Franklin Ethereum Trust

Previous wording

Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets and smart contracts platforms, such as Bitcoin, Solana, Avalanche or Cardano, could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, ether and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets, such as Bitcoin, Solana, Avalanche, Cardano, and numerous others and smart contracts platforms could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, ether and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

The Fund’s timing in reaching the market and fee structure relative to other competitor ether products could have a detrimental effect on the scale and sustainability of the Fund.

Current wording

The Fund’s fee structure, liquidity, or trading volume and spreads relative to other competitor ether products could have a detrimental effect on the scale and sustainability of the Fund.

Previous wording

The Index (as defined below) has a limited performance history, and could experience calculation or other errors, in which case the Index price could fail to track the global ether price, and a failure of the Index price could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

The Index (as defined below) has a limited performance history, and could experience calculation or other errors, in which case the Index price could fail to track the global ether price, and 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 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 ether, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. For instance, there were steep increases in the value of certain digital assets, including ether, over the course of 2021, and multiple market observers assert that digital assets were experiencing a “bubble.” These increases were followed by steep drawdowns throughout 2022 in digital asset trading prices, including for ether. These episodes of rapid price appreciation followed by steep drawdowns have occurred multiple times throughout ether’s history, including in 2021-2023. As of the end of the reporting period covered herein, digital asset prices continued to fluctuate.

Current wording

The trading prices of many digital assets, including ether, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. For instance, there were steep increases in the value of certain digital assets, including ether, 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 ether. These episodes of rapid price appreciation followed by steep drawdowns have occurred multiple times throughout ether’s history, including in 2021-2025. As of the date of this report, digital asset prices have continued to fluctuate. For example, ether lost approximately 12.2% 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, ether) 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 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 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 ether, 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 from 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 ether 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 have 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 ether, 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 from federal as well as state regulators and authorities.

Previous wording

Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of ether, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value. Furthermore, negative perception and a lack of stability and standardized regulation in the digital asset economy may reduce confidence in the digital asset economy and may result in greater volatility in the price of ether and other digital assets, including a depreciation in value. The Fund is not actively managed and will not take any actions to take advantage, or mitigate the impacts, of volatility in the price of ether.

Current wording

Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of ether, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value. 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 ether. Additionally, advancements in capabilities of quantum computing and similar technologies may pose challenges to the security of digital asset networks, including the Ethereum network. 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 ether, could adversely impact confidence across digital markets generally, and cause volatility or substantial declines in the price of ether and the Shares.

Previous wording

The value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the fundamental investment characteristics of ether 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 Ethereum blockchain.

Current wording

The value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the fundamental investment characteristics of ether 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 Ethereum blockchain.

Previous wording

● The foregoing notwithstanding, the Ethereum network’s protocol is informally overseen by a collective of core developers who, along with members of the Ethereum community, can introduce proposals, known as Ethereum Improvement Proposals (“EIPs”), for updating the Ethereum network. The core developers evolve over time, largely based on self-determined participation. An Ethereum client (“Ethereum Client”) is a software application that implements the Ethereum network specification and communicates with the Ethereum network. A “node” is a computer or other device that has downloaded the Ethereum Client and is connected to other computers also running the Ethereum Client software, together forming the Ethereum network. To the extent that node operators update their individual Ethereum Client to new specifications, the Ethereum network could be subject to changes that may adversely affect the value of ether. In addition, if a digital asset network has high-profile contributors, a perception that such contributors will no longer contribute to the network could have an adverse effect on the market price of the related digital asset.

Current wording

The foregoing notwithstanding, the Ethereum network’s protocol is informally overseen by a collective of core developers who, along with members of the Ethereum community, can introduce proposals, known as Ethereum Improvement Proposals (“EIPs”), for updating the Ethereum network. The core developers evolve over time, largely based on self-determined participation. An Ethereum client (“Ethereum Client”) is a software application that implements the Ethereum network specification and communicates with the Ethereum network. A “node” is a computer or other device that has downloaded the Ethereum Client and is connected to other computers also running the Ethereum Client software, together forming the Ethereum network. To the extent that node operators update their individual Ethereum Client to new specifications, the Ethereum network could be subject to changes that may adversely affect the value of ether. In addition, if a digital asset network has high-profile contributors, the perception that such contributors will no longer contribute to the network could have an adverse effect on the market price of the related digital asset.

Previous 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 DApp and smart contract operations or disabled related 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 which nodes use to access the Ethereum network, such as Geth, Besu and Nethermind, have in the past suffered outages or disruptions due to bugs. For more on an unplanned for involving Geth clients, see “-A temporary or permanent “fork” could adversely affect the value of the Shares.” The cryptography underlying the Ethereum network or ether as an asset 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 Ethereum network or take the Fund’s ether, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, normal operations and functionality of the Ethereum network may be negatively affected. Such losses of functionality could lead to the Ethereum network losing attractiveness to users, nodes, validators, or other stakeholders, thereby dampening demand for ether. Even if another digital asset other than ether were affected by similar circumstances, any reduction in confidence in the source code or cryptography underlying digital 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 DApp and smart contract operations or disabled related 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. For more on an unplanned fork involving Geth clients, see “-A temporary or permanent “fork” could adversely affect the value of the Shares.” The cryptography underlying the Ethereum network or ether as an asset 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. Quantum computing technology is an emerging phenomenon which, because it is still developing, makes it difficult to predict its ultimate effect on the future value of ether and other digital assets. However, if quantum computing technology is able to advance and significantly increase its capacity relative to the capacity of today's leading quantum computers, it could potentially undermine the viability of many of the cryptographic algorithms used across the world's information technology infrastructure, including the cryptographic algorithms used for digital assets like ether. If quantum computing is able to advance in that way, there is a risk that quantum computing could result in the cryptography underlying the Ethereum network becoming ineffective, which, if realized, could compromise the security of the Ethereum network, or allow a malicious actor to compromise the wallets holding ether owned by the Fund or others on the Ethereum network, which would result in losses to Shareholders. While various actors in the Ethereum community are taking steps to enable the uses of cryptographic algorithms that would be resistant to advanced quantum computers, there is no guarantee that new quantum-proof architectures will be built and appropriate transitions will be implemented across the network at scale in a timely manner; any such changes could require the achievement of broad consensus within the Ethereum network community and a fork (or multiple forks) , and there can be no assurance that such consensus would be achieved or the changes implemented successfully. See “-Changes in the governance of a digital asset network may not receive sufficient support from users and validators, which may negatively affect that digital asset network’s ability to grow and respond to challenges” and “-A temporar…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

● The Ethereum network has been in the process of implementing a series of software upgrades and other changes to its protocol, which were previously referred to collectively as “Ethereum 2.0” and some of which were implemented during 2022, such as the Bellatrix and Paris planned forks (defined below) that transitioned the Ethereum network from a proof-of-work consensus mechanism to a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism (the “Merge”). These upgrades have resulted in, and are expected to continue to result in, changes to the Ethereum network. Many of the contemplated upgrades to the Ethereum network will include updates to material aspects of its source code. Although some of these upgrades have been successfully implemented, such as “the Merge,” which was completed in September 2022, there is no guarantee that there are not undiscovered flaws that will emerge in the future even in upgrades previously considered successful, and previously successful upgrades do not guarantee that future upgrades will be successful. Any such undiscovered flaws, or the failure to properly implement future changes, could have a material adverse effect on the value of ether and the value of the Shares. One completed upgrade is known as the “Shanghai” upgrade, which allows users to unstake their ether and remove it from the relevant smart contract. As a result of this or future upgrades, it is possible that significant volumes of currently locked and illiquid ether becomes unlocked and sold, which could increase volatility in ether prices or have a material adverse effect on the value of ether and the value of the Shares. Upgrades currently being considered to increase throughput and promote scaling, such as “sharding” the Layer 1 Ethereum network or greater reliance so-called “Layer 2” solutions, could have effects which are difficult to anticipate at this time, but could - if unsuccessfully implemented, or if they contain undiscovered flaws - materially adversely impact or even effectively eliminate the value of ether, and therefore impact the price of the Shares. In addition, the acceptance of software patches or upgrades by some, but not all, nodes, users and validators in a digital asset network could result in a “fork” in such network’s blockchain, resulting in the operation of multiple separate networks. See “-A temporary or permanent “fork” could adversely affect the value of the Shares” for additional information.

Current wording

The Ethereum network has been in the process of implementing a series of software upgrades and other changes to its protocol, which were previously referred to collectively as “Ethereum 2.0” and some of which were implemented during 2022, such as the Bellatrix and Paris planned forks (defined below) that transitioned the Ethereum network from a proof-of-work consensus mechanism to a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism (the “Merge”). These upgrades have resulted in, and are expected to continue to result in, changes to the Ethereum network. Many of the contemplated upgrades to the Ethereum network will include updates to material aspects of its source code. Although some of these upgrades have been successfully implemented, such as “the Merge,” which was completed in September 2022, there is no guarantee that there are not undiscovered flaws that will emerge in the future even in upgrades previously considered successful, and previously successful upgrades do not guarantee that future upgrades will be successful. Any such undiscovered flaws, or the failure to properly implement future changes, could have a material adverse effect on the value of ether and the value of the Shares. One completed upgrade is known as the “Shanghai” upgrade, which allows users to unstake their ether and remove it from the relevant smart contract. As a result of these or future upgrades, it is possible that significant volumes of currently locked and illiquid ether becomes unlocked and sold, which could increase volatility in ether prices or have a material adverse effect on the value of ether and the value of the Shares. Upgrades currently being considered to increase throughput and promote scaling, such as “sharding” the Layer 1 Ethereum network or greater reliance so-called “Layer 2” solutions, could have effects which are difficult to anticipate at this time, but could - if unsuccessfully implemented, or if they contain undiscovered flaws - materially adversely impact or even effectively eliminate the value of ether, and therefore impact the price of the Shares. In addition, the acceptance of software patches or upgrades by some, but not all, nodes, users and validators in a digital asset network could result in a “fork” in such network’s blockchain, resulting in the operation of multiple separate networks. See “-A temporary or permanent “fork” could adversely affect the value of the Shares” for additional information.

Previous wording

● The Ethereum network is still in the process of developing and making significant decisions that will affect policies that govern the supply and issuance of ether as well as other Ethereum network protocols. For example, the Ethereum network has on three occasions reduced the quantity of ether rewarded per block and may make additional changes in the future, see “Overview of the Ethereum Industry-Creation of New Ether” for additional information. The open-source nature of many digital asset network protocols, such as the protocol for the Ethereum network, means that developers and other contributors are generally not directly compensated for their contributions in maintaining and developing such protocols. As a result, the developers and other contributors of a particular digital asset may lack a financial incentive to maintain or develop the network, or may lack the resources to adequately address emerging issues. Alternatively, some developers may be funded by companies whose interests are at odds with other participants in a particular digital asset network. If the Ethereum network does not successfully develop its policies on supply and issuance and other major design decisions, or does so in a manner that is not attractive to network participants, it could lead to a decline in adoption of the Ethereum network and price of ether.

Current wording

The Ethereum network is still in the process of developing and making significant decisions that will affect policies that govern the supply and issuance of ether as well as other Ethereum network protocols. For example, the Ethereum network has on occasion reduced the quantity of ether rewarded per block and may make additional changes in the future, see “Overview of the Ethereum Industry-Creation of New Ether” for additional information. The open-source nature of many digital asset network protocols, such as the protocol for the Ethereum network, means that developers and other contributors are generally not directly compensated for their contributions in maintaining and developing such protocols. As a result, the developers and other contributors of a particular digital asset may lack a financial incentive to maintain or develop the network, or may lack the resources to adequately address emerging issues. Alternatively, some developers may be funded by companies whose interests are at odds with other participants in a particular digital asset network. If the Ethereum network does not successfully develop its policies on supply and issuance and other major design decisions, or does so in a manner that is not attractive to network participants, it could lead to a decline in adoption of the Ethereum network and price of ether.

Previous wording

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

Current wording

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

Previous wording

As of March 31, 2025, the Ethereum network could handle approximately 15 transactions per second. In an effort to increase the volume of transactions that can be processed on a given digital asset network, many digital asset networks are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. As corresponding increases in throughput lag behind growth in the use of digital asset networks, average fees and settlement times may increase considerably. For example, the Ethereum network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. In December 2017, the popularity of the blockchain-based game Cryptokitties led to significant network congestion on the Ethereum network. The game, which allows players to trade and create virtual kitties, represented by non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”), was reported by some sources to have accounted for more than 10% of the entire Ethereum network traffic at the time causing increases in transaction fees and delays in transaction processing times, and driving Ethereum network traffic to a reported then-all time high. From April 30, 2023, ether transaction fees decreased from $9.52 per ether transaction, on average, to a high of $3.83 per transaction, on average, on April 30, 2024. As of March 31, 2025, ether transaction fees were $0.46 per transaction, on average. Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for ether (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, ether, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Current wording

As of May 6, 2026, the Ethereum network processed an average of 28.14 transactions per second during the second quarter of 2026 (source: token terminal). In an effort to increase the volume of transactions that can be processed on a given digital asset network, many digital asset networks are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. As corresponding increases in throughput lag behind growth in the use of digital asset networks, average fees and settlement times may increase considerably. For example, the Ethereum network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. In December 2017, the popularity of the blockchain-based game Cryptokitties led to significant network congestion on the Ethereum network. The game, which allows players to trade and create virtual kitties, represented by non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”), was reported by some sources to have accounted for more than 10% of the entire Ethereum network traffic at the time causing increases in transaction fees and delays in transaction processing times, and driving Ethereum network traffic to a reported then-all time high. From April 30, 2023, ether transaction fees decreased from $9.52 per ether transaction, on average, to a high of $3.83 per transaction, on average, on April 30, 2024. As of May 6, 2026, ether transaction fees averaged $0.35 per transaction during the second quarter of 2026 (source: token terminal). Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for ether (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, ether, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

There is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the speed and throughput of settlement of Ethereum network transactions will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could cause the Ethereum network to not adequately resolve scaling challenges and adversely impact the adoption of ether and the Ethereum network and the value of the Shares. There is no guarantee that any potential scaling solution, whether a change to the Layer 1 Ethereum network like sharding or the introduction of a Layer 2 solution like rollups, state channels or side chains, will achieve widespread adoption. It is possible that proposed changes to the Layer 1 Ethereum network could divide the community, potentially even causing a hard fork, or that the decentralized governance of the Ethereum network causes network participants to fail to coalesce overwhelmingly around any particular solution, causing the Ethereum network to suffer reduced adoption or causing nodes, users or validators to migrate to other blockchain networks. It is also possible that scaling solutions could fail to work as intended or could introduce bugs, coding defects or flaws, security risks, or other problems that could cause them to suffer operational disruptions. For example, in April 2024, Starknet, a Layer 2 built on the Layer 1 Ethereum network, suffered an outage reportedly caused by a rounding error bug that halted production of new blocks on Starknet’s Layer 2 blockchain network. Similar outages, bugs, defects, or other problems could affect Layer 2s in the future. Similarly, in multiple instances throughout 2022 and 2023, the Arbitrum Layer 2 network experienced outages due to failures in its primary node responsible for submitting transactions to the Layer 1 Ethereum network. Although the Layer 1 Ethereum network is believed not to have been affected by those outages, problems on Layer 2s in the future could conceivably affect or cause issues for the Layer 1 Ethereum network. Alternatively, if a widely-used Layer 2 network were to fail, it could reduce demand for ether because it would eliminate a source of demand for using ether to record transactions from the Layer 2 onto the Layer 1 Ethereum network. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect the price of ether or the value of the Shares of the Fund.

Current wording

There is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the speed and throughput of settlement of Ethereum network transactions will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could cause the Ethereum network to not adequately resolve scaling challenges and adversely impact the adoption of ether and the Ethereum network and the value of the Shares. There is no guarantee that any potential scaling solution, such as whether a change to the Layer 1 Ethereum network like sharding or the introduction of a Layer 2 solution like rollups, state channels or side chains, will achieve widespread adoption. Alternatively, in theory, the widespread adoption of Layer 2 solutions could succeed in reducing congestion on the Layer 1 Ethereum network by moving transactions and computational work to the Layer 2 level and thereby reduce direct transactions on the Layer 1 Ethereum network, but by reducing transactions on the Layer 1 Ethereum network, could reduce demand for ether on the Layer 1 Ethereum network, which could in theory negatively impact the price of ether. It is possible that proposed changes to the Layer 1 Ethereum network could divide the community, potentially even causing a hard fork, or that the decentralized governance of the Ethereum network causes network participants to fail to coalesce overwhelmingly around any particular solution, causing the Ethereum network to suffer reduced adoption or causing nodes, users or validators to migrate to other blockchain networks. It is also possible that scaling solutions could fail to work as intended or could introduce bugs, coding defects or flaws, security risks, or other problems that could cause them to suffer operational disruptions. For example, in April 2024, Starknet, a Layer 2 built on the Layer 1 Ethereum network, suffered an outage reportedly caused by a rounding error bug that halted production of new blocks on Starknet’s Layer 2 blockchain network. Similar outages, bugs, defects, or other problems could affect Layer 2s in the future. Similarly, in multiple instances throughout 2022 and 2023, the Arbitrum Layer 2 network experienced outages due to failures in its primary node responsible for submitting transactions to the Layer 1 Ethereum network. Although the Layer 1 Ethereum network is believed not to have been affected by those outages, problems on Layer 2s in the future could conceivably affect or cause issues for the Layer 1 Ethereum network. Alternatively, if a widely-used Layer 2 network were to fail, it could reduce demand for ether because it would eliminate a source of demand for using ether to record transactions from the Layer 2 onto the Layer 1 Ethereum network. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect the price of ether or the value of the Shares of the Fund.

Previous wording

In the case of planned forks, the core developers, including those associated with or funded by the Ethereum Foundation, are able to access and alter the Ethereum network source code and, as a result, they are typically responsible for proposing quasi-official or widely publicized releases of updates and other changes to the Ethereum network’s source code called EIPS. Any user can propose an idea for modifying the Ethereum network’s source code, and the core developers are responsible for mering the proposed idea into the EIP repository GitHub, where it formally becomes an EIP. However, the release of proposed updates to the Ethereum network’s source code by core developers does not guarantee that the updates will be adopted. The developers of each Ethereum Client must agree to implement the EIP’s changes to the Ethereum network in the source code for their respective client software, nodes must accept the changes made available by the developers of the Ethereum Client software they use by choosing to individually download the modified Ethereum Client software, and ultimately a critical mass of validators and users - such as DApp and smart contract developers, as well as end users of DApps and smart contracts, and anyone else who transacts on the Ethereum blockchain or Ethereum network - must support the shift, or the upgrades will lack adoption.

Current wording

In the case of planned forks, the core developers, including those associated with or funded by the Ethereum Foundation, are able to access and alter the Ethereum network source code and, as a result, they are typically responsible for proposing quasi-official or widely publicized releases of updates and other changes to the Ethereum network’s source code called EIPS. Any user can propose an idea for modifying the Ethereum network’s source code, and the core developers are responsible for mering the proposed idea into the EIP repository on GitHub, where it formally becomes an EIP. However, the release of proposed updates to the Ethereum network’s source code by core developers does not guarantee that the updates will be automatically adopted. The developers of each Ethereum Client must agree to implement the EIP’s changes to the Ethereum network in the source code for their respective client software, nodes must accept the changes made available by the developers of the Ethereum Client software they use by choosing to individually download the modified Ethereum Client software, and ultimately a critical mass of validators and users - such as DApp and smart contract developers, as well as end users of DApps and smart contracts, and anyone else who transacts on the Ethereum blockchain or Ethereum network - must support the shift, or the upgrades will lack adoption.

Previous wording

A future fork in the Ethereum network could adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Fund to operate. A fork could also adversely affect the price of ether at the time of announcement or adoption or subsequently. The announcement of a hard fork could lead to increased demand for the pre-fork digital asset, in anticipation that ownership of the pre-fork digital asset would entitle holders to a new digital asset following the fork. The increased demand for the pre-fork digital asset may cause the price of the digital asset to rise. After the hard fork, it is possible the aggregate price of the two versions of the digital asset running in parallel would be less than the price of the digital asset immediately prior to the fork. Alternatively, as with any change to software code, software upgrades and other changes to the source code or protocols of the Ethereum network could fail to work as intended or could introduce bugs, coding defects, unanticipated or undiscovered problems, flaws, or security risks, create problematic economic incentives which incentivize behavior which has a negative effect on the Ethereum network’s users, validators, or the Ethereum network as a whole, or otherwise adversely affect, the speed, security, usability, or value of the Ethereum network or ether. If a fork caused operational problems for either post-fork network or blockchain, the digital assets associated with the affected network could lose some or all of their value. Furthermore, while the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Declaration of Trust, determine which network is generally accepted as the Ethereum network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Fund’s purposes, and there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the network and the associated digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork. Any of these events could therefore adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Current wording

A future fork in the Ethereum network could adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Fund to operate. A fork could also adversely affect the price of ether at the time of announcement or adoption or subsequently. For example, the announcement of a hard fork could lead to increased demand for the pre-fork digital asset, in anticipation that ownership of the pre-fork digital asset would entitle holders to a new digital asset following the fork. The increased demand for the pre-fork digital asset may cause the price of the digital asset to rise. After the hard fork, it is possible the aggregate price of the two versions of the digital asset running in parallel would be less than the price of the digital asset immediately prior to the fork. Alternatively, as with any change to software code, software upgrades and other changes to the source code or protocols of the Ethereum network could fail to work as intended or could introduce bugs, coding defects, unanticipated or undiscovered problems, flaws, or security risks, create problematic economic incentives which incentivize behavior which has a negative effect on the Ethereum network’s users, validators, or the Ethereum network as a whole, or otherwise adversely affect, the speed, security, usability, or value of the Ethereum network or ether. If a fork caused operational problems for either post-fork network or blockchain, the digital assets associated with the affected network could lose some or all of their value. Furthermore, while the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Declaration of Trust, determine which network is generally accepted as the Ethereum network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Fund’s purposes, and there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the network and the associated digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork. Any of these events could therefore adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

In September 2022, the Ethereum network transitioned to a proof-of-stake consensus model, in an upgrade referred to as the “Merge.” Following the Merge, a hard fork of the Ethereum network occurred, as a small number of Ethereum validators and network participants planned to maintain the proof-of-work consensus mechanism that was removed as part of the Merge. This version of the network, which is not backwards-compatible with the Ethereum Lay 1 blockchain, is considered a forked branch and was rebranded as “Ethereum Proof-of-Work.” To the extent significant developer talent, users or validators abandon the Ethereum Layer 1 network and adopt the Ethereum Proof-of-Work blockchain instead, the value of the Shares could be adversely affected.

Current wording

In September 2022, the Ethereum network transitioned to a proof-of-stake consensus model, in an upgrade referred to as the “Merge.” Following the Merge, a hard fork of the Ethereum network occurred, as a small number of Ethereum validators and network participants planned to maintain the proof-of-work consensus mechanism that was removed as part of the Merge. This version of the network, which is not backwards-compatible with the Ethereum Layer 1 blockchain, is considered a forked branch and was rebranded as “Ethereum Proof-of-Work.” To the extent significant developer talent, users or validators abandon the Ethereum Layer 1 network and adopt the Ethereum Proof-of-Work blockchain instead, the value of the Shares could be adversely affected. The Merge occurred on September 15, 2022 and the price of ether decreased by approximately 17.4% from September 12, 2022 to September 16, 2022, the day after the Merge.

Previous wording

As illustrated by Dencun and the Merge, the Ethereum network regularly implements planned forks in an effort to achieve its development roadmap, advance the scalability process, and to improve the network generally. For example, in connection with the Ethereum development roadmap, the Ethereum network executed planned forks to transition from the initial Frontier development stage into the Homestead development stage in 2016; to transition from the Homestead development stage to the first sub-stage, Byzantium, of the Metropolis development stage in 2017; to transition from the Byzantium sub-stage to the St. Petersburg sub-stage in early 2019; and to transition from the St. Petersburg sub-stage to the Istanbul sub-phase, in late 2019. In April 2021, the Ethereum network underwent the Berlin and Altair planned forks, among others. In 2022, Ethereum underwent the Bellatrix and Paris planned forks in connection with the Merge. In 2023, Ethereum underwent the Capella and Shanghai planned forks (collectively, “Shapella”), which enabled withdrawals of staked assets to the Ethereum Layer 1 blockchain mainnet for the first time (they had previously been locked on the Beacon Chain testnet following the Merge). Any of these or future planned forks could fail to work as intended or could introduce bugs, coding defects, unanticipated or undiscovered problems, flaws, or security risks, create problematic economic incentives which incentivize behavior which has a negative effect on the Ethereum network’s nodes, users, validators, or the Ethereum network as a whole, or otherwise adversely affect, the speed, security, usability, or value of the Ethereum network or ether. Alternatively, such hard forks could be contentious, leading to a split and fracture in the Ethereum community to its collective detriment, as discussed above. Any such outcomes could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

As illustrated by Dencun and the Merge, the Ethereum network regularly implements planned forks in an effort to achieve its development roadmap, advance the scalability process, and to improve the network generally. For example, in connection with the Ethereum development roadmap, the Ethereum network executed planned forks to transition from the initial Frontier development stage into the Homestead development stage in 2016; to transition from the Homestead development stage to the first sub-stage, Byzantium, of the Metropolis development stage in 2017; to transition from the Byzantium sub-stage to the St. Petersburg sub-stage in early 2019; and to transition from the St. Petersburg sub-stage to the Istanbul sub-phase, in late 2019. In April 2021, the Ethereum network underwent the Berlin and Altair planned forks, among others. In 2022, Ethereum underwent the Bellatrix and Paris planned forks in connection with the Merge. In 2023, Ethereum underwent the Capella and Shanghai planned forks (collectively, “Shapella”), which enabled withdrawals of staked assets to the Ethereum Layer 1 blockchain mainnet for the first time (they had previously been locked on the Beacon Chain testnet following the Merge). On May 7, 2025, "Pectra" which is a combination of the Prague execution layer hard fork and the Electra consensus layer upgrade, went live. Pectra, among other changes, increased the maximum amount of ether that a validator can stake from 32 to 2,048, allowing validators to manage higher balances with the goal of potentially reducing costs; introduce account abstraction, allowing externally owned accounts (EOAs) to temporarily function like smart contracts; and reduce security risks and shorten the wait time for new validators. Any of these or future planned forks could fail to work as intended or could introduce bugs, coding defects, unanticipated or undiscovered problems, flaws, or security risks, create problematic economic incentives which incentivize behavior which has a negative effect on the Ethereum network’s nodes, users, validators, or the Ethereum network as a whole, or otherwise adversely affect, the speed, security, usability, or value of the Ethereum network or ether. Alternatively, such hard forks could be contentious, leading to a split and fracture in the Ethereum community to its collective detriment, as discussed above. Any such outcomes could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

The Fund will not hold any crypto asset other than ether. 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. 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 Ether 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.

Current wording

The Fund does not intend to hold assets other than ether and cash. 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. 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 Ether 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

Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to any airdrop of any non-ether 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 ether, or any similar event, the Sponsor will cause the Fund to irrevocably abandon such non-ether 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. Furthermore, neither the Trust or the Fund, nor the Sponsor, nor the Ether Custodian, nor any other person associated with the Trust or Fund will, directly or indirectly, engage in action where any portion of the Fund’s ether becomes subject to the Ethereum proof-of-stake validation or is used to earn additional ether or generate income or other earnings. Foregoing potential returns from staking activities could cause an investment in the Shares to deviate from that which would have been obtained by purchasing and holding ether directly by virtue of giving up staking as a source of return when an investor holds the Shares. The Fund will not acquire and will disclaim any Incidental Right or Incidental Right asset received, for example as a result of forks or airdrops, and such assets will not be taken into account for purposes of determining NAV. For the avoidance of doubt, the only crypto asset to be held by the Fund will be ether; 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

Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to any airdrop of any non-ether 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 ether, or any similar event, the Sponsor will cause the Fund to irrevocably abandon such non-ether crypto asset.

Previous wording

Additionally, the Ethereum Blockchain implements “bonding” and “unbonding” buffer periods moderating when stakers can unstake and withdraw their stake. “Bonding” is the process of telling the network a token holder wants to stake tokens, and “unbonding” is the action of telling the network the token holder want to unlock tokens. As part of these “bonding” and “unbonding” processes of Ethereum staking, any staked ether tokens will be inaccessible for a period of time. This prevents malicious actors from performing an attack and running away before their funds are slashed. The duration of bonding and unbonding periods are dependent on a range of factors, including network conditions. However, depending on demand, unstaking can take between hours, weeks or months to complete.

Current wording

Additionally, the Ethereum Blockchain implements “bonding” and “unbonding” buffer periods moderating when stakers can unstake and withdraw their stake. “Bonding” is the process of telling the network a token holder wants to stake tokens, and “unbonding” is the action of telling the network the token holder wants to unlock tokens. As part of these “bonding” and “unbonding” processes of Ethereum staking, any staked ether tokens will be inaccessible for a period of time. This prevents malicious actors from performing an attack and running away before their funds are slashed. The duration of bonding and unbonding periods are dependent on a range of factors, including network conditions. However, depending on demand, unstaking can take between hours, weeks or months to complete.

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 ether as a form of payment or the purchase of ether 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 ether as a form of payment or the purchase of ether on the digital asset markets;

Previous wording

● global or regional political, economic or financial conditions, events and situations, or major public issues such as the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) outbreak;

Current wording

global or regional political, economic or financial conditions, events and situations, or major public issues, including pandemics or health epidemics;

Previous wording

● increased competition from other forms of digital assets or networks, including other blockchain networks combining smart contracts, programmable scripting languages, and an associated runtime environment, with blockchain-based recordkeeping, particularly where such other blockchain networks are able to offer users access to a larger consumer user base, greater efficiency, reliability, or processing speed, or more economical transaction processing fees than the Ethereum network; and

Current wording

increased competition from other forms of digital assets or networks, including other blockchain networks combining smart contracts, programmable scripting languages, and an associated runtime environment, with blockchain-based recordkeeping, particularly where such other blockchain networks are able to offer users access to a larger consumer user base, greater efficiency, reliability, or processing speed, more economical transaction processing fees, or any other favorable attributes, than the Ethereum network; and

Previous wording

The ether market globally and in the United States is not subject to comparable regulatory guardrails as exist in regulated securities markets. Furthermore, many ether 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 ether 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 platforms, or may not exist at all. The SEC has identified possible sources of fraud and manipulation in the digital asset markets generally, including, among others (1) “wash trading”; (2) persons with a dominant position in a digital asset manipulating the digital asset’s pricing; (3) hacking of the digital asset’s peer-to-peer network, protocols and trading platforms; (4) malicious control of the digital asset network; (5) trading based on material, non-public information (for example, plans of market participants to significantly increase or decrease their holdings in the digital asset, new sources of demand for the digital asset, etc.) 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 Ether 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 digital asset 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 the digital asset markets and/or cause distortions in price, which could adversely affect the Fund or cause losses to Shareholders.

Current wording

The ether market globally and in the United States is not subject to comparable regulatory guardrails as exist in regulated securities markets. Furthermore, many ether trading venues lack certain safeguards put in place by exchanges for more traditional assets to enhance the stability of trading on the exchanges and prevent “flash crashes,” such as limit-down circuit breakers, as demonstrated by the October 2025 Flash Crash. As a result, the prices of ether 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 platforms, or may not exist at all. The SEC has identified possible sources of fraud and manipulation in the digital asset markets generally, including, among others (1) “wash trading”; (2) persons with a dominant position in a digital asset manipulating the digital asset’s pricing; (3) hacking of the digital asset’s peer-to-peer network, protocols and trading platforms; (4) malicious control of the digital asset network; (5) trading based on material, non-public information (for example, plans of market participants to significantly increase or decrease their holdings in the digital asset, new sources of demand for the digital asset, etc. or other events which could affect the price of the digital asset) 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 Ether 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 digital asset 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 the digital asset markets 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 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 bitcoins 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. Regulatory enforcement actions have followed, such as in July 2017, when 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 digital asset platform Youbit, suspended digital asset trading and filed for bankruptcy following a hack that resulted in a loss of 17% of Yapian’s assets. Following the hack, Youbit users were allowed to withdraw approximately 75% of the digital assets in their 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 platform, Coincheck, was hacked, resulting in losses of approximately $535 million, and in February 2018, the Italian digital asset platform 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 ap…

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. Regulatory enforcement actions have followed, such as in July 2017, when 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 digital asset platform Youbit, suspended digital asset trading and filed for bankruptcy following a hack that resulted in a loss of 17% of Yapian’s assets. Following the hack, Youbit users were allowed to withdraw approximately 75% of the digital assets in their platform accounts, with any potential further distributions to be made following Yapian’s pending bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, in January 2018, the Japanese digital asset platform, Coincheck, was hacked, resulting in losses of approximately $535 million, and in February 2018, the Italian digital asset platform 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 appr…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

The Index has a limited performance history, the Index price could fail to track the global ether 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 ether 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 Ether Reference Rate (“ETHUSD_RR”) which was first introduced in May 2018, 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 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 Platforms chosen by the Index Administrator could also change over time. The Index Administrator may remove or add Constituent Platforms to the CF Benchmarks Index in the future at its discretion. For more information on the inclusion criteria for Constituent Platforms in the CF Benchmarks Index, see “Business of the Fund-Valuation of Ether; The CF Benchmarks Index.”

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 Ether Reference Rate (“ETHUSD_RR”) which was first introduced in May 2018, 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 July 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 Benchmarks Index in the future at its discretion. For more information on the inclusion criteria for Constituent Platforms in the CF Benchmarks Index, see “Business of the Fund-Valuation of Ether; The CF Benchmarks Index” in the Prospectus.

Previous wording

Although the Index is intended to accurately capture the market price of ether, third parties may be able to purchase and sell ether on public or private markets not included among the Constituent Platforms, and such transactions may take place at prices materially higher or lower than the Index price. Moreover, there may be variances in the prices of ether on the various Constituent Platforms, including as a result of differences in fee structures or administrative procedures on different Constituent Platforms. While the Index provides a U.S. dollar-denominated composite CF Benchmarks Index for the price of ether based on, in the case of the CF Benchmarks Index, the volume-weighted price of ether on certain Constituent Platforms, at any given time, the prices on each such Constituent Platform or pricing source may not be equal to the value of an ether as represented by the Index. It is possible that the price of ether on the Constituent Platforms could be materially higher or lower than the Index price. To the extent the Index price differs materially from the actual prices available on a Constituent Platform, or the global market price of ether, the price of the Shares may no longer track, whether temporarily or over time, the global market price of ether, which could adversely affect an investment in the Fund by reducing investors’ confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of ether. To the extent such prices differ materially from the Index price, investors may lose confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of ether, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

Although the Index is intended to accurately capture the market price of ether, third parties may be able to purchase and sell ether on public or private markets not included among the Constituent Platforms, and such transactions may take place at prices materially higher or lower than the Index price. Moreover, there may be variances in the prices of ether on the various Constituent Platforms, including as a result of differences in fee structures or administrative procedures on different Constituent Platforms. While the Index provides a U.S. dollar-denominated composite for the price of ether based on, in the case of the CF Benchmarks Index, the volume-weighted price of ether on certain Constituent Platforms, at any given time, the prices on each such Constituent Platform or pricing source may not be equal to the value of an ether as represented by the Index. It is possible that the price of ether on the Constituent Platform could be materially higher or lower than the Index price. To the extent the Index price differs materially from the actual prices available on a Constituent Platform, or the global market price of ether, the price of the Shares may no longer track, whether temporarily or over time, the global market price of ether, which could adversely affect an investment in the Fund by reducing investors’ confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of ether. To the extent such prices differ materially from the Index price, investors may lose confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of ether, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

Additionally, under certain circumstances as described herein under "Net Asset Value—Business of the Fund," the Sponsor may utilize the Secondary Index (defined below) as a secondary pricing source. The Secondary Index incepted on March 15, 2022 and has a limited performance history. A longer history of performance through various economic and market conditions would provide greater and more reliable information regarding the performance of the Secondary Index over time. Accordingly, the Secondary Index is subject generally to the same risks as described above and may not accurately capture the price of ether.

Current wording

Additionally, under certain circumstances as described in the Prospectus, the Sponsor may utilize the Secondary Index (defined below) as a secondary pricing source. The Secondary Index incepted on March 15, 2022 and has a limited performance history. A longer history of performance through various economic and market conditions would provide greater and more reliable information regarding the performance of the Secondary Index over time. Accordingly, the Secondary Index is subject generally to the same risks as described above and may not accurately capture the price of ether.

Previous wording

The CF Benchmarks Index is used to determine the net asset value of the Fund and the NAV. Consequently, losses or costs associated with the CF Benchmarks Index’s errors or other risks described above will generally be borne by the Fund and the Shareholders and neither the Sponsor nor its affiliates or agents make any representations or warranties regarding the foregoing. If the CF Benchmarks Index is not available or the Sponsor in its sole discretion determines the CF Benchmarks Index is unreliable as the Index and therefore determines not to use the CF Benchmarks Index the Fund’s holdings may be fair valued by the Sponsor. See “Business of the Fund-Net Asset Value.” To the extent the valuation determined by the Sponsor differs materially from the actual market price of ether, the price of the Shares may no longer track, whether temporarily or over time, the price of ether, which could adversely affect an investment in the Fund and the value of Shares by reducing investors’ confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the price of ether.

Current wording

The CF Benchmarks Index is used to determine the net asset value of the Fund and the NAV. Consequently, losses or costs associated with the CF Benchmarks Index’s errors or other risks described above will generally be borne by the Fund and the Shareholders and neither the Sponsor nor its affiliates or agents make any representations or warranties regarding the foregoing. If the CF Benchmarks Index is not available or the Sponsor in its sole discretion determines the CF Benchmarks Index is unreliable as the Index and therefore determines not to use the CF Benchmarks Index the Fund’s holdings may be fair valued by the Sponsor. See “Business of the Fund-Net Asset Value” in the Prospectus. To the extent the valuation determined by the Sponsor differs materially from the actual market price of ether, the price of the Shares may no longer track, whether temporarily or over time, the price of ether, which could adversely affect an investment in the Fund and the value of Shares by reducing investors’ confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the price of ether.

Previous wording

Central banks in various countries have introduced digital forms of legal tender (CBDCs). Whether or not they incorporate blockchain or similar technology, CBDCs, as legal tender in the issuing jurisdiction, could have an advantage in competing with, or replace, ether and other cryptocurrencies as a medium of exchange or store of value. Central banks and other governmental entities have also announced cooperative initiatives and consortia with private sector entities, with the goal of leveraging blockchain and other technology to reduce friction in cross-border and interbank payments and settlement, and commercial banks and other financial institutions have also recently announced a number of initiatives of their own to incorporate new technologies, including blockchain and similar technologies, into their payments and settlement activities, which could compete with, or reduce the demand for, ether. As a result of any of the foregoing factors, the value of ether could decrease, which could adversely affect an investment in the Fund.

Current wording

Central banks in various countries have introduced digital forms of legal tender (CBDCs). Whether or not they incorporate blockchain or similar technology, CBDCs, as legal tender in the issuing jurisdiction, could have an advantage in competing with, or replace, ether and other crypto assets as a medium of exchange or store of value. Central banks and other governmental entities have also announced cooperative initiatives and consortia with private sector entities, with the goal of leveraging blockchain and other technology to reduce friction in cross-border and interbank payments and settlement, and commercial banks and other financial institutions have also recently announced a number of initiatives of their own to incorporate new technologies, including blockchain and similar technologies, into their payments and settlement activities, which could compete with, or reduce the demand for, ether. As a result of any of the foregoing factors, the value of ether could decrease, which could adversely affect an investment in the Fund.

Previous wording

While the Fund does not invest in stablecoins, it may nonetheless be exposed to risks that stablecoins pose for the ether market and other digital asset markets. Stablecoins are digital assets designed to have a stable value over time as compared to typically volatile digital assets, and are typically marketed as being pegged to a fiat currency, such as the U.S. dollar, at a certain value. Although the prices of stablecoins are intended to be stable, their market value may fluctuate. This volatility has in the past apparently impacted the price of ether. Stablecoins are a relatively new phenomenon, and it is impossible to know all of the risks that they could pose to participants in the ether market. In addition, some have argued that some stablecoins, particularly Tether, are improperly issued without sufficient backing in a way that, when the stablecoin is used to pay for bitcoin, could cause artificial rather than genuine demand for bitcoin, artificially inflating the price of bitcoin, and if true, there is no assurance similar dynamics would not be at work in the market for ether. There have been reports that those associated with certain stablecoins may be involved in laundering money. On February 17, 2021, the New York Attorney General entered into an agreement with Tether’s operators, including Bitfinex, requiring them to cease any further trading activity with New York persons and pay $18.5 million in penalties for false and misleading statements made regarding the assets backing Tether. On October 15, 2021, the CFTC announced a settlement with Tether’s operators, Tether Holdings Limited, Tether Operations Limited, Tether Limited, and Tether International Limited, in which they agreed to pay $42.5 million in fines to settle charges that, among others, Tether’s claims that it maintained sufficient U.S. dollar reserves to back every Tether stablecoin in circulation with the “equivalent amount of corresponding fiat currency” held by Tether were untrue. Bitfinex also agreed to pay the CFTC a $1.5 billion fine to settle charges that Bitfinex offered off-exchange leveraged, margined, or financed transactions involving cryptocurrencies, including ether, with U.S. customers who were not eligible contract participants and accepted funds (including in the form of Tether stablecoins) and orders in connection with such illegal off-exchange transactions, triggering an obligation to register with the CFTC, which the CFTC order asserts it violated. The CFTC previously fined Bitfinex in 2016 on similar charges. In addition, a large amount of Tether is issued as ERC-20 tokens on the Ethereum network. If Tether were to no longer be issued or operating on the Ethereum network, there would be no need to use ether to pay the gas fees needed to record ERC-20 Tether transactions on the Ethereum blockchain, and a substantial source of demand for ether could be eliminated, which could cause the price of ether to decrease, affecting the value of the Shares.

Current wording

While the Fund does not invest in stablecoins, it may nonetheless be exposed to risks that stablecoins pose for the ether market and other digital asset markets. Stablecoins are digital assets designed to have a stable value over time as compared to typically volatile digital assets, and are typically marketed as being pegged to a fiat currency, such as the U.S. dollar, at a certain value. Although the prices of stablecoins are intended to be stable, their market value may fluctuate. This volatility has in the past impacted the price of ether. Stablecoins are a relatively new phenomenon, and it is impossible to know all of the risks that they could pose to participants in the ether market. Like CBDCs, stablecoins could compete with, or replace, ether and other digital assets as a medium of exchange or store of value. In addition, some have argued that some stablecoins, particularly Tether, are improperly issued without sufficient backing in a way that, when the stablecoin is used to pay for bitcoin, could cause artificial rather than genuine demand for bitcoin, artificially inflating the price of bitcoin, and if true, there is no assurance similar dynamics would not be at work in the market for ether. There have been reports that those associated with certain stablecoins may be involved in laundering money. On February 17, 2021 the New York Attorney General entered into an agreement with Tether’s operators, including Bitfinex, requiring them to cease any further trading activity with New York persons and pay $18.5 million in penalties for false and misleading statements made regarding the assets backing Tether. On October 15, 2021, the CFTC announced a settlement with Tether’s operators, Tether Holdings Limited, Tether Operations Limited, Tether Limited, and Tether International Limited, in which they agreed to pay $42.5 million in fines to settle charges that, among others, Tether’s claims that it maintained sufficient U.S. dollar reserves to back every Tether stablecoin in circulation with the “equivalent amount of corresponding fiat currency” held by Tether were untrue. Bitfinex also agreed to pay the CFTC a $1.5 billion fine to settle charges that Bitfinex offered off-exchange leveraged, margined, or financed transactions involving cryptocurrencies, including ether, with U.S. customers who were not eligible contract participants and accepted funds (including in the form of Tether stablecoins) and orders in connection with such illegal off-exchange transactions, triggering an obligation to register with the CFTC, which the CFTC order asserts it violated. The CFTC previously fined Bitfinex in 2016 on similar charges. In addition, a large amount of Tether is issued as ERC-20 tokens on the Ethereum network. If Tether were to no longer be issued or operating on the Ethereum network, there would be no need to use ether to pay the gas fees needed to record ERC-20 Tether transactions on the Ethereum blockchain, and a substantial source of demand for …

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 ether. 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 ether), or regulatory concerns about stablecoin issuers or intermediaries, such as platforms, that support stablecoins, or the removal or migration of prominent stablecoins away from the Ethereum network, could impact individuals’ willingness to trade on trading venues that rely on stablecoins, reduce liquidity in the ether market, and affect the value of ether, 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 ether. A significant portion of the digital asset market continues to depend on stablecoins such as Tether and USDC. As such, any disruption in the operation or perceived stability of these stablecoins such as a disorderly de-pegging event or a loss of market confidence resulting in a run on reserves could lead to substantial market volatility across digital assets more broadly.

Previous wording

As of March 31, 2025, ether was the second largest digital asset by market capitalization of the more than approximately 14,000 alternative digital assets as tracked by CoinGecko.com. 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 Ethereum network. Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets and smart contract platforms, such as Solana, Avalanche, Polkadot, or Cardano, could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, ether and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

As of March 31, 2026, ether was the second largest digital asset by market capitalization of the approximately 16,000 alternative digital assets as tracked by CoinGecko.com. 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 Ethereum network. Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets and smart contract platforms, such as Solana, Avalanche, Tron, BNB Coin, Polkadot, or Cardano, among many others, could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, ether and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

In addition, some digital asset networks, including the Ethereum network, may be the target of ill will from users of other digital asset networks. For example, in July 2016, the Ethereum network underwent a contentious hard fork that resulted in the creation of a new digital asset network called Ethereum Classic. As a result, some users of the Ethereum Classic network may harbor ill will toward the Ethereum network. These users may attempt to negatively impact the use or adoption of the Ethereum network. For additional information on the hard fork that resulted in the creation of Ethereum Classic, see “Overview of the Ethereum Industry - History of Ethereum -The DAO and Ethereum Classic.”

Current wording

In addition, some digital asset networks, including the Ethereum network, may be the target of ill will from users of other digital asset networks. For example, in July 2016, the Ethereum network underwent a contentious hard fork that resulted in the creation of a new digital asset network called Ethereum Classic. As a result, some users of the Ethereum Classic network may harbor ill will toward the Ethereum network. These users may attempt to negatively impact the use or adoption of the Ethereum network. For additional information on the hard fork that resulted in the creation of Ethereum Classic, see “Overview of the Ethereum Industry - History of Ethereum -The DAO and Ethereum Classic” in the Prospectus.

Previous wording

Competitive pressures may negatively affect the ability of the Fund to garner substantial assets and achieve commercial success.

Current wording

Competitive pressures may negatively affect the ability of the Fund to maintain substantial assets and achieve long-term commercial success.

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. In July 2024, the SEC approved several spot ether 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.

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. There are several competitor spot ether exchange-traded products available in the market and it is possible that 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

A public health emergency, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, could adversely affect the economics of many nations and could have serious negative effects on social, economic and financial systems, including significant uncertainty and volatility in the digital asset markets. For example, digital asset prices, including ether decreased significantly in the first quarter of 2020 amidst broader market declines as a result of the COVID‑19 outbreak.

Current wording

A public health emergency could adversely affect the economics of many nations and could have serious negative effects on social, economic and financial systems, including significant uncertainty and volatility in the digital asset markets. For example, digital asset prices, including ether decreased significantly in the first quarter of 2020 amidst broader market declines as a result of the novel coronavirus outbreak.