourse against the Sponsor, the Trustee, and the Fund’s other service providers for the services they provide to the Fund, including, without limitation, those relating to the holding of bitcoin or the provision of instructions relating to the movement of bitcoin, is limited. For the avoidance of doubt, neither the Sponsor, the Trustee, nor any of their affiliates, nor any other party has guaranteed the assets or liabilities, or otherwise assumed the liabilities, of the Fund, or the obligations or liabilities of any service provider to the Fund, including, without limitation, the Bitcoin Custodian and Prime Broker. The Prime Broker Agreement provides that none of the Coinbase Entities have recourse, whether by set-off or otherwise, with respect to any amounts owed or liabilities incurred by the Fund, to or against any assets of the Sponsor or any affiliate of such Sponsor. Consequently, a loss may be suffered with respect to the Fund’s bitcoin that is not covered by the Bitcoin Custodian’s insurance and for which no person is liable in damages. As a result, the recourse of the Fund or the Shareholders, under applicable law, is limited.

Previous wording

To avoid having topre-fund purchases or sales of bitcoin in connection with cash creations and redemptions and sales of bitcoin to pay the Sponsor’s fee and any other Fund expenses not assumed by the Sponsor, to the extent applicable, the Fund may borrow bitcoin or cash as Trade Credit from the Trade Credit Lender on a short-term basis pursuant to the Trade Financing Agreement. The Trade Credit Lender is only required to extend Trade Credits to the Fund to the extent such bitcoin or cash is actually available to the Trade Credit Lender. To the extent that Trade Credits are not available or become exhausted, (1) there may be delays in the buying and selling of bitcoin related to cash creations and redemptions or the selling of bitcoin related to paying the Sponsor’s fee and, to the extent applicable, (2) Fund assets may be in held the Trading Balance for a longer duration than if Trade Credits were available, and (3) the execution price associated with such trades may deviate significantly from the Index price used to determine the Fund’s NAV. To the extent that the execution price for purchases and sales of bitcoin related to creations and redemptions and sales of bitcoin in connection with paying the Sponsor’s fee and any other Fund expenses deviate significantly from the Index price used to determine the NAV of the Fund, the Shareholders may be negatively impacted because the added costs of such price deviations, which would be borne by the Authorized Participants, may be passed onto the Shareholders in the secondary market. The magnitude of this risk factor relating to the unavailability or exhaustion of the Trade Credits is heightened as a result of the fact that the Fund will effectuate creations and redemptions exclusively for cash rather thanin-kind. The Fund generally must repay Trade Credits by 6:00 p.m. ET (the “Settlement Deadline”) on the calendar day immediately following the day the Trade Credit was extended by the Trade Credit Lender to the Fund (or, if such day is not a business day, on the next business day). Pursuant to the Trade Financing Agreement, the Fund has granted a security interest, lien on, and right of set off against all of the Fund’s right, title and interest, in the Fund’s Trading Balance and Vault Balance established pursuant to the Prime Broker Agreement and Custodian

Current wording

To avoid having to pre-fund purchases or sales of bitcoin in connection with cash creations and redemptions and sales of bitcoin to pay the Sponsor’s fee and any other Fund expenses not assumed by the Sponsor, to the extent applicable, the Fund may borrow bitcoin or cash as Trade Credit from the Trade Credit Lender on a short-term basis pursuant to the Trade Financing Agreement. The Trade Credit Lender is only required to extend Trade Credits to the Fund to the extent such bitcoin or cash is actually available to the Trade Credit Lender. To the extent that Trade Credits are not available or become exhausted, (1) there may be delays in the buying and selling of bitcoin related to cash creations and redemptions or the selling of bitcoin related to paying the Sponsor’s fee and, to the extent applicable, (2) Fund assets may be in held the Trading Balance for a longer duration than if Trade Credits were available, and (3) the execution price associated with such trades may deviate significantly from the Index price used to determine the Fund’s NAV. To the extent that the execution price for purchases and sales of bitcoin related to creations and redemptions and sales of bitcoin in connection with paying the Sponsor’s fee and any other Fund expenses deviate significantly from the Index price used to determine the NAV of the Fund, the Shareholders may be negatively impacted because the added costs of such price deviations, which would be borne by the Authorized Participants, may be passed onto the Shareholders in the secondary market. The magnitude of this risk factor relating to the unavailability or exhaustion of the Trade Credits is heightened as a result of the fact that the Fund will effectuate creations and redemptions exclusively for cash rather than in-kind. The Fund generally must repay Trade Credits by 6:00 p.m. ET (the “Settlement Deadline”) on the calendar day immediately following the day the Trade Credit was extended by the Trade Credit Lender to the Fund (or, if such day is not a business day, on the next business day). Pursuant to the Trade Financing Agreement, the Fund has granted a security interest, lien on, and right of set off against all of the Fund’s right, title and interest, in the Fund’s Trading Balance and Vault Balance established pursuant to the Prime Broker Agreement and Custodian Agreement, in order to secure the repayment by the Fund of the Trade Credits and financing fees to the Trade Credit Lender. Upon a failure by the Fund to pay and settle in full its obligations to the Trade Credit Lender in respect of the financing it provides to the Fund in the form of Trade Credits, the Bitcoin Custodian and the Prime Broker have agreed to comply with instructions from the Trade Credit Lender with respect to the disposition of the assets in the Fund’s Vault Balance and Trading Balance respectively without further consent by the Fund. If the Fund fails to repay the Trade Credits to the Trade Credit Lender on time and in full, the …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Moreover, pursuant to the terms of the Declaration of Trust, Shareholders’ statutory right under Delaware law to bring a derivative action (i.e., to initiate a lawsuit in the name of the Trust in order to assert a claim belonging to the Trust against a fiduciary of the Trust or against a third-party when the Trust’s management has refused to do so) is restricted. Under Delaware law, a shareholder may bring a derivative action if the shareholder is a shareholder at the time the action is brought and either (i) was a shareholder at the time of the transaction at issue or (ii) acquired the status of shareholder by operation of law or the Trust’s governing instrument from a person who was a shareholder at the time of the transaction at issue. Additionally, Section 3816(e) of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act specifically provides that a “beneficial owner’s right to bring a derivative action may be subject to such additional standards and restrictions, if any, as are set forth in the governing instrument of the statutory trust, including, without limitation, the requirement that beneficial owners owning a specified beneficial interest in the statutory trust join in the bringing of the derivative action.” In addition to the requirements of applicable law and in accordance with Section 3816(e), the Declaration of Trust includes conditions that require (1) a Shareholder or Shareholders to make apre-suit demand upon the Sponsor to bring the subject action unless an effort to cause the Sponsor to bring such an action is not likely to succeed (a demand on the Sponsor shall only be deemed not likely to succeed and therefore excused if the Sponsor has a personal financial interest in the transaction at issue) and (2) Shareholders eligible to bring a derivative action under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act who hold at least 10% of the outstanding Shares of the Trust, or 10% of the outstanding Shares of the Series or Class to which such action relates, must join in a request for the Sponsor to commence such action. This provision applies to any derivative actions brought in the name of the Trust other than claims under the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

Current wording

Moreover, pursuant to the terms of the Declaration of Trust, Shareholders’ statutory right under Delaware law to bring a derivative action (i.e., to initiate a lawsuit in the name of the Trust in order to assert a claim belonging to the Trust against a fiduciary of the Trust or against a third-party when the Trust’s management has refused to do so) is restricted. Under Delaware law, a shareholder may bring a derivative action if the shareholder is a shareholder at the time the action is brought and either (i) was a shareholder at the time of the transaction at issue or (ii) acquired the status of shareholder by operation of law or the Trust’s governing instrument from a person who was a shareholder at the time of the transaction at issue. Additionally, Section 3816(e) of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act specifically provides that a “beneficial owner’s right to bring a derivative action may be subject to such additional standards and restrictions, if any, as are set forth in the governing instrument of the statutory trust, including, without limitation, the requirement that beneficial owners owning a specified beneficial interest in the statutory trust join in the bringing of the derivative action.” In addition to the requirements of applicable law and in accordance with Section 3816(e), the Declaration of Trust includes conditions that require (1) a Shareholder or Shareholders to make a pre-suit demand upon the Sponsor to bring the subject action unless an effort to cause the Sponsor to bring such an action is not likely to succeed (a demand on the Sponsor shall only be deemed not likely to succeed and therefore excused if the Sponsor has a personal financial interest in the transaction at issue) and (2) Shareholders eligible to bring a derivative action under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act who hold at least 10% of the outstanding Shares of the Trust, or 10% of the outstanding Shares of the Series or Class to which such action relates, must join in a request for the Sponsor to commence such action. This provision applies to any derivative actions brought in the name of the Trust other than claims under the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

Previous wording

Thenon-exclusive jurisdiction for certain types of actions and proceedings and waiver of trial by jury clauses set forth in the Declaration of Trust may have the effect of limiting a Shareholder’s rights to bring legal action against the Trust and could limit a purchaser’s ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with the Trust.

Current wording

The non-exclusive jurisdiction for certain types of actions and proceedings and waiver of trial by jury clauses set forth in the Declaration of Trust may have the effect of limiting a Shareholder’s rights to bring legal action against the Trust and could limit a purchaser’s ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with the Trust.

Previous wording

The Declaration of Trust provides that the courts of the state of Delaware and any federal courts located in Wilmington, Delaware will be thenon-exclusive jurisdiction for any claims, suits, actions or proceedings, provided that suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or any other claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction and the federal district courts of the United States of America shall be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act, or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. By purchasing Shares in the Trust, Shareholders waive certain claims that the courts of the state of Delaware and any federal courts located in Wilmington, Delaware is an inconvenient venue or is otherwise inappropriate. As such, Shareholder could be required to litigate a matter relating to the Trust in a Delaware court, even if that court may otherwise be inconvenient for the Shareholder.

Current wording

The Declaration of Trust provides that the courts of the state of Delaware and any federal courts located in Wilmington, Delaware will be the non-exclusive jurisdiction for any claims, suits, actions or proceedings, provided that suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or any other claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction and the federal district courts of the United States of America shall be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act, or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. By purchasing Shares in the Trust, Shareholders waive certain claims that the courts of the state of Delaware and any federal courts located in Wilmington, Delaware is an inconvenient venue or is otherwise inappropriate. As such, Shareholder could be required to litigate a matter relating to the Trust in a Delaware court, even if that court may otherwise be inconvenient for the Shareholder.

Previous wording

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

Current wording

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

Previous wording

In consideration for the Sponsor’s fee, the Sponsor has contractually assumed ordinary course operational and periodic expenses of the Fund, with the exception of those described in “Business of the Fund—Fund Expenses”. Expenses incurred by the Fund but not assumed by the Sponsor, such as, among others, taxes and governmental charges; expenses and costs of any extraordinary services performed by the Sponsor (or any other service provider) on behalf of the Fund to protect the Fund or the interests of Shareholders (including, for example, in connection with any fork of the Bitcoin blockchain, any Incidental Rights and any IR Virtual Currency); or extraordinary legal fees and expenses are not assumed by the Sponsor and are borne by the Fund. The Sponsor will cause the Fund to either (i) sell bitcoin held by the Fund or (ii) deliver bitcoinin-kind to the Sponsor to pay Fund expenses not assumed by the Sponsor on anas-needed basis. Accordingly, the Fund may be required to sell or otherwise dispose of bitcoin, at a time when the trading prices are depressed.

Current wording

In consideration for the Sponsor’s fee, the Sponsor has contractually assumed ordinary course operational and periodic expenses of the Fund, with the exception of those described in “Business of the Fund—Fund Expenses”. Expenses incurred by the Fund but not assumed by the Sponsor, such as, among others, taxes and governmental charges; expenses and costs of any extraordinary services performed by the Sponsor (or any other service provider) on behalf of the Fund to protect the Fund or the interests of Shareholders (including, for example, in connection with any fork of the Bitcoin blockchain, any Incidental Rights and any IR Virtual Currency); or extraordinary legal fees and expenses are not assumed by the Sponsor and are borne by the Fund. The Sponsor will cause the Fund to either (i) sell bitcoin held by the Fund or (ii) deliver bitcoin in-kind to the Sponsor to pay Fund expenses not assumed by the Sponsor on an as-needed basis. Accordingly, the Fund may be required to sell or otherwise dispose of bitcoin, at a time when the trading prices are depressed.

Previous wording

The Sponsor is not aware of any intellectual property rights claims that may prevent the Fund from operating and holding bitcoin, or, receiving, on a temporary basis pending a determination by the Sponsor as to whether the Fund has received anon-bitcoin crypto asset, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. However, third parties may assert intellectual property rights claims relating to the operation of the Fund and the mechanics instituted for the investment in, holding of and transfer of bitcoin, or in connection with the receipt (on a temporary basis) of Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. Regardless of the merit of an intellectual property or other legal action, any legal expenses to defend or payments to settle such claims would be extraordinary expenses that would be borne by the Fund through the sale or transfer of its bitcoin, or disposition of Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency including in connection with disclaiming or irrevocably abandoningnon-bitcoin crypto assets as determined by the Sponsor. Additionally, a meritorious intellectual property rights claim could prevent the Fund from operating and force the Sponsor to terminate the Fund and liquidate its bitcoin. As a result, an intellectual property rights claim against the Fund could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

The Sponsor is not aware of any intellectual property rights claims that may prevent the Fund from operating and holding bitcoin, or, receiving, on a temporary basis pending a determination by the Sponsor as to whether the Fund has received a non-bitcoin crypto asset, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. However, third parties may assert intellectual property rights claims relating to the operation of the Fund and the mechanics instituted for the investment in, holding of and transfer of bitcoin, or in connection with the receipt (on a temporary basis) of Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. Regardless of the merit of an intellectual property or other legal action, any legal expenses to defend or payments to settle such claims would be extraordinary expenses that would be borne by the Fund through the sale or transfer of its bitcoin, or disposition of Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency including in connection with disclaiming or irrevocably abandoning non-bitcoin crypto assets as determined by the Sponsor. Additionally, a meritorious intellectual property rights claim could prevent the Fund from operating and force the Sponsor to terminate the Fund and liquidate its bitcoin. As a result, an intellectual property rights claim against the Fund could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

It is not possible to predict whether, or when, any of these developments will lead to Congress granting additional authorities to the SEC or other regulators, what the nature of such additional authorities might be, how additional legislation and/or regulatory oversight might impact the ability of digital asset markets to function or how any new regulations or changes to existing regulations might impact the value of digital assets generally and bitcoin held by the Fund specifically. The consequences of increased federal regulation of digital assets and digital asset activities could have a material adverse effect on the Fund and the Shares.

Current wording

It is not possible to predict whether, or when, any of these developments will lead to Congress granting additional authorities to the SEC, CFTC, or other regulators, what the nature of such additional authorities might be, how additional legislation and/or regulatory oversight might impact the ability of digital asset markets to function or how any new regulations or changes to existing regulations might impact the value of digital assets generally and bitcoin held by the Fund specifically. The consequences of increased federal regulation of digital assets and digital asset activities could have a material adverse effect on the Fund and the Shares.

Previous wording

Depending on its characteristics, a digital asset may be considered a “security” under the federal securities laws. The test for determining whether a particular digital asset is a “security” is complex and difficult to apply, and the outcome is difficult to predict. Public, thoughnon-binding, statements made in the past by senior officials at the SEC and endorsed by its previous Chairman in a letter to a member of Congress appeared to indicate that the SEC did not consider bitcoin to be a security, at least currently, and the staff has provided informal assurances to a handful of promoters that their digital assets are not securities. On the other hand, the SEC has brought enforcement actions against the promoters of several other digital assets on the basis that the digital assets in question are securities.

Current wording

Depending on its characteristics, a digital asset may be considered a “security” under the federal securities laws. The test for determining whether a particular digital asset is a “security” is complex and difficult to apply, and the outcome is difficult to predict. Public, though non-binding, statements made in the past by senior officials at the SEC and endorsed by its previous Chairman in a letter to a member of Congress appeared to indicate that the SEC did not consider bitcoin to be a security, at least currently, and the staff has provided informal assurances to a handful of promoters that their digital assets are not securities. On the other hand, the SEC has brought enforcement actions against the promoters of several other digital assets on the basis that the digital assets in question are securities.

Previous wording

Any enforcement action by the SEC or a state securities regulator asserting that bitcoin is a security, or a court decision, to that effect would be expected to have an immediate material adverse impact on the trading value of bitcoin, as well as the Shares. This is because the business models behind most digital assets are incompatible with regulations applying to transactions in securities. If a digital asset is determined or asserted to be a security, it is likely to become difficult or impossible for the digital asset to be traded, cleared or custodied in the United States through the same channels used bynon-security digital assets, which in addition to materially and adversely affecting the trading value of the digital asset is likely to significantly impact its liquidity and market participants’ ability to convert the digital asset into U.S. dollars.

Current wording

Any enforcement action by the SEC or a state securities regulator asserting that bitcoin is a security, or a court decision, to that effect would be expected to have an immediate material adverse impact on the trading value of bitcoin, as well as the Shares. This is because the business models behind most digital assets are incompatible with regulations applying to transactions in securities. If a digital asset is determined or asserted to be a security, it is likely to become difficult or impossible for the digital asset to be traded, cleared or custodied in the United States through the same channels used by non-security digital assets, which in addition to materially and adversely affecting the trading value of the digital asset is likely to significantly impact its liquidity and market participants’ ability to convert the digital asset into U.S. dollars.

Previous wording

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 $100 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. The SEC’s action against XRP’s promoters underscores the continuing uncertainty around which digital assets are securities, and demonstrates that such factors as how long a digital asset has been in existence, how widely held it is, how large its market capitalization is and that it has actual usefulness in commercial transactions, ultimately may have no bearing on whether the SEC or a court will find it to be a security.

Current wording

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 $100 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. The SEC’s action against XRP’s promoters underscores the continuing uncertainty around which digital assets are securities, and demonstrates that such factors as how long a digital asset has been in existence, how widely held it is, how large its market capitalization is and that it has actual usefulness in commercial transactions, ultimately may have no bearing on whether the SEC or a court will find it to be a security. Recent filings indicate the parties have agreed to settlement terms with respect to the enforcement proceeding.

Previous wording

A number of foreign jurisdictions have recently taken regulatory action aimed at digital asset activities. China has made transacting in cryptocurrencies illegal for Chinese citizens in mainland China, and additional restrictions may follow. Both China and South Korea have banned initial coin offerings entirely and regulators in other jurisdictions, including Canada, Singapore and Hong Kong, have opined that initial coin offerings may constitute securities offerings subject to local securities regulations. In May 2021, the Chinese government announced renewed efforts to restrict cryptocurrency trading and mining activities. Regulators in the Inner Mongolia and other regions of China have proposed regulations that would create penalties for companies engaged in cryptocurrency mining activities and introduce heightened energy saving requirements on industrial parks, data centers and power plants providing electricity to cryptocurrency miners. The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority published final rules in October 2020 banning the sale of derivatives and exchange traded notes that reference certain types of digital assets, contending that they are“ill-suited” to retail investors citing extreme volatility, valuation challenges and association with financial crime. A new bill, the Financial Services and Markets Bill (“FSMB”), has made its way through the House of Commons and is expected to work through the House of Lords and become law in 2023. The FSMB would bring digital asset activities within the scope of existing laws governing financial institutions, markets and assets. In addition, the European Council of the European Union approved the text of Markets in Crypto-Assets (“MiCA”) in October 2022, establishing a regulatory framework for digital asset services across the European Union. MiCA is intended to serve as a comprehensive regulation of digital asset markets and imposes various obligations on digital asset issuers and service providers. The main aims of MiCA are industry regulation, consumer protection, prevention of market abuse and upholding the integrity of digital asset markets. MiCA passed the European Parliament in 2023 and will apply from 2024.

Current wording

A number of foreign jurisdictions have recently taken regulatory action aimed at digital asset activities. China has made transacting in cryptocurrencies illegal for Chinese citizens in mainland China, and additional restrictions may follow. Both China and South Korea have banned initial coin offerings entirely and regulators in other jurisdictions, including Canada, Singapore and Hong Kong, have opined that initial coin offerings may constitute securities offerings subject to local securities regulations. In May 2021, the Chinese government announced renewed efforts to restrict cryptocurrency trading and mining activities. Regulators in the Inner Mongolia and other regions of China have proposed regulations that would create penalties for companies engaged in cryptocurrency mining activities and introduce heightened energy saving requirements on industrial parks, data centers and power plants providing electricity to cryptocurrency miners. The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority published final rules in October 2020 banning the sale of derivatives and exchange traded notes that reference certain types of digital assets, contending that they are “ill-suited” to retail investors citing extreme volatility, valuation challenges and association with financial crime. A new bill, the Financial Services and Markets Bill (“FSMB”), became law in 2023. The FSMB brings digital asset activities within the scope of existing laws governing financial institutions, markets and assets. In addition, the European Council of the European Union approved the text of Markets in Crypto-Assets (“MiCA”) in October 2022, establishing a regulatory framework for digital asset services across the European Union. MiCA is intended to serve as a comprehensive regulation of digital asset markets and imposes various obligations on digital asset issuers and service providers. The main aims of MiCA are industry regulation, consumer protection, prevention of market abuse and upholding the integrity of digital asset markets. MiCA passed the European Parliament in 2023 and applies from 2024.

Previous wording

Bitcoin mining activities are inherently energy-intensive and electricity costs account for a significant portion of the overall mining costs. The availability and cost of electricity will restrict the geographic locations of mining activities. High costs of electricity may incentivize miners to redirect their resources to other validation protocols, such aproof-of-stake blockchains, or abandon their validation activities entirely. A significant decrease in the computational resources dedicated to the Bitcoin network’s validation protocol could reduce the security of the network which may erode bitcoin’s viability as a store of value or means of exchange. In addition, the significant consumption of electricity may have a negative environmental impact, including contribution to climate change, which may give rise to public opinion against allowing the use of electricity for bitcoin mining activities or government measures restricting or prohibiting the use of electricity for bitcoin mining activities. Any such developments could lower the demand for bitcoin and have a material and adverse effect on the price of bitcoin.

Current wording

Bitcoin mining activities are inherently energy-intensive and electricity costs account for a significant portion of the overall mining costs. The availability and cost of electricity will restrict the geographic locations of mining activities. High costs of electricity may incentivize miners to redirect their resources to other validation protocols, such a proof-of-stake blockchains, or abandon their validation activities entirely. A significant decrease in the computational resources dedicated to the Bitcoin network’s validation protocol could reduce the security of the network which may erode bitcoin’s viability as a store of value or means of exchange. In addition, the significant consumption of electricity may have a negative environmental impact, including contribution to climate change, which may give rise to public opinion against allowing the use of electricity for bitcoin mining activities or government measures restricting or prohibiting the use of electricity for bitcoin mining activities. Any such developments could lower the demand for bitcoin and have a material and adverse effect on the price of bitcoin.

Previous wording

Driven by concerns around energy consumption and the impact on public utility companies, various states and cities have implemented, or are considering implementing, moratoriums on mining activity in their jurisdictions. For example, in November 2022, New York imposed atwo-year moratorium on newproof-of-work mining permits at fossil fuel plants in the state. A significant reduction in mining activity as a result of such actions could adversely affect the security of the Bitcoin network by making it easier for a malicious actor or botnet to manipulate the Bitcoin network. If regulators or public utilities take action that restricts or otherwise impacts mining activities, such actions could result in decreased security of a digital asset network, including the Bitcoin network, and consequently adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Current wording

Driven by concerns around energy consumption and the impact on public utility companies, various states and cities have implemented, or are considering implementing, moratoriums on mining activity in their jurisdictions. For example, in November 2022, New York imposed a two-year moratorium on new proof-of-work mining permits at fossil fuel plants in the state. A significant reduction in mining activity as a result of such actions could adversely affect the security of the Bitcoin network by making it easier for a malicious actor or botnet to manipulate the Bitcoin network. If regulators or public utilities take action that restricts or otherwise impacts mining activities, such actions could result in decreased security of a digital asset network, including the Bitcoin network, and consequently adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

In addition, because of the high energy usage required for bitcoin mining, bitcoin may be subject to regulation stemming from energy usage and/or climate concerns. For example, as of December 31, 2022, approximately 245 million tera hashes are performed every second in connection with mining on the Bitcoin network. Although measuring the electricity consumed by this process is difficult because these operations are performed by various machines with varying levels of efficiency, the process consumes a significant amount of energy. The operations of the Bitcoin network and other digital asset networks may also consume significant amounts of energy. Further, in addition to the direct energy costs of performing calculations on any given digital asset network, there are indirect costs that impact a network’s total energy consumption, including the costs of cooling the machines that perform these calculations. A number of states and countries have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to impede bitcoin mining and/or bitcoin use more broadly. For example, on May 26, 2021, Iran placed a temporary ban on bitcoin mining in an attempt to decrease energy usage and help alleviate blackouts. New York State recently failed to pass a bill that would place a moratorium on mining operations forproof-of-work blockchains such as bitcoin. Depending on how futures regulations are formulated and applied, such policies could have the potential to negatively affect the price of bitcoin, and, in turn, the value of the Shares. Increased regulation and the corresponding compliance cost of these regulations could additionally result in higher barriers to entry for bitcoin miners, which could increase the concentration of the hash rate, potentially having a negative impact on the price of bitcoin.

Current wording

In addition, because of the high energy usage required for bitcoin mining, bitcoin may be subject to regulation stemming from energy usage and/or climate concerns. For example, as of December 31, 2022, approximately 245 million tera hashes are performed every second in connection with mining on the Bitcoin network. Although measuring the electricity consumed by this process is difficult because these operations are performed by various machines with varying levels of efficiency, the process consumes a significant amount of energy. The operations of the Bitcoin network and other digital asset networks may also consume significant amounts of energy. Further, in addition to the direct energy costs of performing calculations on any given digital asset network, there are indirect costs that impact a network’s total energy consumption, including the costs of cooling the machines that perform these calculations. A number of states and countries have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to impede bitcoin mining and/or bitcoin use more broadly. For example, on May 26, 2021, Iran placed a temporary ban on bitcoin mining in an attempt to decrease energy usage and help alleviate blackouts. New York State recently failed to pass a bill that would place a moratorium on mining operations for proof-of-work blockchains such as bitcoin. Depending on how futures regulations are formulated and applied, such policies could have the potential to negatively affect the price of bitcoin, and, in turn, the value of the Shares. Increased regulation and the corresponding compliance cost of these regulations could additionally result in higher barriers to entry for bitcoin miners, which could increase the concentration of the hash rate, potentially having a negative impact on the price of bitcoin.