Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund

Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets

The trading prices of many digital assets, including bitcoin, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of bitcoin, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value.

Prior to 2022, digital assets such as Bitcoin experienced repeated cycles of steep price increases followed by sharp drawdowns, reflecting their highly speculative nature and sensitivity to market sentiment. From 2022 through 2025, volatility remained a defining characteristic, influenced by macroeconomic conditions, regulatory developments, and liquidity shocks. While price swings persist, the growing presence of Exchange-Traded Products, derivatives, and institutional risk management tools has contributed to a more mature market environment relative to earlier cycles.

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

Digital assets such as bitcoin have a limited operating history relative to traditional asset classes, and the medium-to-long term value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies and to the fundamental investment characteristics of digital assets.

Digital assets such as bitcoin have a limited operating history relative to traditional asset classes, and the medium-to-long term value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies, such as the recentness of their development, their dependence on the internet and other technologies, their dependence on the role played by users, developers and miners and the potential for malicious activity. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

•

Digital asset networks and the software used to operate them are in the early stages of development. Given the recentness of the development of digital asset networks, digital assets may not function as intended and parties may be unwilling to use digital assets, which would dampen the growth, if any, of digital asset networks.

•

Digital asset networks are dependent upon the internet. A disruption of the internet or a digital asset network, such as the Bitcoin network, would affect the ability to transfer digital assets, including bitcoin, and, consequently, their value.

•

The acceptance of software patches or upgrades by a significant, but not overwhelming, percentage of the users and miners in a digital asset network, such as the Bitcoin network, could result in a “fork” in such network’s blockchain, resulting in the operation of multiple separate networks.

•

Governance of the Bitcoin network is by voluntary consensus and open competition. As a result, governance challenges such as lack of consensus may stymie the Bitcoin network’s utility and ability to grow and face challenges. In particular, it may be difficult to find solutions or martial sufficient effort to overcome any future problems on the Bitcoin network, especially long-term problems.

•

The foregoing notwithstanding, the Bitcoin network’s protocol is informally managed by a group of core developers that propose amendments to the Bitcoin network’s source code. The core developers evolve over time, largely based on self- determined participation. To the extent that a significant majority of users and miners adopt amendments to the Bitcoin network, the Bitcoin network will be subject to new protocols that may adversely affect the value of bitcoin. 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.

•

Over the past several years, digital asset mining operations have evolved from individual users mining with computer processors, graphics processing units and first-generation application specific integrated circuit machines to “professionalized” mining operations using proprietary hardware or sophisticated machines. If the profit margins of digital asset mining operations are not sufficiently high, including due to an increase in electricity costs, digital asset miners are more likely to immediately sell tokens earned by mining, resulting in an increase in liquid supply of that digital asset, which would generally tend to reduce that digital asset’s market price.

•

To the extent that any miners cease to record transactions that do not include the payment of a transaction fee in solved blocks or do not record a transaction because the transaction fee is too low, such transactions will not be recorded on the blockchain until a block is mined by a miner who does not require the payment of transaction fees or is willing to accept a lower fee. Any widespread delays in the recording of transactions could result in a loss of confidence in a digital asset network.

•

Digital asset mining operations can consume significant amounts of electricity, which may have a negative environmental impact and give rise to public opinion against allowing, or government regulations restricting, the use of electricity for mining operations. Additionally, miners may be forced to cease operations during an electricity shortage or power outage.

•

Many digital asset networks face significant scaling challenges and are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. These attempts to increase the volume of transactions may not be effective.

•

The open-source structure of many digital asset network protocols, such as the protocol for the Bitcoin 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. A failure to properly monitor and upgrade the protocol of the Bitcoin network could damage that network.

•

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

Moreover, because digital assets, including bitcoin, have been in existence for a short period of time and are continuing to develop, there may be additional risks in the future that are impossible to predict as of the date of this Annual Report.

Digital asset networks are developed by a diverse set of contributors and the perception that certain high-profile contributors will no longer contribute to the network could have an adverse effect on the market price of the related digital asset.

Digital asset networks are often developed by a diverse set of contributors, and the perception that high-profile contributors may no longer contribute to the network may have an adverse effect on the market price of any related digital assets. For example, in June 2017, an unfounded rumor circulated that Ethereum protocol developer Vitalik Buterin had died. Following the rumor, the price of ETH decreased approximately 20% before recovering after Buterin himself dispelled the rumor. In the event a high-profile contributor to the Bitcoin network is perceived as no longer able to contribute to the Bitcoin network due to death, retirement, withdrawal, incapacity, or otherwise, whether or not such perception is valid, it could negatively affect the price of bitcoin, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Recent developments in the digital asset economy have led to extreme volatility and disruption in digital asset markets, a loss of confidence in participants of the digital asset ecosystem, significant negative publicity surrounding digital assets broadly and market-wide declines in liquidity.

Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2021 and continuing to date, digital asset prices have fluctuated widely. This has led to volatility and disruption in the digital asset markets and financial difficulties for several prominent industry participants, including digital asset trading platforms, hedge funds and lending platforms. For example, in the first half of 2022, digital asset lenders Celsius Network LLC and Voyager Digital Ltd. and digital asset hedge fund Three Arrows Capital each declared bankruptcy, and the stablecoin TerraUSD collapsed. These events caused a loss of confidence in participants in the digital asset ecosystem, negative publicity surrounding digital assets more broadly and market-wide declines in digital asset trading prices and liquidity.

Thereafter, in November 2022, FTX Trading Ltd. (“FTX”), the third largest digital asset trading platform by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals amid rumors of the company’s liquidity issues and likely insolvency. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned and FTX and numerous affiliates of FTX filed for bankruptcy. The U.S. Department of Justice subsequently brought criminal charges, including charges of fraud, violations of federal securities laws, money laundering, and campaign finance offenses, against FTX’s former CEO and others. In November 2023, FTX’s former CEO was convicted of fraud and money laundering. Similar charges related to violations of anti-money laundering laws were brought in November 2023 against Binance and its former CEO. FTX is also under investigation by the SEC, the Justice Department, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as well as by various regulatory authorities in the Bahamas, Europe and other jurisdictions. In response to these events, the digital asset markets have experienced extreme price volatility and declines in liquidity, and regulatory and enforcement scrutiny has increased, including from the DOJ, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress. 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. The SEC also brought charges against Genesis Global Capital, LLC and Gemini Trust Company, LLC on January 12, 2023 for their alleged unregistered offer and sale of securities to retail investors. In October 2023, the New York Attorney General brought charges against Gemini, Genesis Global Capital and numerous affiliates of Genesis Global Capital, and Digital Currency Group alleging violations of law relating to the Gemini Earn program. In May 2024, the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York approved a settlement of the charges with the Genesis entities.

These events resulted in calls for heightened scrutiny and regulation of the digital asset industry, with a specific focus on digital asset trading platforms, and custodians. For example, in June 2023, the SEC brought charges against Binance (the “Binance Complaint”) and Coinbase (the “Coinbase Complaint”), two of the largest digital asset trading platforms, alleging that they solicited U.S. investors to buy, sell, and trade “crypto asset securities” through their unregistered trading platforms and operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. Binance subsequently announced that it would be suspending USD deposits and withdrawals on Binance.US and that it plans to delist its USD trading pairs. In addition, in November 2023, the SEC brought similar charges against Kraken (the “Kraken Complaint”), alleging that it operated as an unregistered securities exchange, brokerage and clearing agency. The Binance Complaint, the Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint led to further volatility in digital asset prices. In January 2025, the SEC launched the Crypto Task Force dedicated to developing a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework for digital assets led by Commissioner Hester Peirce. Subsequently, Commissioner Peirce announced a list of specific priorities to further that initiative, which included pursuing final rules related to a digital asset’s security status, a revised path to registered offerings and listings for digital asset-based investment vehicles, and clarity regarding digital asset custody, lending and staking. In February 2025, a 60-day stay was granted in the SEC’s lawsuit against Binance in response to a joint request by both the SEC and Binance, which acknowledged that the SEC’s newly formed Crypto Task Force’s focus on developing a federal securities law framework for digital assets may resolve the case. In February 2025, Coinbase and the SEC entered into a joint stipulation to dismiss the SEC’s lawsuit with prejudice, subject to the court’s approval. Kraken has also announced that it reached an agreement in principle with the SEC to dismiss the SEC’s lawsuit, subject to formal approval by the SEC’s Commissioners. Several other digital asset market participants have also announced that the SEC informed them that the SEC was terminating its investigation or enforcement action into their firm. The final outcome of these lawsuits (to the extent not yet dismissed), their effect on the broader digital asset ecosystem and the reputational impact on industry participants, remain uncertain.

The U.S. regulatory regime – namely the Federal Reserve Board, U.S. Congress and certain U.S. agencies (e.g., the SEC, the CFTC, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation) as well as the White House have issued reports and releases concerning digital assets, including bitcoin and digital asset markets. However, the extent and content of any forthcoming laws and regulations are not yet ascertainable with certainty, and it may not be ascertainable in the near future. It is possible that new laws and increased regulation and regulatory scrutiny may require the Trust to comply with certain regulatory regimes, which could result in new costs for the Trust. The Trust may have to devote increased time and attention to regulatory matters, which could increase costs to the Trust. New laws, regulations and regulatory actions could significantly restrict or eliminate the market for, or uses of, digital assets including bitcoin, which could have a negative effect on the value of bitcoin, which in turn would have a negative effect on the value of the Trust’s Shares.

These events are continuing to develop at a rapid pace and it is not possible to predict at this time all of the risks that they may pose to the Sponsor, the Trust, their affiliates and/or the Trust’s third-party service providers, or to the digital asset industry as a whole.

Continued disruption and instability in the digital asset markets as these events develop, including further declines in the trading prices and liquidity of bitcoin, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value.

The largest bitcoin wallets are believed to hold, in aggregate, a significant percentage of the bitcoins in circulation. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant number of bitcoins, even if they individually only hold a small amount, and it is possible that some of these wallets are controlled by the same person or entity. As a result of this concentration of ownership, large sales or distributions by such holders could have an adverse effect on the market price of bitcoin.

It may be illegal now, or in the future, to acquire, own, hold, sell or use digital assets in one or more countries.

Countries such as China, India and Russia have previously taken regulatory action to prohibit certain activities relating to digital assets and may take additional steps to prohibit or otherwise limit the use of digital assets in the future. In addition, countries may impose new or existing regulatory regimes on digital assets that are inconsistent with their intended operation. The imposition of such regulatory regimes on digital assets may have wide ranging implications on the offer, sale, trading, clearing and use of such assets, which may impede their continued adoption. Such regulatory regimes may adversely affect an investment in the Shares.

For example, in the United States, the SEC has been active in asserting its jurisdiction over digital assets. Specifically, the SEC and its staff have taken the position that certain digital assets fall within the definition of a security under the U.S. federal securities laws, beginning with the June 2017 Report of Investigation that concluded that “DAO Tokens” were investment contracts, because they were issued with the purpose of raising funds for investing in digital assets. The bankruptcy filings of FTX, the third largest digital asset trading platform by volume at the time of its filing, and other bankruptcy filings of crypto companies throughout calendar year 2022 increased the regulatory scrutiny of the digital asset industry. In 2023, the SEC charged each of Coinbase and Binance with operating its digital asset trading platform as an unregistered national securities exchange, broker and clearing agency, asserting that certain assets supported on each trading platform are securities. The SEC also brought similar charges against Kraken, alleging that it operated as an unregistered securities exchange, brokerage and clearing agency. While the SEC has entered into joint stipulations with Coinbase, Binance and Kraken to dismiss the SEC’s lawsuits with prejudice, subject to court approval, the final outcome of these lawsuits, and other investigations or enforcement actions with other digital asset market participants (to the extent not yet dismissed), their effect on the broader digital asset ecosystem and the reputational impact on industry participants remain uncertain.

In addition, Congress continues to consider potential legislation designed to comprehensively regulate the digital asset industry in the U.S. If enacted, such new legislation could dramatically restructure the regulatory framework within which digital assets may be offered, sold, traded, cleared and used in the U.S. Such a restructuring could affect the viability of digital assets in the U.S. and accordingly adversely affect an investment in the Shares.

Risks Associated with Bitcoin and the Bitcoin Network

Bitcoin is a relatively new technological innovation with a limited operating history.

Bitcoin has a relatively limited history of existence and operations compared to traditional commodities. There is a limited established performance record for the price of bitcoin and, in turn, a limited basis for evaluating an investment in bitcoin. Although past performance is not necessarily indicative of future result, if bitcoin had a more established history, such history might (or might not) provide investors with more information on which to evaluate an investment in the trust.

Spot markets on which bitcoin trades are relatively new and largely unregulated or may not be complying with existing regulations and, therefore, may be more exposed to fraud and security breaches than established, regulated exchanges for other financial assets or instruments, which could have a negative impact on the performance of the Trust.

Digital asset trading platforms are relatively new and, in some cases, unregulated or may not be complying with existing regulations. Several digital asset trading platforms are unlicensed, unregulated, operate without extensive supervision by governmental authorities, and do not provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management team, corporate practices, cybersecurity, and regulatory compliance.

In the U.S., digital asset trading platforms may not be subject to, or may not comply with, regulations governing the operation of national securities exchanges or designated contract markets. Furthermore, while many prominent digital asset trading platforms provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management teams, corporate practices and regulatory compliance, many digital asset trading platforms do not provide this information. Furthermore, because these platforms are largely unregulated or may not be complying with existing regulations, there is an increased risk of fraud, manipulation and other malfeasance on these platforms, both by malicious third-party actors and the platforms’ own personnel. For example, persons with access to trade order information on a digital asset trading platform may use such information to “front-run” those orders, which may go undetected in part due to the lack of regulations requiring those platforms to adopt deterrence mechanisms.

Outside the U.S., digital asset trading platforms may be subject to significantly less stringent regulatory and compliance requirements in their local jurisdictions. As a result, trading activity on or reported by these digital asset trading platforms is generally significantly less regulated than trading in regulated U.S. securities and commodities markets, and may reflect behavior that would be prohibited in regulated U.S. trading venues. For example, in 2019 there were reports claiming that 80.95% of bitcoin trading volume on digital asset trading platforms was false or noneconomic in nature, with specific focus on unregulated platforms located outside of the United States. Such reports may indicate that the digital asset trading platform market is significantly smaller than expected and that the U.S. makes up a significantly larger percentage of the digital asset trading platform market than is commonly understood. Nonetheless, any actual or perceived false trading in the digital asset trading platform market, and any other fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the value of bitcoin and/or negatively affect the market perception of bitcoin. As a result, the marketplace may lose confidence in digital asset trading platform, including prominent exchanges that handle a significant volume of bitcoin trading.

In addition, over the past several years, some digital asset trading platforms have been closed due to fraud and manipulative activity, business failure or security breaches. In many of these instances, the customers of such digital asset trading platforms were not compensated or made whole for the partial or complete losses of their account balances in such digital asset trading platforms. While, generally speaking, smaller digital asset trading platforms are less likely to have the infrastructure and capitalization that make larger digital asset trading platforms more stable, larger digital asset trading platforms are more likely to be appealing targets for hackers and malware and 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 trading platforms could be subject to abrupt failure with consequences for both users of digital asset trading 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 trading platform. The value of bitcoin and other digital assets immediately decreased over 10% following reports of the theft at Bitfinex. In November 2022, FTX, one of the largest digital asset trading 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. Around the same time, there were reports that approximately $300-600 million of digital assets were removed from FTX and the full facts remain unknown, including whether such removal was the result of a hack, theft, insider activity, or other improper behavior. In February 2025, approximately $1.5 billion of ether was stolen from the Dubai-based Bybit exchange. Bybit claims the hack occurred when the company was making a routine transfer of ether from an offline “cold” wallet to a hot wallet, with the attacker suspected to be agents of North Korea hackers, which stole approximately $2.0 billion in cryptocurrency in 2025 and all-time total of approximately $6.8 billion despite fewer attacks. Cyber espionage continues to be a key threat, but attacks on centralized services, personal wallet compromises, and decentralized finance hacks are all contributing to major crypto thefts.

Negative perception, a lack of stability in the digital asset markets and the closure or temporary shutdown of digital asset trading platforms due to fraud, failure or security breaches may reduce confidence in the Bitcoin network and result in greater volatility or decreases in the prices of bitcoin. Furthermore, the closure or temporary shutdown of a digital asset trading platforms used in calculating the Index may result in a loss of confidence in the Trust’s ability to determine its NAV on a daily basis. The potential consequences of a digital asset trading platform’s failure could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Furthermore, some spot markets, including both centralized and decentralized venues, lack certain safeguards put in place by more traditional exchanges to enhance the stability of trading on the exchange and prevent flash crashes, such as limit-down circuit breakers. As a result, the prices of digital assets such as bitcoin on digital asset trading platforms may be subject to larger and/or more frequent sudden declines than assets traded on more traditional exchanges.

A lack of stability in the bitcoin spot markets, including as a result of any manipulation of bitcoin spot markets and the termination or suspension of spot market operations due to fraud, operational failures, cybersecurity breaches, or violations or alleged violations of laws and regulations, may reduce confidence in bitcoin generally and result in greater volatility in the market price of bitcoin and the Shares of the Trust. Furthermore, the closure or temporary shutdown of a bitcoin spot market may impact the Trust’s ability to determine the value of its bitcoin holdings or for the Trust’s Authorized Participants to effectively arbitrage the Trust’s Shares. The potential consequences of a spot market’s failure or failure to prevent market manipulation could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Momentum pricing.

The value of a bitcoin as represented by the Index may also be subject to momentum pricing due to speculation regarding future appreciation in value, leading to greater volatility that could adversely affect the value of the Shares. Momentum pricing typically is associated with growth stocks and other assets whose valuation, as determined by the investing public, is impacted by appreciation in value. Momentum pricing may result in speculation regarding future appreciation in the value of digital assets, which inflates prices and leads to increased volatility. As a result, bitcoin may be more likely to fluctuate in value due to changing investor confidence in future appreciation or depreciation in prices, which could adversely affect the price of bitcoin, and, in turn, an investment in the Trust.

Some market observers have asserted that the bitcoin market is experiencing a “bubble” and have predicted that, in time, the value of bitcoin will fall to a fraction of its current value, or even to zero. Bitcoin has not been in existence long enough for market participants to assess these predictions with any precision, but if these observers are even partially correct, an investment in the Shares may turn out to be substantially worthless.

A decline in the adoption of bitcoin could negatively impact the Trust.

The further development and acceptance of the Bitcoin network, which is part of a new and rapidly changing industry, is subject to a variety of factors that are difficult to evaluate. For example, the Bitcoin network faces significant obstacles to increasing the usage of bitcoin without resulting in higher fees or slower transaction settlement times, and attempts to increase the volume of transactions may not be effective. The slowing, stopping or reversing of the development or acceptance of the Bitcoin network may adversely affect the price of bitcoin and therefore an investment in the Shares.

The use of bitcoin to, among other things, buy and sell goods and services is part of a new and rapidly evolving industry that employs digital assets based upon computer-generated mathematical and/or cryptographic protocols. Bitcoin is a prominent, but not unique, part of this industry. The growth of this industry is subject to a high degree of uncertainty. Currently, market speculators and investors generate a significant portion of demand for bitcoin, which can contribute to price volatility. This price volatility in turn limits the adoption of bitcoin as a means of payment for goods and services. Although certain merchants and major retail and commercial businesses have begun accepting bitcoin as a means of payment for goods and services, consumer use of bitcoin as a means of payment remains limited. A lack of expansion by bitcoin into retail and commercial markets or a contraction of such use may result in a reduction in the price of bitcoin, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

Irrevocable nature of blockchain-recorded transactions.

Bitcoin transactions recorded on the Bitcoin network are not, from an administrative perspective, reversible without the consent and active participation of the recipient of the transaction or, in theory, control or consent of a majority of the nodes on the Bitcoin network. Once a transaction has been verified and recorded in a block that is added to the blockchain, an incorrect transfer of a bitcoin or a theft of bitcoin generally will not be reversible, and the Trust may not be capable of seeking compensation for or return of any such transfer or theft. It is possible that, through computer or human error, or through theft or criminal action, the Trust’s bitcoin could be transferred from custody accounts in incorrect quantities or to unauthorized third parties. To the extent that the Trust is unable to seek a corrective transaction with such third-party or is incapable of identifying the third-party that has received the Trust’s bitcoin through error or theft, the Trust will be unable to revert or otherwise recover incorrectly transferred bitcoin. To the extent that the Trust is unable to seek redress for such error or theft, such loss could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The loss or destruction of a private key required to access bitcoin may be irreversible.

Digital assets, including bitcoin, are controllable only by the possessor of both the unique public key and private key or keys relating to the “digital wallet” in which the digital asset is held. Private keys must be safeguarded and kept private in order to prevent a third-party from accessing the digital asset held in such wallet. To the extent a private key is lost, destroyed or otherwise compromised and no backup of the private key is accessible, the Trust will be unable to access, and will effectively lose, the bitcoin held in the related digital wallet. In addition, if the Trust’s private keys are misappropriated and the Trust’s bitcoin holdings are stolen, including from or by the Custodian, the Trust could lose some or all of its bitcoin holdings, which would adversely impact an investment in the Shares of the Trust. Any loss of private keys relating to digital wallets used to store the Trust’s bitcoin would adversely affect the value of the Shares.

A disruption of the internet may affect bitcoin operations, which may adversely affect the bitcoin industry and an investment in the Trust.

The Bitcoin network relies on the Internet. A significant disruption of Internet connectivity could disrupt the Bitcoin network’s functionality and operations until the disruption in the Internet is resolved. A disruption in the Internet could adversely affect an investment in the Trust or the ability of the Trust to operate. In particular, some variants of digital assets have experienced a number of denial-of-service attacks, which have led to temporary delays in block creation and digital asset transfers. Moreover, it is possible that as bitcoin increases in value, it may become a bigger target for hackers and subject to more frequent hacking and denial-of-service attacks.

Digital assets are also susceptible to border gateway protocol hijacking (“BGP hijacking”). Such an attack can be a very effective way for an attacker to intercept traffic en route to a legitimate destination. BGP hijacking impacts the way different nodes and miners are connected to one another to isolate portions of them from the remainder of the network, which could lead to a risk of the network allowing double-spending and other security issues. If BGP hijacking occurs on the Bitcoin network, participants may lose faith in the security of bitcoin, which could affect bitcoin’s value and consequently the value of the Shares.

Any future attacks that impact the ability to transfer bitcoin could have a material adverse effect on the price of bitcoin and the value of an investment in the Shares.

Potential amendments to the Bitcoin network’s protocols and software could, if accepted and authorized by the Bitcoin network community, adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

The Bitcoin network uses a cryptographic protocol to govern the interactions within the Bitcoin network. A loose community of core developers has evolved to informally manage the source code for the protocol. Membership in the community of core developers evolves over time, largely based on self-determined participation in the resource section dedicated to the Bitcoin network on GitHub.com. The core developers can propose amendments to the Bitcoin network’s source code that could alter the protocols and software of the Bitcoin network and the properties of bitcoin. These alterations occur through software upgrades and could potentially include changes to the irreversibility of transactions and limitations on the mining of new bitcoin. The Bitcoin network could be subject to new protocols and software that may adversely affect an investment in the Trust, to the extent that a significant majority of the users and miners on the Bitcoin network install such software upgrades.

The open-source structure of the Bitcoin network protocol means that the core developers and other contributors are generally not directly compensated for their contributions in maintaining and developing the Bitcoin network protocol. A failure to properly monitor and upgrade the Bitcoin network protocol could damage the Bitcoin network and an investment in the Trust.

The Bitcoin network operates based on an open-source protocol maintained by a group of core developers and other contributors, largely on the GitHub resource section dedicated to development of the Bitcoin network. As the Bitcoin network protocol is not sold or made available subject to licensing or subscription fees and its use does not generate revenues for its development team, the core developers are generally not compensated for maintaining and updating the Bitcoin network protocol. Consequently, there is a lack of financial incentive for developers to maintain or develop the Bitcoin network and the core developers may lack the resources to adequately address emerging issues with the Bitcoin network protocol. Although the Bitcoin network is currently supported by the core developers, there can be no guarantee that such support will continue or be sufficient in the future. Alternatively, entities whose interests are at odds with other participants in the Bitcoin network may seek to obtain control over the Bitcoin network by influencing core developers. For example, malicious actors could attempt to bribe a core developer or group of core developers to propose certain changes to the network core developers. To the extent that material issues arise with the Bitcoin network protocol and the core developers and open-source contributors are unable to address the issues adequately or in a timely manner, the Bitcoin network and an investment in the Trust may be adversely affected.

Decentralized governance of the Bitcoin network could have a negative impact on the performance of the Trust.

Governance of decentralized networks, such as the Bitcoin network, is achieved through voluntary consensus and open competition. In other words, the Bitcoin network has no central decision-making body or clear manner in which participants can come to an agreement other than through overwhelming consensus. The lack of clarity on governance may adversely affect bitcoin’s utility and ability to grow and face challenges, both of which may require solutions and directed effort to overcome problems, especially long-term problems. For example, a seemingly simple technical issue once divided the Bitcoin network community: namely, whether to increase the block size of the blockchain or implement another change to increase the scalability of bitcoin. See“ The Bitcoin network faces scaling challenges and efforts to increase the volume of transactions may not be successful.”

To the extent lack of clarity in corporate governance of the Bitcoin network leads to ineffective decision- making that slows development and growth, the value of the Shares may be adversely affected.

The inability to recognize the economic benefit of a “fork” or an “air drop” could adversely impact an investment in the Trust.

Network Forks.

Bitcoin is open source, meaning that any user can download the software, modify it and then propose that the users and miners of bitcoin adopt the modification. When a modification is introduced and a substantial majority of users and miners consent to the modification, the change is implemented and the Bitcoin network remains uninterrupted. However, a “hard fork” occurs if less than a substantial majority of users and miners consent to the proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the software prior to its modification. In other words, two incompatible networks would then exist: (1) one network running the pre-modified software and (2) another network running the modified software. The effect of such a fork would be the existence of two versions of bitcoin running in parallel, yet lacking interchangeability. This is in contrast to a “soft fork,” or a proposed modification to the software governing the network that results in a post-update network that is compatible with the network as it existed prior to the update, because it restricts the network operations that can be performed after the update.

Forks occur for a variety of reasons. A fork could occur after a significant security breach. Participants on the network could elect to “fork” the network to its state before the hack, effectively reversing the hack. A fork could also be introduced by an unintentional, unanticipated software flaw in the multiple versions of otherwise compatible software run by users. Such a fork could adversely affect bitcoin’s viability. It is possible, however, that a substantial number of users and miners could adopt an incompatible version of the digital asset while resisting community-led efforts to merge the two chains. This would result in a permanent fork.

A fork may occur as a result of disagreement among network participants as to whether a proposed modification to the network should be accepted. For example, on August 1, 2017, the Bitcoin network “forked”, with bitcoin existing on one fork and a new digital asset, “Bitcoin Cash” on another. This fork resulted from a several-year dispute over how to increase the rate of transactions that the Bitcoin network can process. Since then, the Bitcoin network has forked several times to launch new digital assets, such as Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Silver and Bitcoin Diamond.

Forks can introduce new security risks. For example, forks may result in “replay attacks” or attacks in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast to nefarious effect on the other network. After a hard fork, it may become easier for an individual miner or mining pool’s hashing power to exceed 50% of the processing power of the digital asset network, thereby making digital assets that rely on proof of work more susceptible to attack.

The only digital asset that will be held by the Trust is bitcoin. By investing in the Trust rather than directly in bitcoin, Shareholders forgo potential economic benefits associated with forks. If bitcoin were to fork into two digital assets, the Trust may hold, in addition to its existing bitcoin balance, a right to claim an equivalent amount of the new “forked” asset following the hard fork. The Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon any digital asset resulting from a fork in the Bitcoin network (other than what the Sponsor determines to be bitcoin). If the Trust were to change this policy, the Trust would need to seek and obtain certain regulatory approvals, including an amendment to the Trust’s registration statement and approval of an application by the Exchange to amend its listing rules.

Air Drops.

Bitcoin may become subject to an occurrence similar to a fork, which is known as an “air drop.” In an air drop, the promotors of a new digital asset announce to holders of another digital asset that they will be entitled to claim a certain amount of the new digital asset for free, based on the fact that they hold such other digital asset. Air drops are not included in the Index under its current methodology.

The Index does not track air drops involving bitcoin. Accordingly, the Trust will disclaim, and the Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon, all rights to digital assets air dropped to holders of bitcoin. By investing in the Trust rather than directly in bitcoin, Shareholders forgo potential economic benefits associated with air drops. Any change to the Trust’s policy on air dropped assets would require the Trust to seek and obtain certain regulatory approvals, including an amendment to the Trust’s registration statement and approval of an application by the Exchange to amend its listing rules.

In the event of a hard fork of the Bitcoin network, the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, use its discretion to determine which network should be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes, and in doing so may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The only digital asset that will be held by the Trust is bitcoin. In the event of a hard fork of the Bitcoin network, the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, use its sole discretion to determine, in good faith, which peer-to-peer network, among a group of incompatible forks of the Bitcoin network, is generally accepted as the Bitcoin network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes. The Sponsor will base its determination on whatever factors it deems relevant, including but not limited to, the Sponsor’s beliefs regarding expectations of the core developers of bitcoin, the developer roadmap, users of block space (available capacity within a block to store data and execute code) including services and businesses, suppliers of block space (i.e. miners) and their associated incentives, and other constituencies, as well as other non-fundamental factors, the Bitcoin network, the Custodian’s ability and willingness to support the fork, or whatever other factors it deems relevant. There is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork, and the Sponsor’s decision may adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result. The Sponsor may also disagree with Shareholders, the Custodian, other service providers, the Index Provider, cryptocurrency exchanges, or other market participants on what is generally accepted as bitcoin and should therefore be considered “bitcoin” for the Trust’s purposes, which may also adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result. The Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon any digital asset resulting from a fork in the Bitcoin network (other than what the Sponsor determines to be bitcoin). If the Trust were to change this policy, the Trust would need to seek and obtain certain regulatory approvals, including an amendment to the Trust’s registration statement and approval of an application by the Exchange to amend its listing rules.

Bitcoin is subject to cybersecurity risks, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust or the ability of the Trust to operate.

Digital asset networks, including the Bitcoin network, are subject to control by entities that capture a significant amount of the network’s processing power or a significant number of developers important for the operation and maintenance of such digital asset network.

If the majority of the processing power dedicated to mining on the Bitcoin network is controlled by a bad actor (often referred to as a “51% attack”), it may be able to alter the Bitcoin Blockchain on which the Bitcoin network and bitcoin transactions rely, including by constructing fraudulent blocks. In addition, such a bad actor could prevent certain transactions from completing in a timely manner, or at all, and could control, exclude or modify the ordering of transactions, though it could not generate new bitcoin (except through rewards from the creation of fraudulent blocks) or prevent new transactions from being broadcast to the Bitcoin network. Further, a bad actor could “double- spend” its own bitcoin (i.e., spend the same bitcoin in more than one transaction) and prevent the confirmation of other users’ transactions for so long as it maintained control. To the extent that such malicious actor or botnet did not yield its control of the processing power on the Bitcoin network or the network community did not reject the fraudulent blocks as malicious, reversing any changes made to the blockchain may not be possible. Further, a malicious actor or botnet could create a flood of transactions in order to slow down confirmations of transactions on the Bitcoin network. Other digital asset networks have been subject to malicious activity achieved through control of over 50% of the processing power on the network. For example, on May 24, 2018, it was reported that attackers compromised the Bitcoin Gold network in this manner and were successfully able to double-spend units of bitcoin gold in a series of transactions over the course of at least one week and in a total amount of at least $18 million. In August 2020, the Ethereum Classic Network was the target of two double-spend attacks by an unknown actor or actors that gained more than 50% of the processing power of the Ethereum Classic network. The attacks resulted in reorganizations of the Ethereum Classic blockchain that allowed the attacker or attackers to reverse previously recorded transactions in excess of $5.0 million and $1.0 million. Any similar attacks on the Bitcoin network could negatively impact the value of bitcoin and the value of the Shares.

If the feasibility of a bad actor gaining control of the processing power on the Bitcoin network increases, there may be a negative effect on an investment in the Trust. To the extent that the Bitcoin ecosystem, including the core developers and the administrators of mining pools, does not act to ensure greater decentralization of mining processing power, the feasibility of a malicious actor obtaining control of the processing power on the Bitcoin network will increase, which may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

If any of these exploitations or attacks occur, it could result in a loss of public confidence in bitcoin and a decline in the value of bitcoin and, as a result, adversely impact an investment in the Shares.

If miners expend less processing power on the Bitcoin network, it could increase the likelihood of a malicious actor obtaining control.

Miners ceasing operations would reduce the collective processing power on the Bitcoin network, which would adversely affect the confirmation process for transactions (i.e., temporarily decreasing the speed at which blocks are added to the Bitcoin Blockchain until the next scheduled adjustment in difficulty for block solutions). If a reduction in processing power occurs, the Bitcoin network may be more vulnerable to a malicious actor obtaining control in excess of fifty percent (50%) of the processing power on the Bitcoin network. As a result, it may be possible for a bad actor to manipulate the Bitcoin Blockchain and hinder transactions. Any reduction in confidence in the confirmation process or processing power of the Bitcoin network may adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

If bitcoin mining operators divert capital, power, facilities, or personnel away from bitcoin mining to support artificial intelligence and other high‑performance computing workloads, the Bitcoin network’s processing power could decline, at least for a period of time, which may negatively affect network security, transaction processing, and market confidence, and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Miners ceasing operations or materially reducing their processing power contribution would reduce the aggregate hash rate securing the Bitcoin network, which can slow transaction confirmations until the next difficulty adjustment and increase the network’s vulnerability to attacks, including the risk that a malicious actor could obtain sufficient control to manipulate the blockchain or hinder transactions. Shifts of mining capacity toward non‑bitcoin uses may also reflect, or exacerbate, competition for energy and data center resources, given the energy‑intensive nature of proof‑of‑work mining and the significant electricity and infrastructure costs borne by professionalized mining operations. Higher electricity costs, power constraints, or more attractive economics in alternative compute workloads could cause miners to curtail or exit bitcoin mining, which can reduce hash rate, impair security, and contribute to loss of confidence in bitcoin, potentially lowering bitcoin’s market price and adversely affecting the Shares. To the extent miners redirect resources away from validating bitcoin transactions, the network could experience slower settlement until difficulty adjusts, greater fee pressures, and heightened susceptibility to congestion, any of which could negatively impact the attractiveness and usage of the Bitcoin network and, in turn, the value of the Shares.

Cancer nodes.

Cancer nodes are computers that appear to be participating in the Bitcoin network but that are not in fact connected to the network, which a malicious actor sets up to place users onto a separate network or disconnect them from the Bitcoin network. By using cancer nodes, a malicious actor can disconnect the target user from the bitcoin economy entirely by refusing to relay any blocks or transactions.

Double-spending risks.

A malicious actor may attempt to double spend (i.e., spend the same units in more than one transaction) bitcoin by altering the formation of the blockchain. In this type of attack, a miner creates a valid new block containing a double-spend transaction and schedules the release of such attack block so that it is added to the blockchain before a target user’s legitimate transaction can be included in a block. All double-spend attacks require that the miner sequence and execute the steps of its attack with sufficient speed and accuracy. Double- spend attacks require extensive coordination and are very expensive. Typically, transactions that allow for a zero-confirmation acceptance tend to be prone to these types of attacks. Accordingly, traders and merchants may execute instantaneous/zero-confirmation transactions only if they are of sufficiently low-value. Users and merchants can take additional precautions by adjusting their network software programs to connect only to other well-connected participants in the Bitcoin network and to disable incoming connections.

Flaws in source code.

In the past, flaws in the source code for digital asset networks have been exposed and exploited, including flaws that disabled some functionality for users, exposed users’ personal information and/or resulted in the theft of users’ digital assets. Discovery of flaws in or exploitations of the source code that allow malicious actors to take or create money in contravention of known network rules have occurred. The cryptography underlying bitcoin could prove to be flawed or ineffective, or developments in mathematics and/or technology, such as advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry and quantum computing, could make cryptography ineffective. In any of these circumstances, a malicious actor may be able to steal bitcoin held by others, which could adversely affect the demand for bitcoin and therefore adversely impact the price of bitcoin and the value of the Shares. Even if another digital asset other than bitcoin were affected by similar circumstances, any reduction in confidence in the robustness of the source code or cryptography underlying digital assets generally could negatively affect the demand for all digital assets, including bitcoin, and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Mathematical or technological advances could undermine the Bitcoin network’s consensus mechanism.

The Bitcoin network is premised on multiple persons competing to solve cryptographic puzzles quickly. It is possible that mathematical or technological advances, such as the development of quantum computers with significantly more power than computers presently available, could undermine or vitiate the cryptographic consensus mechanism underpinning the Bitcoin Blockchain. Quantum computing technology is an emerging phenomenon, because it is still developing, which makes it difficult to predict its ultimate effect on the future value of bitcoin and other digital assets. However, recent announcements by computer technology companies have suggested that quantum computing technology may be advancing faster than previously anticipated. For example, in February 2025, Microsoft announced its Majorana 1 chip, which is claimed to have the potential to support a one-million-qubit quantum computer. 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 bitcoin. If quantum computing is able to advance in that way, there is a risk that quantum computing could result in the cryptography underlying the Bitcoin network becoming ineffective, which, if realized, could compromise the security of the Bitcoin network, or allow a malicious actor to compromise the wallets holding bitcoin owned by the Trust or others on the Bitcoin network, which would result in losses to Shareholders. While various actors in the Bitcoin 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 Bitcoin 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. If any of the foregoing were to occur, it could result in losses to Shareholders. In any of these circumstances, a malicious actor may be able to compromise the security of the Bitcoin network or take the Trust’s bitcoin, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, the functionality of the Bitcoin network may be negatively affected such that it is no longer attractive to users, thereby dampening demand for bitcoin. Even if another digital asset other than bitcoin were affected by similar circumstances, any reduction in confidence in the source code or cryptography underlying digital assets generally could negatively affect the demand for digital assets and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.