Franklin Templeton Digital Holdings Trust

Previous wording

If the Custodian Agreement or Prime Broker Agreement is terminated or the Bitcoin Custodian or Prime Broker fails to provide services as required, the Sponsor may need to find and appoint a replacement custodian, which could pose a challenge to the safekeeping of the Fund’s bitcoins, and the Fund’s ability to continue to operate may be adversely affected.

Current wording

If the Custodian Agreement, Prime Broker Agreement, Authorized Participant Agreement or Bitcoin Trading Counterparty Agreement is terminated or the Bitcoin Custodian, Prime Broker, Authorized Participant, or Bitcoin Trading Counterparty fails to provide services as required, the Sponsor may need to find and appoint a replacement custodian, prime broker, authorized participant or trading counterparty, which could pose a challenge to the safekeeping of the Fund’s bitcoins, and the Fund’s ability to continue to operate may be adversely affected.

Previous wording

If regulators subject the Fund or the Sponsor to regulation as a money service business or money transmitter, this could result in extraordinary expenses to the Fund or the Sponsor and also result in decreased liquidity for the Shares.

Current wording

If regulators subject Bitcoin Trading Counterparties, the Fund, or the Sponsor to regulation as a money services business (“MSB”) or money transmitter, this could result in extraordinary expenses to Bitcoin Trading Counterparties, the Fund, or the Sponsor and also result in decreased liquidity for the Shares.

Previous wording

The treatment of digital currency for U.S. federal, state and local income tax purposes is uncertain.

Current wording

The treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal, state and local income tax purposes is uncertain.

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 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.

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 annualized one-year trailing volatility of bitcoin over the past ten years remains elevated at 65%. Over the course of 2021, there were steep increases in the value of certain digital assets, including bitcoin, and multiple market observers asserted the opinion that digital assets were experiencing a “bubble.” These increases were followed by steep drawdowns throughout 2022 in digital asset trading prices, including the price of bitcoin. In the 2021-2022 cycle, the price of bitcoin peaked at $67,734 and bottomed at $15,632, exhibiting a 77% drawdown. These episodes of rapid price appreciation followed by significant drawdowns have occurred multiple times throughout bitcoin's history, including in 2011, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018, before repeating again in 2021-2022 and 2024. During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2026, the price of bitcoin continued to exhibit volatility. For example, bitcoin lost approximately 14% of its value according to some sources in mid-October 2025 as part of wider digital asset market turmoil, precipitated by global trade tensions and structural leverage, which triggered a number of dislocations in the digital asset market (the “October 2025 Flash Crash”), including liquidations of up to $20 billion in collateral in the form of various digital assets (including, but not limited to, bitcoin) securing trades (particularly perpetual futures contracts and various forms of financing transactions), along with reported service interruptions, halted orders, forced unwinding of trades, and other issues, across centralized and decentralized exchanges.

Previous wording

Extreme volatility may persist and the value of the Shares may significantly decline in the future without recovery. The digital asset markets may still be experiencing a bubble or may experience a bubble again in the future. For example, in the first half of 2022, each of Celsius Network, Voyager Digital Ltd., and Three Arrows Capital declared bankruptcy, resulting in a loss of confidence in participants of the digital asset ecosystem and negative publicity surrounding digital assets more broadly. In November 2022, FTX Trading Ltd. (“FTX”), one of the largest digital asset exchanges by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals amid rumors of the company’s liquidity issues and likely insolvency, which were subsequently corroborated by its CEO. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned and FTX and many of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in the United States, while other affiliates have entered insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceedings around the globe, following which the U.S. Department of Justice brought criminal fraud and other charges, and the SEC and CFTC brought civil securities and commodities fraud charges, against certain of FTX’s and its affiliates’ senior executives, including its former CEO. In addition, several other entities in the digital asset industry filed for bankruptcy following FTX’s bankruptcy filing, such as BlockFi Inc. and Genesis Global Capital, LLC (“Genesis”). In response to these events (collectively, the “2022 Events”), the digital asset markets experienced extreme price volatility and other entities in the digital asset industry have been, and may continue to be, negatively affected, further undermining confidence in the digital asset markets. These events have also negatively impacted the liquidity of the digital asset markets as certain entities affiliated with FTX engaged in significant trading activity. If the liquidity of the digital asset markets continues to be negatively impacted by similar events, digital asset prices, including bitcoin, may continue to experience significant volatility or price declines and confidence in the digital asset markets may be further undermined. In addition, regulatory and enforcement scrutiny increased in response to these events, and could further increase in response to similar events in the future, including federal as well as state regulators and authorities.

Current wording

Extreme volatility may persist and the value of the Shares may significantly decline in the future without recovery. The digital asset markets may experience a bubble or significant correction in the future. Digital assets including bitcoin remain susceptible to cyber security events, fraud, manipulation or similar disruptions. For example, in the first half of 2022, each of Celsius Network, Voyager Digital Ltd., and Three Arrows Capital declared bankruptcy, resulting in a loss of confidence in participants of the digital asset ecosystem and negative publicity surrounding digital assets more broadly. In November 2022, FTX Trading Ltd. (‟FTX”), one of the largest digital asset platforms by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals amid rumors of the company’s liquidity issues and likely insolvency, which were subsequently corroborated by its CEO. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned and FTX and many of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in the United States, while other affiliates have entered insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceedings around the globe, following which the U.S. Department of Justice brought criminal fraud and other charges, and the SEC and CFTC brought civil securities and commodities fraud charges, against certain of FTX’s and its affiliates’ senior executives, including its former CEO. In addition, several other entities in the digital asset industry filed for bankruptcy following FTX’s bankruptcy filing, such as BlockFi Inc. and Genesis Global Capital, LLC (“Genesis”). In April 2025, the DOJ issued a policy memo ending "regulation by prosecution" for crypto actors, refocusing on fraud, illicit finance, and aligning enforcement with executive directives. Acting CFTC Chairman directed staff to follow the DOJ's new policy, pausing certain prosecutions. In July 2025, BlockFi reached a $35 million settlement with the DOJ, clearing legal hurdles for creditor distributions. In response to these events (collectively, the ‟2022 Events”), the digital asset markets experienced extreme price volatility and other entities in the digital asset industry have been, and may continue to be, negatively affected, further undermining confidence in the digital asset markets. These events have also negatively impacted the liquidity of the digital asset markets as certain entities affiliated with FTX engaged in significant trading activity. If the liquidity of the digital asset markets continues to be negatively impacted by similar events, digital asset prices, including bitcoin, may continue to experience significant volatility or price declines and confidence in the digital asset markets may be further undermined. In addition, regulatory and enforcement scrutiny increased in response to these events, and could further increase in response to similar events in the future, including federal as well as state regulators and authorities.

Previous wording

Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of bitcoin, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value. The Fund is not actively managed and will not take any actions to take advantage, or mitigate the impacts, of volatility in the price of bitcoin.

Current wording

Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of bitcoin, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value. The Fund is not actively managed and will not take any actions to take advantage, or mitigate the impacts, of volatility in the price of bitcoin. Additionally, advancements in capabilities of quantum computing and similar technology may pose challenges to the security of digital asset networks, including the bitcoin blockchain. There can be no assurance that these risks will be sufficiently mitigated with protective measures. Vulnerabilities in cryptography supporting digital asset transactions, including with respect to bitcoin, could adversely impact confidence across digital markets generally, and cause volatility or substantial declines in the price of bitcoin and the Shares.

Previous wording

The value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the fundamental investment characteristics of bitcoin as a digital asset, including the fact that digital assets are bearer instruments and loss, theft, or compromise of the associated private keys could result in permanent loss of the asset, and the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies such as the Bitcoin blockchain.

Current wording

The value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the fundamental investment characteristics of bitcoin as a digital asset, including the fact that digital assets are bearer instruments and loss, theft, destruction, or compromise of the associated private keys could result in permanent loss of the asset, and the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies such as the Bitcoin blockchain.

Previous 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.

Current wording

Digital assets such as bitcoin were only introduced within the past approximately 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 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

Digital asset networks, including the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network and associated blockchain ledger (the “Bitcoin blockchain” and together the “Bitcoin network”), and the software used to operate them are in the early stages of development. Given the recentness of the development of digital asset networks, digital assets may not function as intended and parties may be unwilling to use digital assets, which would dampen the growth, if any, of digital asset networks. Because bitcoin is a digital asset, the value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the fundamental investment characteristics of digital assets, including the fact that digital assets are bearer instruments and loss, theft, compromise, or destruction of the associated private keys could result in permanent loss of the asset.

Current wording

Digital asset networks, including the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network and associated blockchain ledger (the “Bitcoin blockchain” and together with the peer-to-peer network, the “Bitcoin network”), and the software used to operate them are in the early stages of development. Given the recentness of the development of digital asset networks, digital assets may not function as intended and parties may be unwilling to use digital assets, which would dampen the growth, if any, of digital asset networks. Because bitcoin is a digital asset, the value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the fundamental investment characteristics of digital assets, including the fact that digital assets are bearer instruments and loss, theft, compromise, or destruction of the associated private keys could result in permanent loss of the asset.

Previous wording

Governance of 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 the Bitcoin network, which may stymie the Bitcoin network’s utility and ability to grow and face challenges. In particular, it may be difficult to find solutions or martial sufficient effort to overcome any future problems on the Bitcoin network, especially long-term problems.

Current wording

Governance of 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 the Bitcoin network, which may stymie the Bitcoin network’s utility and ability to grow and face challenges. In particular, it may be difficult to find solutions or marshal sufficient effort to overcome any future problems on the Bitcoin network, especially long-term problems.

Previous wording

Over the past decade, bitcoin mining operations have evolved from individual users mining with computer processors, graphics processing units and first-generation application specific integrated circuit machines to “professionalized” mining operations using proprietary hardware or sophisticated machines. If the profit margins of bitcoin mining operations are not sufficiently high, including due to an increase in electricity costs or a decline in the market price of bitcoin, or if bitcoin mining operations are unable to arrange alternative sources of financing (e.g., if lenders refuse to make loans to such miners), bitcoin miners are more likely to immediately sell more bitcoins than they otherwise would, resulting in an increase in liquid supply of bitcoin, which would generally tend to reduce bitcoin’s market price.

Current wording

Over the past decade, bitcoin mining operations have evolved from individual users mining with computer processors, graphics processing units and first-generation application specific integrated circuit (“ASIC”) machines to “professionalized” mining operations using proprietary hardware or sophisticated machines. If the profit margins of bitcoin mining operations are not sufficiently high, including due to an increase in electricity costs or a decline in the market price of bitcoin, or if bitcoin mining operations are unable to arrange alternative sources of financing (e.g., if lenders refuse to make loans to such miners), bitcoin miners are more likely to immediately sell more bitcoins than they otherwise would, resulting in an increase in liquid supply of bitcoin, which would generally tend to reduce bitcoin’s market price.

Previous wording

Many digital asset networks, including the Bitcoin network, face significant scaling challenges and may periodically be upgraded with various features designed to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. These attempts to increase the volume of transactions may not be effective, and such upgrades may fail, resulting in potentially irreparable damage to the Bitcoin network and to the value of bitcoin.

Current wording

Many digital asset networks, including the Bitcoin network, face significant scaling challenges and may periodically be upgraded with various features designed to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. These attempts to increase the volume of transactions may not be effective or may result in unforeseen problems or issues, and such upgrades may fail, resulting in potentially irreparable damage to the Bitcoin network and to the value of bitcoin.

Previous wording

Moreover, in the past, flaws in the source code for digital assets have been exposed and exploited, including flaws that disabled some functionality for users, exposed users’ personal information and/or resulted in the theft of users’ digital assets. The cryptography underlying bitcoin could prove to be flawed or ineffective, or developments in mathematics and/or technology, including advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry and quantum computing, could result in such cryptography becoming ineffective. In any of these circumstances, a malicious actor may be able to compromise the security of the Bitcoin network or take the Fund’s bitcoin, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, functionality of the Bitcoin network may be negatively affected such that it is no longer attractive to users, thereby dampening demand for bitcoin. Even if another digital asset other than bitcoin were affected by similar circumstances, any reduction in confidence in the source code or cryptography underlying digital assets generally could negatively affect the demand for digital assets and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

Moreover, in the past, bugs, defects, and flaws in the source code for digital assets have been exposed and exploited, including flaws that disrupted normal Ethereum network, Ethereum Client or Decentralized Application (“DApp”) and smart contract operations or disabled some functionality for users, exposed users’ personal information and/or resulted in the theft of users’ digital assets. For example, in May 2023, the main Ethereum network itself reportedly suffered outages or bugs that for a short time prevented transactions from finalizing and being recorded in blocks twice in two days. Major Ethereum Clients that nodes use to access the Ethereum network, such as Geth, Besu and Nethermind, have in the past suffered outages or disruptions due to bugs. The cryptography underlying bitcoin could prove to be flawed or ineffective, or developments in mathematics and/or technology, including advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry and quantum computing, could result in such cryptography becoming ineffective. In any of these circumstances, a malicious actor may be able to compromise the security of the Bitcoin network or take the Fund’s bitcoin, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, functionality of the Bitcoin network may be negatively affected such that it is no longer attractive to users, thereby dampening demand for bitcoin. Even if another digital asset other than bitcoin were affected by similar circumstances, any reduction in confidence in the source code or cryptography underlying digital assets generally could negatively affect the demand for digital assets and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

The Bitcoin network was first launched in 2009 and bitcoins were the first cryptographic digital assets created to gain global adoption and critical mass. Although the Bitcoin network is the most established digital asset network, the Bitcoin network and other cryptographic and algorithmic protocols governing the issuance of digital assets represent a new and rapidly evolving industry that is subject to a variety of factors that are difficult to evaluate. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

Current wording

The Bitcoin network was first launched in 2009 and bitcoin was the first cryptographic digital asset created to gain global adoption and critical mass. Although the Bitcoin network is the most established digital asset network, the Bitcoin network and other cryptographic and algorithmic protocols governing the issuance of digital assets represent a new and rapidly evolving industry that is subject to a variety of factors that are difficult to evaluate. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

Previous wording

Bitcoins have only recently become selectively accepted as a means of payment by retail and commercial outlets, and use of bitcoins by consumers to pay such retail and commercial outlets remains limited. Banks and other established financial institutions may refuse to process funds for bitcoin transactions; process wire transfers to or from digital asset exchanges, bitcoin-related companies or service providers; or maintain accounts for persons or entities transacting in bitcoin. As a result, the prices of bitcoins may be influenced to a significant extent by speculators and miners, thus contributing to price volatility that makes retailers less likely to accept it as a form of payment in the future.

Current wording

Bitcoins have only recently become selectively accepted as a means of payment by retail and commercial outlets, and use of bitcoins by consumers to pay such retail and commercial outlets remains limited. Banks and other established financial institutions may refuse to process funds for bitcoin transactions; process wire transfers to or from digital asset platforms, bitcoin-related companies or service providers; or maintain accounts for persons or entities transacting in bitcoin. As a result, the prices of bitcoin may be influenced to a significant extent by speculators (including miners, thus contributing to price volatility that makes retailers less likely to accept it as a form of payment in the future.

Previous wording

Certain privacy-preserving features have been or are expected to be introduced to digital asset networks, such as the Bitcoin network, and exchanges or businesses that facilitate transactions in bitcoin may be at an increased risk of criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having banking services cut off if there is a concern that these features interfere with the performance of anti-money laundering duties and economic sanctions checks or facilitate illicit financing or crime.

Current wording

Certain privacy-preserving features have been or are expected to be introduced to digital asset networks, such as the Bitcoin network, and platforms or businesses that facilitate transactions in bitcoin may be at an increased risk of criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having banking services cut off if there is a concern that these features interfere with the performance of anti‑money laundering duties and economic sanctions checks or facilitate illicit financing or crime.

Previous wording

The Fund is not actively managed and will not have any formal strategy relating to the development of the Bitcoin network.

Current wording

The Fund is not actively managed and does not pursue any formal strategy relating to the development of the Bitcoin network.

Previous wording

The Bitcoin network uses a cryptographic protocol to govern the interactions within the Bitcoin network. A loose community known as the core developers has evolved to informally manage the source code for the protocol. Membership in the community of core developers evolve over time, largely based on self-determined participation in the resource section dedicated to bitcoin on Github.com. The core developers can propose amendments to the Bitcoin network’s source code that, if accepted by miners and users, could alter the protocols and software of the Bitcoin network and the properties of bitcoin. These alterations would occur through software upgrades, and could potentially include changes to the irreversibility of transactions and limitations on the mining of new bitcoin, which could undermine the appeal and market value of bitcoin. Alternatively, software upgrades and other changes to the protocols of the Bitcoin network could fail to work as intended or could introduce bugs, security risks, or otherwise adversely affect, the speed, security, usability, or value of the Bitcoin network or bitcoins. As a result, the Bitcoin network could be subject to changes to its protocols and software in the future that may adversely affect an investment in the Fund.

Current wording

The Bitcoin network uses a cryptographic protocol to govern the interactions within the Bitcoin network. A loose community known as the core developers has evolved to informally manage the source code for the protocol. Membership in the community of core developers evolve over time, largely based on self-determined participation in the resource section dedicated to bitcoin on Github.com. The core developers can propose amendments to the Bitcoin network’s source code that, if accepted by miners and users, could alter the protocols and software of the Bitcoin network and the properties of bitcoin. These alterations would occur through software upgrades, and could potentially include changes to the irreversibility of transactions and limitations on the mining of new bitcoin, which could undermine the appeal and market value of bitcoin. Alternatively, software upgrades and other changes to the protocols of the Bitcoin network could fail to work as intended or could introduce bugs, coding defects or flaws, security risks, or otherwise adversely affect, the speed, security, usability, or value of the Bitcoin network or bitcoins. As a result, the Bitcoin network could be subject to changes to its protocols and software in the future that may adversely affect an investment in the Fund.

Previous wording

The Bitcoin network operates based on an open-source protocol maintained by the core developers and other contributors, largely on the GitHub resource section dedicated to bitcoin development. As bitcoins are rewarded solely for mining activity and are not sold to raise capital for the Bitcoin network, and the Bitcoin network protocol itself is made available for free rather than sold or made available subject to licensing or subscription fees and its use does not generate revenues for its development team, the core developers are generally not compensated for maintaining and updating the source code for the Bitcoin network protocol. Consequently, there is a lack of financial incentive for developers to maintain or develop the Bitcoin network and the core developers may lack the resources to adequately address emerging issues with the Bitcoin network protocol. Although the Bitcoin network is currently supported by the core developers, there can be no guarantee that such support will continue or be sufficient in the future. For example, there have been recent reports that the number of core developers who have the authority to make amendments to the Bitcoin network’s source code in the GitHub repository is relatively small, although there are believed to be a larger number of developers who contribute to the overall development of the source code of the Bitcoin network. Alternatively, some developers may be funded by entities whose interests are at odds with other participants in the Bitcoin network. In addition, a bad actor could also attempt to interfere with the operation of the Bitcoin network by attempting to exercise a malign influence over a core developer. To the extent that material issues arise with the Bitcoin network protocol and the core developers and open-source contributors are unable to address the issues adequately or in a timely manner, the Bitcoin network and an investment in the Fund may be adversely affected.

Current wording

The Bitcoin network operates based on an open-source protocol maintained by the core developers and other contributors, largely on the GitHub resource section dedicated to bitcoin development. As bitcoins are rewarded solely for mining activity and are not sold to raise capital for the Bitcoin network, and the Bitcoin network protocol itself is made available for free rather than sold or made available subject to licensing or subscription fees and its use does not generate revenues for its development team, the core developers are generally not compensated for maintaining and updating the source code for the Bitcoin network protocol. Consequently, there is a lack of financial incentive for developers to maintain or develop the Bitcoin network and the core developers may lack the resources to adequately address emerging issues with the Bitcoin network protocol. Although the Bitcoin network is currently supported by the core developers, there can be no guarantee that such support will continue or be sufficient in the future. For example, there have been reports that the number of core developers who have the authority to make amendments to the Bitcoin network’s source code in the GitHub repository is relatively small, although there are believed to be a larger number of developers who contribute to the overall development of the source code of the Bitcoin network. Alternatively, some developers may be funded by entities whose interests are at odds with other participants in the Bitcoin network. In addition, a bad actor could also attempt to interfere with the operation of the Bitcoin network by attempting to exercise a malign influence over a core developer. To the extent that material issues arise with the Bitcoin network protocol and the core developers and open-source contributors are unable to address the issues adequately or in a timely manner, the Bitcoin network and an investment in the Fund may be adversely affected.

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. As of March 31, 2025, bitcoin transaction fees were $1.27 per transaction, on average.

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, 2025, Coin Metrics reported bitcoin transaction fees were $1.18 per transaction, on average, over a one-year trailing period. Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for bitcoin (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, bitcoin, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares. In May 2023, events related to the adoption of ordinals, which are a means of inscribing digital content on the bitcoin blockchain, caused transaction fees to temporarily spike above $30 per transaction. As of January 23, 2026, bitcoin transaction fees were averaging 2.4 basis points per transaction.

Previous wording

Currently, the reward earned by miners for mining a block on the Bitcoin network is 6.25 bitcoins. This reward size is reduced by 50% every 210,000 blocks, which occurs roughly every 4 years. The most recent reward halving event occurred in April 2024 at which time the reward earned per block will fall to 3.125 bitcoins. The reduction in mining rewards of bitcoin, could be inadequate to incentivize miners to continue to perform mining activities, thereby jeopardizing the security of the Bitcoin network, which could harm the value of the Shares.

Current wording

Currently, the reward earned by miners for mining a block on the Bitcoin network is 3.125 bitcoin per block. This reward size is reduced by 50% every 210,000 blocks, which occurs roughly every 4 years. The most recent reward halving event occurred in April 2024 and the next reward halving event is expected to occur in 2028. The reduction in mining rewards of bitcoin, could be inadequate to incentivize miners to continue to perform mining activities, thereby jeopardizing the security of the Bitcoin network, which could harm the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

To the extent that any miners cease to record transactions that do not include the payment of a transaction fee in mined blocks or do not record a transaction because the transaction fee is too low, such transactions will not be recorded on the Bitcoin blockchain until a block is mined by a miner who does not require the payment of transaction fees or is willing to accept a lower fee. Also, some miners have financed the acquisition of mining equipment or the development or construction of infrastructure to perform mining activities by borrowing. If such miners experience financial difficulties and are unable to pay back their borrowings, their mining capacity could become unavailable to the Bitcoin network, which could conceivably result in disruptions in recording transactions on the Bitcoin network. Any widespread delays or disruptions in the recording of transactions could result in a loss of confidence in the Bitcoin network and could prevent the Administrator from completing transactions associated with the day-to-day operations of the Fund, including creations and redemptions of the Shares in exchange for bitcoin and/or cash with Authorized Participants.

Current wording

To the extent that any miners cease to record transactions that do not include the payment of a transaction fee in mined blocks or do not record a transaction because the transaction fee is too low, such transactions will not be recorded on the Bitcoin blockchain until a block is mined by a miner who does not require the payment of transaction fees or is willing to accept a lower fee. Also, some miners have financed the acquisition of mining equipment or the development or construction of infrastructure to perform mining activities by borrowing. If such miners experience financial difficulties and are unable to pay back their borrowings, their mining capacity could become unavailable to the Bitcoin network, which could conceivably result in disruptions in recording transactions on the Bitcoin network. Any widespread delays or disruptions in the recording of transactions could result in a loss of confidence in the Bitcoin network and could prevent the Administrator from completing transactions associated with the day-to-day operations of the Fund, including creations and redemptions of the Shares in exchange for bitcoin and/or cash with Authorized Participants and/or their designees.

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 on proof-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 platforms through at least October 2016. An Ethereum platform 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 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.

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. The 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

In addition to forks, a digital asset may become subject to a similar occurrence known as an “airdrop.” In an airdrop, the promotors of a new digital asset announce to holders of another digital asset that such holders will be entitled to claim a certain amount of the new digital asset for free, based on the fact that they hold such other digital asset. For example, in March 2017 the promoters of Stellar Lumens announced that anyone that owned bitcoin as of June 26, 2017 could claim, until August 27, 2017, a certain amount of Stellar Lumens. Airdrops could create operational security, legal or regulatory, or other risks for the Fund, the Sponsor, the Bitcoin Custodian, Authorized Participants, or other entities.

Current wording

In addition to forks, a digital asset may become subject to a similar occurrence known as an “airdrop.” In an airdrop, the promoters of a new digital asset announce to holders of another digital asset that such holders will be entitled to claim a certain amount of the new digital asset for free, based on the fact that they hold such other digital asset. For example, in March 2017 the promoters of Stellar Lumens announced that anyone that owned bitcoin as of June 26, 2017 could claim, until August 27, 2017, a certain amount of Stellar Lumens. Airdrops could create operational security, legal or regulatory, or other risks for the Fund, the Sponsor, the Bitcoin Custodian, Authorized Participants, or other entities.

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 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.

Current wording

The Fund will not hold assets other than bitcoin. Accordingly, Shareholders may not receive the benefits of any forks, the Fund may not choose, or be able to participate in an airdrop, and the timing of receiving any benefits from a fork, airdrop or similar event is uncertain. The Trust refers 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.

Previous wording

There are likely to be operational, tax, securities law, regulatory, legal and practical issues that significantly limit, or prevent entirely, Shareholders’ ability to realize a benefit, through their Shares in the Fund, from any airdrop, fork or similar event. Additionally , as noted above the Fund may only hold bitcoin and cash.

Current wording

There are likely to be operational, tax, securities law, regulatory, legal and practical issues that significantly limit, or prevent entirely, Shareholders’ ability to realize a benefit, through their Shares in the Fund, from any airdrop, fork or similar event. Additionally, as noted above the Fund may only hold bitcoin.

Previous wording

In the event of a hard fork of the Bitcoin network, the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Declaration of Trust, use its sole discretion to determine, in good faith, which peer-to-peer network, among a group of incompatible forks of the Bitcoin network, is generally accepted as the Bitcoin network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Fund’s purposes. The Sponsor will base its determination on whatever factors it deems relevant, including but not limited to, the Sponsor’s beliefs regarding expectations of the core developers of bitcoin, users, services, businesses, miners and other constituencies, as well as the actual continued acceptance of, mining power on, and community engagement with, the Bitcoin network, or whatever other factors it deems relevant. There is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork, and the Sponsor’s decision may adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result. The Sponsor may also disagree with Shareholders, the Bitcoin Custodian, other service providers, the Index Administrator, cryptocurrency exchanges, or other market participants on what is generally accepted as bitcoin and should therefore be considered “bitcoin” for the Fund’s purposes, which may also adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result.

Current wording

In the event of a hard fork of the Bitcoin network, the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Declaration of Trust, use its sole discretion to determine, in good faith, which peer-to-peer network, among a group of incompatible forks of the Bitcoin network, is generally accepted as the Bitcoin network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Fund’s purposes. The Sponsor will base its determination on whatever factors it deems relevant, including, but not limited to, the Sponsor’s beliefs regarding expectations of the core developers of bitcoin, users, services, businesses, miners and other constituencies, as well as the actual continued acceptance of, mining power on, and community engagement with, the Bitcoin network, or whatever other factors it deems relevant. There is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork, and the Sponsor’s decision may adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result. The Sponsor may also disagree with Shareholders, the Bitcoin Custodian, other service providers, the Index Administrator, cryptocurrency platforms, or other market participants on what is generally accepted as bitcoin and should therefore be considered “bitcoin” for the Fund’s purposes, which may also adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result.

Previous wording

trading activity on digital asset exchanges, which, in many cases, are largely unregulated or may be subject to manipulation or other irregularities;

Current wording

trading activity on digital asset platforms, which, in many cases, are largely unregulated or subject to regulation by a relevant jurisdiction but potentially non-compliant with such regulations or may be subject to manipulation or other irregularities;

Previous wording

monetary policies of governments, legislation or regulation, trade restrictions, currency devaluations and revaluations and regulatory measures or enforcement actions, if any, that restrict the use of bitcoin as a form of payment or the purchase of bitcoin on the digital asset markets;

Current wording

monetary policies of governments, legislation or regulation, trade restrictions, tariffs, currency devaluations and revaluations and regulatory measures or enforcement actions, if any, that restrict the use of bitcoin as a form of payment or the purchase of bitcoin on the digital asset markets;

Previous wording

interruptions in service from or closures or failures of major digital asset exchanges or their banking partners, or outages or system failures affecting the Bitcoin network;

Current wording

interruptions in service from or closures or failures of major digital asset platforms or their banking partners, or outages or system failures affecting the Bitcoin network;

Previous wording

Due to the unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of digital asset exchanges, which may experience fraud, manipulation, security failures or operational problems, as well as the wider bitcoin market, the value of bitcoin and, consequently, the value of the Shares may be adversely affected, causing losses to Shareholders.

Current wording

Due to the relative unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of digital asset platforms, which may experience fraud, manipulation, security failures or operational problems, as well as the wider bitcoin market, the value of bitcoin and, consequently, the value of the Shares may be adversely affected, causing losses to Shareholders.

Previous wording

Risk of loss of market confidence due to lack of established regulatory framework. Digital asset exchanges are relatively new and, in some cases, unregulated. Many operate outside the United States. Furthermore, while many prominent digital asset exchanges provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management teams, corporate practices and regulatory compliance, many digital asset exchanges do not provide this information. Digital asset exchanges may not be subject to, or may not comply with, regulation in a similar manner as other regulated trading platforms, such as national securities exchanges or designated contract markets. As a result, the marketplace may lose confidence in digital asset exchanges, including prominent exchanges that handle a significant volume of bitcoin trading.

Current wording

Risk of loss of market confidence due to lack of established regulatory framework. Digital asset platforms are relatively new and, in some cases, may be unregulated or subject to regulation by a relevant jurisdiction but potentially non-compliant with such regulations. Many operate outside the United States. Furthermore, while many prominent digital asset platforms provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management teams, corporate practices and regulatory compliance, many digital asset platforms do not provide this information. Digital asset platforms may not be subject to, or may not comply with, regulation in a similar manner as other regulated trading platforms, such as national securities exchanges or designated contract markets. As a result, the marketplace may lose confidence in digital asset platforms, including prominent platforms that handle a significant volume of bitcoin trading.

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 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.

Current wording

Risk of manipulative activity (e.g., wash trading, front running or other fraudulent practices). Many digital asset platforms are unlicensed, may be unregulated, or subject to regulation by a relevant jurisdiction but potentially non-compliant with such regulations, 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 platforms is generally significantly less regulated than trading in regulated U.S. securities and commodities markets, and may reflect behavior that would be prohibited in regulated U.S. trading venues. For example, in 2019 there were reports claiming that 80.95% of bitcoin trading volume on digital asset platforms was false or noneconomic in nature, with specific focus on unregulated platforms located outside of the United States. Such reports alleged that certain overseas platforms have displayed suspicious trading activity suggestive of a variety of manipulative or fraudulent practices, such as fake or artificial trading volume or trading volume based on non-economic “wash trading” (where offsetting trades are entered into for other than bona fide reasons, such as the desire to inflate reported trading volumes), and attributed such manipulative or fraudulent behavior to motives like the incentive to attract listing fees from token issuers who seek the most liquid and high-volume platforms on which to list their coins.

Previous wording

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.

Current wording

Other academics and market observers have put forth evidence to support claims that manipulative trading activity has occurred on certain bitcoin platforms. 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 platform 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

The bitcoin market globally and in the United States is not subject to comparable regulatory guardrails as exist in regulated securities markets. Furthermore, many bitcoin trading venues lack certain safeguards put in place by exchanges for more traditional assets to enhance the stability of trading on the exchanges and prevent “flash crashes,” such as limit-down circuit breakers. As a result, the prices of bitcoin on trading venues may be subject to larger and/or more frequent sudden declines than assets traded on more traditional exchanges. Tools to detect and deter fraudulent or manipulative trading activities such as market manipulation, front-running of trades, and wash-trading may not be available to or employed by digital asset exchanges, or may not exist at all. The SEC has identified possible sources of fraud and manipulation in the bitcoin market generally, including, among others (1) “wash trading”; (2) persons with a dominant position in bitcoin manipulating bitcoin pricing; (3) hacking of the Bitcoin network and trading platforms; (4) malicious control of the Bitcoin network; (5) trading based on material, non-public information (for example, plans of market participants to significantly increase or decrease their holdings in bitcoin, new sources of demand for bitcoin) or based on the dissemination of false and misleading information; (6) manipulative activity involving purported “stablecoins,” including Tether (for more information, see “Risk Factors-Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets-Prices of bitcoin may be affected due to stablecoins (including Tether and US Dollar Coin (“USDC”)), the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment”); and (7) fraud and manipulation at bitcoin trading platforms. The effect of potential market manipulation, front-running, wash-trading, and other fraudulent or manipulative trading practices may inflate the volumes actually present in crypto market and/or cause distortions in price, which could adversely affect the Fund or cause losses to Shareholders.

Current wording

The bitcoin market globally and in the United States is not subject to comparable regulatory guardrails as exist in regulated securities markets. Furthermore, many bitcoin trading venues lack certain safeguards put in place by platforms for more traditional assets to enhance the stability of trading on the platforms and prevent “flash crashes,” such as limit-down circuit breakers. As a result, the prices of bitcoin on trading venues may be subject to larger and/or more frequent sudden declines than assets traded on more traditional platforms. Tools to detect and deter fraudulent or manipulative trading activities such as market manipulation, front-running of trades, and wash-trading may not be available to or employed by digital asset platforms, or may not exist at all. The SEC has identified possible sources of fraud and manipulation in the bitcoin market generally, including, among others (1) “wash trading”; (2) persons with a dominant position in bitcoin manipulating bitcoin pricing; (3) hacking of the Bitcoin network and trading platforms; (4) malicious control of the Bitcoin network; (5) trading based on material, non-public information (for example, plans of market participants to significantly increase or decrease their holdings in bitcoin, new sources of demand for bitcoin) or based on the dissemination of false and misleading information; (6) manipulative activity involving purported “stablecoins,” including Tether (for more information, see “Risk Factors-Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets-Prices of bitcoin may be affected due to stablecoins (including Tether and US Dollar Coin (“USDC”)), the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment”); and (7) fraud and manipulation at bitcoin trading platforms. The effect of potential market manipulation, front-running, wash-trading, and other fraudulent or manipulative trading practices may inflate the volumes actually present in crypto market and/or cause distortions in price, which could adversely affect the Fund or cause losses to Shareholders.

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, 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.

Current wording

Risks related to platform 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 platforms 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 platforms were not compensated or made whole for the partial or complete losses of their account balances in such digital asset platforms. While, generally speaking, smaller digital asset platforms are less likely to have the infrastructure and capitalization that make larger digital asset platforms more stable, larger digital asset platforms 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 platforms could be subject to abrupt failure with consequences for both users of digital asset platforms and the digital asset industry as a whole. In particular, in the two weeks that followed the February 7, 2014 halt of bitcoin withdrawals from Mt. Gox, the value of one bitcoin fell on other platforms from around $795 on February 6, 2014 to $578 on February 20, 2014. Additionally, in January 2015, Bitstamp announced that approximately 19,000 bitcoin had been stolen from its operational or “hot” wallets. Further, in August 2016, it was reported that almost 120,000 bitcoins worth around $78 million were stolen from Bitfinex, a large digital asset platform. 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 platform, 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 platforms, 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

Reputational harm and related industry contagion effects may exacerbate negative events in the digital asset markets or digital exchanges. Negative perception, a lack of stability and standardized regulation in the digital asset markets and the closure or temporary shutdown of digital asset exchanges due to fraud, business failure, security breaches or government mandated regulation, and associated losses by customers, may reduce confidence in the Bitcoin network and result in greater volatility or decreases in the prices of bitcoin. Furthermore, the closure or temporary shutdown of a digital asset exchange used in calculating the Index may result in a loss of confidence in the Fund’s ability to determine its NAV on a daily basis. The potential consequences of a digital asset exchange’s failure could adversely affect the value of the Shares and may cause the Fund to lose substantial value.

Current wording

Reputational harm and related industry contagion effects may exacerbate negative events in the digital asset markets or digital platforms. Negative perception, a lack of stability and standardized regulation in the digital asset markets and the closure or temporary shutdown of digital asset platforms due to fraud, business failure, security breaches or government mandated regulation, and associated losses by customers, may reduce confidence in the Bitcoin network and result in greater volatility or decreases in the prices of bitcoin. Furthermore, the closure or temporary shutdown of a digital asset platform used in calculating the Index may result in a loss of confidence in the Fund’s ability to determine its NAV on a daily basis. The potential consequences of a digital asset platform’s failure could adversely affect the value of the Shares and may cause the Fund to lose substantial value.

Previous wording

The Index has a limited performance history, the Index price could fail to track the global bitcoin price, and a failure of the Index price could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

The Index has a limited performance history; the Index price could fail to track the global bitcoin price, a failure of the Index price could adversely affect the value of the Shares, and the Index’s methodology may be subject to change.

Previous wording

The CF Benchmarks Index was developed by the Index Administrator and has a limited performance history. Although the Index is based on materially the same methodology (except calculation time) as the Index Administrator’s Bitcoin Reference Rate (“ABRR”), which was first introduced in November 2016, the Index itself has only been in operation since February 2022. The Index price is a composite CF Benchmarks Index calculated using volume-weighted trading price data from various constituent digital asset exchanges of the CF Benchmarks Index chosen by the Index Administrator (“Constituent Exchanges”). The Index has only featured its current list of Constituent Exchanges since May 2022. A longer history of actual performance through various economic and market conditions would provide greater and more reliable information for an investor to assess the Index’s performance. The Constituent Exchanges chosen by the Index Administrator could also change over time. The Index Administrator may remove or add Constituent Exchanges to the CF Benchmark Index in the future at its discretion.

Current wording

The CF Benchmarks Index was developed by the Index Administrator and has a limited performance history. Although the Index is based on materially the same methodology (except calculation time) as the Index Administrator’s Bitcoin Reference Rate (“ABRR”), which was first introduced in November 2016, the Index itself has only been in operation since February 2022. The Index price is a composite CF Benchmarks Index calculated using volume-weighted trading price data from various Constituent Platforms. The Index has only featured its current list of Constituent Platforms since March 2025. A longer history of actual performance through various economic and market conditions would provide greater and more reliable information for an investor to assess the Index’s performance. The Constituent Platforms chosen by the Index Administrator could also change over time. The Index Administrator may remove or add Constituent Platforms to the CF Benchmark Index in the future at its discretion.