Invesco Galaxy Bitcoin ETF
For the period ended Dec 31, 2025. Filed Mar 2, 2026.
View on SEC.govAbout this filing
A company's yearly report to the SEC, with audited financial statements. It is the fullest account a company gives of its business, its finances and the risks it sees.
FY2025 · Filed Mar 2, 2026
BTCO$75.29-0.5%Stored close · as of Nov 6, 2026
What changed in Risk Factors?
Read the current filingPrevious report: 10-K
Period ended 2024-12-31; filed 2025-02-28.
0000950170-25-029444
Item 1A. RISK FACTORSCurrent report: 10-K
Period ended 2025-12-31; filed 2026-03-02.
0001193125-26-083572
Item 1A. RISK FACTORSThe baseline is this issuer’s latest earlier reporting period of the same form that was filed before the current report. A previous 10-Q is a different quarter, not a year-over-year comparison. Amendments are excluded.
Compared 292 previous paragraphs and 292 current paragraphs.
265 unchanged; 21 reworded; 5 added; 5 removed; 1 previous and 1 current paragraphs rearranged.
Tables are not compared: 0 previous and 0 current tables excluded. Dates, whitespace, punctuation and numbering changes are ignored; changes to financial figures remain significant.
A changed paragraph is not evidence that risk increased or decreased. An unchanged paragraph does not establish that risk stayed the same.
Added paragraphs (5)
Current report
U.S. federal and state regulators have issued reports and releases concerning crypto assets, including Bitcoin and crypto asset markets. Beginning in early 2025, the current administration took steps to strengthen U.S. leadership in the digital assets space, including through the use of executive orders and the establishment of an interagency working group that is tasked with proposing a regulatory framework governing the issuance and operation of digital assets in the United States. On January 23, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order that outlined the administration’s commitment to strengthening U.S. leadership in the digital asset space and established an inter-agency working group for artificial intelligence and crypto that is tasked with proposing a regulatory framework governing the issuance and operation of digital assets, including stablecoins, in the United States. The GENIUS Act, which establishes a federal regulatory framework for stablecoins, was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Trump on July 18, 2025. In addition, proposed digital assets market infrastructure legislation, the CLARITY Act, continues to progress. In July 2025, the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal
Current report
Deposit Insurance Corporation issued a statement for banking organizations regarding the safekeeping of digital assets, which focused on how existing laws, regulations and risk management principles apply to such activities, and signaled additional progress in the increasing regulatory clarity for digital assets by key financial regulators in the United States.
Current report
In January 2025, the then Acting SEC Chairman Uyeda established a new “Crypto Task Force,” led by Commissioner Hester Peirce, with the intent to develop a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework for digital assets. 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, which has held a series of roundtables focused on digital asset-related initiatives. Moreover, the SEC dismissed or paused ongoing enforcement actions or investigations against certain digital asset platforms and companies, including Coinbase, Binance, Kraken and Uniswap, during the first quarter of 2025.
Current report
under the federal securities laws and the timeline and outcome of such action is uncertain at this time. Finally, the SEC’s Division of Examinations (“Examinations”) has stated that digital assets are an examination priority. In particular, Examinations has expressed its intent to focus its examination on the offer, sale, recommendation, advice, trading, and other activities involving crypto assets that are offered and sold as securities or related products, such as spot bitcoin or ether ETPs.
Current report
More recently, in February 2025, the crypto exchange Bybit was hacked, resulting in the theft of over $1.5 billion of ether. The attack has been attributed to the North Korea-sponsored threat actor Lazarus Group, which is believed to operate under the control of North Korea’s intelligence agency. Following the incident, the Bybit exchange remained solvent and Bybit covered all customer losses, however the complexity and interconnected nature of exchange architecture and processes highlights weak points associated with security measures that have become industry-standard.
Removed paragraphs (5)
Previous report
On March 22, 2023, Coinbase and the Bitcoin Custodian’s parent company, Coinbase Global Inc. (“Coinbase Global” and together, the “Relevant Coinbase Entities”) received a “Wells Notice” from the SEC staff stating that the SEC staff made a “preliminary determination” to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against the Relevant Coinbase Entities alleging violations of the federal securities laws, including the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). According to Coinbase Global’s public reporting company disclosure, based on discussions with the SEC staff, the Relevant Coinbase Entities believe these potential enforcement actions would relate to aspects of the Relevant Coinbase Entities’ Coinbase Prime service, spot market, staking service Coinbase Earn, and Coinbase Wallet and the potential civil action may seek injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil penalties. On June 6, 2023, the SEC filed a complaint against the Relevant Coinbase Entities in federal district court in the Southern District of New York, alleging, inter alia: (i) that Coinbase has violated the Exchange Act by failing to register with the SEC as a national securities exchange, broker-dealer, and clearing agency, in connection with activities involving certain identified digital assets that the SEC’s complaint alleges are securities, (ii) that Coinbase has violated the Securities Act by failing to register with the SEC the offer and sale of its staking program, and (iii) that Coinbase Global is jointly and severally liable as a control person under the Exchange Act for Coinbase’s violations of the Exchange Act to the same extent as Coinbase The SEC’s complaint against the Relevant Coinbase Entities does not allege that bitcoin is a security nor does it allege that Coinbase’s activities involving bitcoin caused the alleged registration violations, and the Bitcoin Custodian was not named as a defendant. The SEC’s complaint seeks a permanent injunction against the Relevant Coinbase Entities to prevent them from violations of the Exchange Act or Securities Act, disgorgement, civil monetary penalties, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate or necessary. Coinbase could be required, as a result of a judicial determination, or could choose, to restrict or curtail the services it offers, or its financial condition and ability to provide prime brokerage services to the Trust could be affected. If Coinbase were to be required or choose as a result of a regulatory action (including, for example, the litigation initiated by the SEC), to restrict or curtail the services it offers, it could negatively affect the Trust’s ability to operate or process creations or redemptions of Creation Baskets, which could force the Trust to liquidate or adversely affect the price of the Shares. While the Bitcoin Custodian is not named in the complaint, if Coinbase Global, as the parent of the…
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Previous report
US federal and state regulators have issued reports and releases concerning crypto assets, including Bitcoin and crypto asset markets. Further, in 2023 the House of Representatives formed two new subcommittees: the Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion Subcommittee and the Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development Subcommittee, each of which were formed in part to analyze issues concerning crypto assets and demonstrate a legislative intent to develop and consider the adoption of federal legislation designed to address the perceived need for regulation of and concerns surrounding the crypto industry. The extent and content of any forthcoming laws and regulations are not yet ascertainable with certainty, and may not be ascertainable in the near future. It is difficult to predict how these and other related events will affect the Trust or the crypto asset business.
Previous report
In August 2021, the chair of the SEC stated that he believed investors using digital asset trading platforms are not adequately protected, and that activities on the platforms can implicate the securities laws, commodities laws and banking laws, raising a number of issues related to protecting investors and consumers, guarding against illicit activity, and ensuring financial stability. The chair expressed a need for the SEC to have additional authorities to prevent transactions, products, and platforms from “falling between regulatory cracks,” as well as for more resources to protect investors in “this growing and volatile sector.” The chair called for federal legislation centering on digital asset trading, lending, and decentralized finance platforms, seeking “additional plenary authority” to write rules for digital asset trading and lending. Moreover, Former President Biden’s March 9, 2022 Executive Order, asserting that technological advances and the rapid growth of the digital asset markets “necessitate an evaluation and alignment of the United States Government approach to digital assets,” signals an ongoing focus on digital asset policy and regulation in the United States. A number of reports issued pursuant to the Executive Order have focused on various risks related to the digital asset ecosystem, and have recommended additional legislation and regulatory oversight. There have also been several bills introduced in Congress that propose to establish additional regulation and oversight of the digital asset markets. In May 2024, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4763, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21 st Century Act (“FIT21”), which would amend existing securities and commodity regulatory statutes to facilitate the use of digital assets. While FIT21 receive strong bipartisan support, its future in is uncertain, however, a Republican-controlled Congress may result in the enactment of legislation governing cryptocurrencies, such FIT21. During his campaign, President Trump indicated that his administration will be pro-cryptocurrency and has reportedly discussed the creation of a national bitcoin reserve, and other potential policies related to cryptocurrencies including bitcoin. On January 23, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order that outlined the administration’s commitment to strengthening U.S. leadership in the digital asset space and established an inter-agency working group for artificial intelligence and crypto that is tasked with proposing a regulatory framework governing the issuance and operation of digital assets, including stablecoins, in the United States.
Previous report
The Trust as well as the Sponsor and its service providers are vulnerable to the effects of public health crises, which may adversely affect the performance of the Trust’s investment in bitcoin and your investment in the Trust.
Previous report
Pandemics and other public health crises may cause a curtailment of business activities which may potentially impact the ability of the Sponsor and its service providers to operate. The COVID-19 pandemic or a similar public health crises could adversely impact the Trust by causing operating delays and disruptions, market disruption and shutdowns (including as a result of government regulation and prevention measures). The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, had substantive effects on social, economic and financial systems, including significant uncertainty and volatility in the financial market.
Reworded paragraphs (21)
Previous wording
Bitcoin has historically exhibited high price volatility relative to more traditional asset classes. For example, there were steep increases in the value of certain digital assets, including bitcoin, over the course of 2021. These increases were followed by steep drawdowns throughout 2022. These episodes of rapid price appreciation followed by steep drawdowns have occurred multiple times throughout bitcoin’s history, including, for example, in 2011, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018, before repeating again in 2021-2022. Over the course of 2023 and 2024, bitcoin prices continued to exhibit extreme volatility.
Current wording
Bitcoin has historically exhibited high price volatility relative to more traditional asset classes. For example, throughout bitcoin’s existence there have been repeated periods where steep increases in the value of bitcoin were followed by steep drawdowns.
Previous wording
In addition, regulatory and enforcement scrutiny of digital assets has increased, including from, among others, the Department of Justice, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress, as well as state regulators and authorities. Developments in the regulation of digital assets are ongoing. For example, in July 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on the SEC’s action against Ripple Labs, Inc. The court found that offers and sales of XRP, a digital token, to institutions and sophisticated individuals constituted securities transactions, but that offers and sales of XRP on crypto trading platforms, distributions to employees, and other third-party developers were not securities transactions. More recently, the D.C. Circuit Court found that the SEC’s denial of the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust’s listing was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedures Act in light of the SEC’s approval of two similar bitcoin futures-based exchange-traded products (“ETPs”). In the immediate aftermath of this court decision, the price of bitcoin increased from nearly $26,000 to over $28,100. It is not possible to predict at this time all of the risks that regulatory developments may pose to the Trust, its service providers or to the digital asset industry as a whole.
Current wording
While, regulatory and enforcement scrutiny increased through the end of 2024, including from, among others, the Department of Justice, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress, as well as state regulators and authorities, the current U.S. presidential administration has signaled its desire to strengthen U.S. leadership in the digital assets space through the issuance of executive orders and the establishment of an interagency working group that is tasked with proposing a regulatory framework governing the issuance and operation of digital assets in the United States in early 2025. Meanwhile, the SEC officially rescinded Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 and established a new “Crypto Task Force” focused on providing clarity on the application of the federal securities laws to digital assets and collaborating with the digital assets industry and the public towards establishing an appropriate regulatory framework. Certain members of Congress have also outlined a proposed bicameral roadmap for digital asset legislation to address inconsistencies in digital asset classifications. In 2023, the D.C. Circuit Court found that the SEC’s denial of the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust’s listing was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedures Act in light of the SEC’s approval of two similar bitcoin futures-based exchange-traded products (“ETPs”). In the immediate aftermath of this court decision, the price of bitcoin increased from nearly $26,000 to over $28,100 and reached record highs during 2025 before retreating. The exact timeline and impact of these recent regulatory developments on the Trust’s business is uncertain and it is not possible to predict at this time what risks, if any, that regulatory developments may pose to the Trust, its service providers or to the digital asset industry as a whole.
Previous wording
An increasing number of wallets and digital asset intermediaries, such as trading platforms, have begun supporting segregated witness and the Lightning Network, or similar technology. However, the Lightning Network does not yet have material adoption as of August 2023. Additionally, the Lightning Network has not yet seen significant use, and there are open questions about Lightning Network services, such as its cost and who will serve as intermediaries, among other questions.
Current wording
An increasing number of wallets and digital asset intermediaries, such as trading platforms, have begun supporting segregated witness and the Lightning Network, or similar technology. In 2024, the Lightning Network saw increased corporate adoption - greater than previous years - resulting in the continued maturation of the network; however there remain open questions about Lightning Network services and more widespread adoption is still pending.
Previous wording
As the use of digital asset networks increases without a corresponding increase in throughput of the networks, average fees and settlement times have shown significant volatility and can increase significantly at times. Bitcoin’s network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. For example, since January 1, 2019, bitcoin transaction fees have increased from $0.18 per bitcoin transaction, on average, to a high of $60.95 per transaction, on average, on April 20, 2021. As of December 31, 2022, bitcoin transaction fees were $1.17 per transaction, on average. Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for bitcoin (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, bitcoin, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares. In May 2023, events related to the adoption of ordinals, which are a means of inscribing digital content on the bitcoin blockchain, caused transaction fees to temporarily spike above $30 per transaction. As of December 31, 2024, bitcoin transaction fees were averaging $1.78 per transaction .
Current wording
As the use of digital asset networks increases without a corresponding increase in throughput of the networks, average fees and settlement times have shown significant volatility and can increase significantly at times. Bitcoin’s network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. As of December 31, 2025, bitcoin transaction fees were $0.71 per transaction, on average. Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for bitcoin (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, bitcoin, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares. In May 2023, events related to the adoption of ordinals, which are a means of inscribing digital content on the bitcoin blockchain, caused transaction fees to temporarily spike above $30 per transaction. In April 2024, bitcoin transaction fees spiked to $128.50 in connection with the Bitcoin Network halving and the rollout of the Runes protocol.
Previous wording
USDC is a reserve-backed stablecoin issued by Circle Internet Financial that is commonly used as a method of payment in digital asset markets, including the bitcoin market. The issuer of USDC uses the Circle Reserve Fund to hold cash, U.S. Treasury bills, notes and other obligations issued or guaranteed as to principal and interest by the U.S. Treasury, and repurchase agreements secured by such obligations or cash, which serve as reserves backing USDC stablecoins. While USDC is designed to maintain a stable value at 1 U.S. dollar at all times, on March 10, 2023, the value of USDC fell below $1.00 for multiple days after Circle Internet Financial disclosed that US$3.3 billion of the USDC reserves were held at Silicon Valley Bank, which had entered Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) receivership earlier that day. Stablecoins are reliant on the U.S. banking system and the U.S. treasuries market, and the failure of either to function normally could impede the function of stablecoins, and therefore could adversely affect the value of the Shares.
Current wording
USDC is a reserve-backed stablecoin issued by Circle Internet Financial that is commonly used as a method of payment in digital asset markets, including the bitcoin market. The issuer of USDC uses the Circle Reserve Fund to hold cash, U.S. Treasury bills, notes and other obligations issued or guaranteed as to principal and interest by the U.S. Treasury, and repurchase agreements secured by such obligations or cash, which serve as reserves backing USDC stablecoins. While USDC is designed to maintain a stable value at 1 U.S. dollar at all times, on March 10, 2023, the value of USDC fell below $1.00 for multiple days after Circle Internet Financial disclosed that US$3.3 billion of the USDC reserves were held at Silicon Valley Bank, which had entered FDIC receivership earlier that day. Stablecoins are reliant on the U.S. banking system and the U.S. treasuries market, and the failure of either to function normally could impede the function of stablecoins, and therefore could adversely affect the value of the Shares.
Previous wording
Given the foundational role that stablecoins play in global digital asset markets, their fundamental liquidity can have a dramatic impact on the broader digital asset market, including the market for bitcoin. Because a large portion of the digital asset market still depends on stablecoins such as Tether and USDC, there is a risk that a disorderly de-pegging or a “run” on Tether or USDC could lead to dramatic market volatility in digital assets more broadly. Volatility in stablecoins, operational issues with stablecoins (for example, technical issues that prevent settlement), concerns about the sufficiency of any reserves that support stablecoins or potential manipulative activity when unbacked stablecoins are used to pay for other digital assets (including bitcoin), or regulatory concerns about stablecoin issuers or intermediaries, such as trading platforms, that support stablecoins, could impact individuals’ willingness to trade on trading venues that rely on stablecoins, reduce liquidity in the bitcoin market, and affect the value of bitcoin, and in turn impact an investment in the Shares.
Current wording
Given the foundational role that stablecoins play in global digital asset markets, their fundamental liquidity can have a dramatic impact on the broader digital asset market, including the market for bitcoin. Because a large portion of the digital asset market still depends on stablecoins such as Tether and USDC, there is a risk that a disorderly de-pegging or a “run” on Tether or USDC could lead to dramatic market volatility in digital assets more broadly. In the United States, the GENIUS Act, which establishes a federal regulatory framework for stablecoins, was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Trump on July 18, 2025. Although increasing regulatory clarity for stablecoins is generally viewed in a positive light, volatility in stablecoins, operational issues with stablecoins (for example, technical issues that prevent settlement), concerns about the sufficiency of any reserves that support stablecoins or potential manipulative activity when unbacked stablecoins are used to pay for other digital assets (including bitcoin), or regulatory compliance concerns about stablecoin issuers or intermediaries, such as trading platforms, that support stablecoins, could impact individuals’ willingness to trade on trading venues that rely on stablecoins, reduce liquidity in the bitcoin market, and affect the value of bitcoin, and in turn impact an investment in the Shares.
Previous wording
It is not possible to predict whether, or when, any of these developments will lead to Congress granting additional authorities to the SEC, the CFTC or other regulators, what the nature of such additional authorities might be, how they might impact the ability of digital asset markets to function or how any new regulations or changes to existing regulations might impact the value of digital assets generally and bitcoin held by the Trust specifically. The consequences of increased federal regulation of digital assets and digital asset activities could have a material adverse effect on the Trust and the Shares.
Current wording
At this time, it is not possible to predict with certainty whether, or when, any of these legislative and regulatory developments will lead to Congress granting additional authorities to the SEC or other regulators, what the nature of such additional authorities might be, how they might impact the ability of digital asset markets to function or how any new regulations or changes to existing regulations might impact the value of digital assets generally and bitcoin held by the Trust specifically. The consequences of increased federal regulation of digital assets and digital asset activities could have a material adverse effect on the Trust and the Shares.
Previous wording
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) requires any administrator or exchanger of convertible digital assets to register with FinCEN as a money transmitter and comply with the anti-money laundering regulations applicable to money transmitters. In 2015, FinCEN assessed a $700,000 fine against a sponsor of a digital asset for violating several requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act by acting as a money services business and selling the digital asset without registering with FinCEN, and by failing to implement and maintain an adequate anti-money laundering program. In 2017, FinCEN assessed a $110 million fine against BTC-e, a now defunct digital asset trading platform, for similar violations. The requirement that trading platforms that do business in the U.S. register with FinCEN and comply with anti-money laundering regulations may increase the cost of buying and selling bitcoin and therefore may adversely affect the price of bitcoin and an investment in the Shares. In a March 2018 letter from FinCEN’s assistant secretary for legislative affairs to U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, the assistant secretary indicated that under current law both the developers and the trading platforms involved in the sale of tokens in an initial coin offering (“ICO”) may be required to register with FinCEN as money transmitters and comply with the anti-money laundering regulations applicable to money transmitters.
Current wording
FinCEN requires any administrator or exchanger of convertible digital assets to register with FinCEN as a money transmitter and comply with the anti-money laundering regulations applicable to money transmitters. In 2015, FinCEN assessed a $700,000 fine against a sponsor of a digital asset for violating several requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act by acting as a money services business and selling the digital asset without registering with FinCEN, and by failing to implement and maintain an adequate anti-money laundering program. In 2017, FinCEN assessed a $110 million fine against BTC-e, a now defunct digital asset trading platform, for similar violations. The requirement that trading platforms that do business in the U.S. register with FinCEN and comply with anti-money laundering regulations may increase the cost of buying and selling bitcoin and therefore may adversely affect the price of bitcoin and an investment in the Shares. In a March 2018 letter from FinCEN’s assistant secretary for legislative affairs to U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, the assistant secretary indicated that under current law both the developers and the trading platforms involved in the sale of tokens in an initial coin offering (“ICO”) may be required to register with FinCEN as money transmitters and comply with the anti-money laundering regulations applicable to money transmitters.
Previous wording
While the Sponsor, its management team, and the Execution Agent operate other investment vehicles that, like the Trust, specifically invest in digital assets, they have a limited track record. This limited experience poses several potential risks to the effective management and operation of the Trust. Digital assets, such as bitcoin, are known for their high volatility, unique technical, legal and regulatory challenges, and rapidly evolving market dynamics. The Sponsor’s limited experience in this specific field may not fully equip them to navigate these complexities effectively.
Current wording
While the Sponsor, its management team, and the Execution Agent operate other investment vehicles that, like the Trust, specifically invest in digital assets, including spot ether and spot solana exchange-traded products, they have a limited track record. This limited experience poses several potential risks to the effective management and operation of the Trust. Digital assets, such as bitcoin, are known for their high volatility, unique technical, legal and regulatory challenges, and rapidly evolving market dynamics. The Sponsor’s limited experience in this specific field may not fully equip them to navigate these complexities effectively.
Previous wording
The SEC has not asserted regulatory authority over bitcoin or trading or ownership of bitcoin and has not expressed the view that bitcoin should be classified or treated as a security for purposes of U.S. federal securities laws. In fact, senior members of the staff of the SEC have expressed the view that bitcoin is not a security under the federal securities laws. However, the SEC has commented on bitcoin and bitcoin-related market developments and has taken action against investment schemes involving bitcoin. For example, in a recent letter regarding the SEC’s review of proposed rule changes to list and trade shares of certain bitcoin-related investment vehicles on public markets, the SEC staff stated that it has significant investor protection concerns regarding the markets for digital assets, including the potential for market manipulation and fraud. In March 2018, it was reported that the SEC was examining as many as 100 investment funds with strategies focused on digital assets. The reported focus of the examinations is on the accuracy of risk disclosures to investors in these funds, digital asset pricing practices, and compliance with rules meant to prevent the theft of investor funds, as well as on information gathering so that the SEC can better understand new technologies and investment products. It has further been reported that some of these funds have received subpoenas from the SEC’s Enforcement Division. The SEC also has determined that certain digital assets are securities under the U.S. securities laws. In these determinations, the SEC reasoned that the unregistered offer and sale of digital assets can, in certain circumstances, including ICOs, be considered illegal public offering of securities. A significant amount of funding for digital asset startups has come from ICOs, and if ICOs are halted or face obstacles, or companies that rely on them face legal action or investigation, it could have a negative impact on the value of digital assets, including bitcoin. Finally, the SEC’s Division of Examinations (“Examinations”) has stated that digital assets are an examination priority. In particular, Examinations has expressed its intent to focus its examination on portfolio management of digital assets, safety of client funds and assets, pricing and valuation of client portfolios, compliance and internal controls, and supervision of employee outside business activities.
Current wording
The SEC has not asserted regulatory authority over bitcoin or trading or ownership of bitcoin and has not expressed the view that bitcoin should be classified or treated as a security for purposes of U.S. federal securities laws. In fact, senior members of the staff of the SEC have expressed the view that bitcoin is not a security under the federal securities laws. However, the SEC has commented on bitcoin and bitcoin-related market developments and has taken action against investment schemes involving bitcoin. For example, in a recent letter regarding the SEC’s review of proposed rule changes to list and trade shares of certain bitcoin-related investment vehicles on public markets, the SEC staff stated that it has significant investor protection concerns regarding the markets for digital assets, including the potential for market manipulation and fraud. In March 2018, it was reported that the SEC was examining as many as 100 investment funds with strategies focused on digital assets. The reported focus of the examinations is on the accuracy of risk disclosures to investors in these funds, digital asset pricing practices, and compliance with rules meant to prevent the theft of investor funds, as well as on information gathering so that the SEC can better understand new technologies and investment products. It has further been reported that some of these funds have received subpoenas from the SEC’s Enforcement Division. The SEC also has determined that certain digital assets are securities under the U.S. securities laws. In these determinations, the SEC reasoned that the unregistered offer and sale of digital assets can, in certain circumstances, including ICOs, be considered illegal public offering of securities. A significant amount of funding for digital asset startups has come from ICOs, and if ICOs are halted or face obstacles, or companies that rely on them face legal action or investigation, it could have a negative impact on the value of digital assets, including bitcoin. However, the SEC’s “Crypto Task Force” has indicated that it is re-examining how digital assets are considered “securities”
Previous wording
In addition to financial regulation, because of the high energy usage required for bitcoin mining, bitcoin may be subject to regulation stemming from energy usage and/or climate concerns. For example, as of December 31, 2024, approximately 796 million tera hashes are performed every second in connection with mining on the Bitcoin network . Although measuring the electricity consumed by this process is difficult because these operations are performed by various machines with varying levels of efficiency, the process consumes a significant amount of energy. The operations of the Bitcoin network and other digital asset networks may also consume significant amounts of energy. Further, in addition to the direct energy costs of performing calculations on any given digital asset network, there are indirect costs that impact a network’s total energy consumption, including the costs of cooling the machines that perform these calculations. A number of states and countries have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to impede bitcoin mining and/or bitcoin use more broadly. For example, New York State recently failed to pass a bill that would place a moratorium on mining operations for proof-of-work blockchains such as bitcoin. Depending on how futures regulations are formulated and applied, such policies could have the potential to negatively affect the price of bitcoin, and, in turn, the value of the Shares. Increased regulation and the corresponding compliance cost of these regulations could additionally result in higher barriers to entry for bitcoin miners, which could increase the concentration of the hash rate, potentially having a negative impact on the price of bitcoin.
Current wording
In addition to financial regulation, because of the high energy usage required for bitcoin mining, bitcoin may be subject to regulation stemming from energy usage and/or climate concerns. For example, as of December 31, 2025, approximately 1.04 billion tera hashes are performed every second in connection with mining on the Bitcoin network. Although measuring the electricity consumed by this process is difficult because these operations are performed by various machines with varying levels of efficiency, the process consumes a significant amount of energy. The operations of the Bitcoin network and other digital asset networks may also consume significant amounts of energy. Further, in addition to the direct energy costs of performing calculations on any given digital asset network, there are indirect costs that impact a network’s total energy consumption, including the costs of cooling the machines that perform these calculations. A number of states and countries have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to impede bitcoin mining and/or bitcoin use more broadly. For example, New York State recently failed to pass a bill that would place a moratorium on mining operations for proof-of-work blockchains such as bitcoin. Depending on how futures regulations are formulated and applied, such policies could have the potential to negatively affect the price of bitcoin, and, in turn, the value of the Shares. Increased regulation and the corresponding compliance cost of these regulations could additionally result in higher barriers to entry for bitcoin miners, which could increase the concentration of the hash rate, potentially having a negative impact on the price of bitcoin.
Previous wording
Such additional regulatory obligations may cause an Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor to incur extraordinary expenses. If an Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor decide to seek the required licenses, there is no guarantee that they will timely receive them. In addition, to the extent an Authorized Participant, the Trust, or the Sponsor is found to have operated without appropriate state or federal licenses, it may be subject to investigation, administrative or court proceedings, and civil or criminal monetary fines and penalties, all of which could harm the reputation of the Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor and affect the value of the Shares. Furthermore, an Authorized Participant, the Trust, or the Sponsor may not be able to timely acquire necessary state licenses or be capable of complying with certain federal or state regulatory obligations applicable to money services businesses, money transmitters, and businesses engaged in digital asset activity. An Authorized Participant may also instead decide to terminate its role as Authorized Participant of the Trust, or the Sponsor may decide to dissolve the Trust. Dissolution by an Authorized
Current wording
Such additional regulatory obligations may cause an Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor to incur extraordinary expenses. If an Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor decide to seek the required licenses, there is no guarantee that they will timely receive them. In addition, to the extent an Authorized Participant, the Trust, or the Sponsor is found to have operated without appropriate state or federal licenses, it may be subject to investigation, administrative or court proceedings, and civil or criminal monetary fines and penalties, all of which could harm the reputation of the Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor and affect the value of the Shares. Furthermore, an Authorized Participant, the Trust, or the Sponsor may not be able to timely acquire necessary state licenses or be capable of complying with certain federal or state regulatory obligations applicable to money services businesses, money transmitters, and businesses engaged in digital asset activity. An Authorized Participant may also instead decide to terminate its role as Authorized Participant of the Trust, or the Sponsor may decide to dissolve the Trust. Dissolution by an Authorized Participant may decrease the liquidity of the Shares, which may adversely affect the value of the Shares, and any dissolution of the Trust in response to the changed regulatory circumstances may be at a time that is disadvantageous to the Shareholders.
Previous wording
Current U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) guidance indicates that bitcoin should be treated and taxed as property, not as currency, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and that transactions involving the payment of bitcoin in return for goods and services should be treated as barter transactions. Such exchanges result in capital gain or loss measured by the difference between the price at which bitcoin is exchanged and the taxpayer’s basis in the bitcoin. However, because bitcoin is a new technological innovation, because IRS guidance has taken the form of administrative pronouncements that may be modified without prior notice and comment, and because there is as yet little case law on the subject, the U.S. federal income tax treatment of an investment in bitcoin or in transactions relating to investments in bitcoin may change from that described in this Report, possibly with retroactive effect. Any such change in the U.S. federal income tax treatment of bitcoin may have a negative effect on prices of bitcoin and may adversely affect the value of the Shares. In this regard, the IRS has indicated that it has made it a priority to issue additional guidance related to the taxation of virtual currency transactions, such as transactions involving bitcoin. In addition, the IRS and U.S. Department of Treasury have proposed regulations regarding the tax information reporting rules for cryptocurrency transactions. While it has started to issue such additional guidance, whether any future guidance will adversely affect the U.S. federal income tax treatment of an investment in bitcoin or in transactions relating to investments in bitcoin is unknown. Moreover, future developments that may arise with respect to digital currencies may increase the uncertainty with respect to the treatment of digital currencies for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
Current wording
Current IRS guidance indicates that bitcoin should be treated and taxed as property, not as currency, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and that transactions involving the payment of bitcoin in return for goods and services should be treated as barter transactions. Such exchanges result in capital gain or loss measured by the difference between the price at which bitcoin is exchanged and the taxpayer’s basis in the bitcoin. However, because bitcoin is a new technological innovation, because IRS guidance has taken the form of administrative pronouncements that may be modified without prior notice and comment, and because there is as yet little case law on the subject, the U.S. federal income tax treatment of an investment in bitcoin or in transactions relating to investments in bitcoin may change from that described in this Report, possibly with retroactive effect. Any such change in the U.S. federal income tax treatment of bitcoin may have a negative effect on prices of bitcoin and may adversely affect the value of the Shares. In this regard, the IRS has indicated that it has made it a priority to issue additional guidance related to the taxation of virtual currency transactions, such as transactions involving bitcoin. In addition, the IRS and U.S. Department of Treasury have proposed regulations regarding the tax information reporting rules for cryptocurrency transactions. While it has started to issue such additional guidance, whether any future guidance will adversely affect the U.S. federal income tax treatment of an investment in bitcoin or in transactions relating to investments in bitcoin is unknown. Moreover, future developments that may arise with respect to digital currencies may increase the uncertainty with respect to the treatment of digital currencies for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
Previous wording
Under current IRS guidance, hard forks, airdrops and similar events with respect to digital assets will under certain circumstances be treated as taxable events giving rise to ordinary income. In the absence of guidance to the contrary, it is possible that any such income recognized by a U.S. Tax-Exempt Shareholder (which is a U.S. Shareholder that is exempt from tax under Section 501(a) of the Code)) would constitute “unrelated business taxable income” (“UBTI”). U.S. Tax-Exempt Shareholders should consult their tax advisers regarding whether such Shareholders may recognize UBTI as a consequence of an investment in the Shares.
Current wording
Under current IRS guidance, hard forks, airdrops and similar events with respect to digital assets will under certain circumstances be treated as taxable events giving rise to ordinary income. In the absence of guidance to the contrary, it is possible that any such income recognized by a U.S. Tax-Exempt Shareholder (which is a U.S. Shareholder that is exempt from tax under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended) would constitute “unrelated business taxable income” (“UBTI”). U.S. Tax-Exempt Shareholders should consult their tax advisers regarding whether such Shareholders may recognize UBTI as a consequence of an investment in the Shares.
Previous wording
As another example, in January 2015, Bitstamp announced that approximately 19,000 bitcoin had been stolen from its operational or “hot” wallets. In August 2016, it was reported that almost 120,000 bitcoin worth around $78 million were stolen from Bitfinex, a large bitcoin trading platform. The value of bitcoin immediately decreased by more than 10% following reports of the theft at Bitfinex. In addition, in December 2017, Yapian, the operator of Seoul-based digital asset trading 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 trading platform accounts, with any potential further distributions to be made following Yapian’s pending bankruptcy proceedings. In January 2018, Japan-based trading platform Coincheck reported that over $500 million worth of the digital asset NEM had been lost due to hacking attacks, resulting in significant decreases in the prices of bitcoin, ether and other digital assets as the market grew increasingly concerned about the security of digital assets. Following South Korean-based trading platform Coinrail’s announcement in early June 2018 about a hacking incident, the price of bitcoin and ether dropped more than 10%. In September 2018, Japan-based trading platform Zaif announced that approximately $60 million worth of digital assets, including bitcoin, was stolen due to hacking activities. In May 2019, one of the world’s largest digital asset trading platforms, Binance, was hacked, resulting in losses of approximately $40 million. Further, in November 2022, FTX Trading Ltd. (“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. Various claims and issues related to FTX have not yet been resolved.
Current wording
Coincheck reported that over $500 million worth of the digital asset NEM had been lost due to hacking attacks, resulting in significant decreases in the prices of bitcoin, ether and other digital assets as the market grew increasingly concerned about the security of digital assets. Following South Korean-based trading platform Coinrail’s announcement in early June 2018 about a hacking incident, the price of bitcoin and ether dropped more than 10%. In September 2018, Japan-based trading platform Zaif announced that approximately $60 million worth of digital assets, including bitcoin, was stolen due to hacking activities. In May 2019, one of the world’s largest digital asset trading platforms, Binance, was hacked, resulting in losses of approximately $40 million. Further, 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. Various claims and issues related to FTX have not yet been resolved.
Previous wording
Many bitcoin trading platforms lack certain safeguards put in place by exchanges for more traditional assets to enhance the stability of trading on the exchanges and prevent “flash crashes,” such as limit-down circuit breakers. As a result, the prices of bitcoin on trading platforms 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 trading platforms, or may not exist at all. The SEC has identified possible sources of fraud and manipulation in the bitcoin market generally, including, among others (1) “wash trading”; (2) persons with a dominant position in bitcoin manipulating bitcoin pricing; (3) hacking of the Bitcoin network and trading platforms; (4) malicious control of the Bitcoin network; (5) trading based on material, non-public information (for example, plans of market participants to significantly increase or decrease their holdings in bitcoin, new sources of demand for bitcoin) or based on the dissemination of false and misleading information; (6) manipulative activity involving purported “stablecoins,” including Tether (for more information, see “Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets—Prices of bitcoin may be affected due to stablecoins (including Tether and US Dollar Coin (“USDC”), the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment”), the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment”); and (7) fraud and manipulation at bitcoin trading platforms. The effect of potential market manipulation, front-running, wash-trading, and other fraudulent or manipulative trading practices may inflate the volumes actually present in crypto market and/or cause distortions in price, which could adversely affect the Trust or cause losses to Shareholders.
Current wording
Many bitcoin trading platforms lack certain safeguards put in place by exchanges for more traditional assets to enhance the stability of trading on the exchanges and prevent “flash crashes,” such as limit-down circuit breakers. As a result, the prices of bitcoin on trading platforms 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 trading platforms, or may not exist at all. The SEC has identified possible sources of fraud and manipulation in the bitcoin market generally, including, among others (1) “wash trading”; (2) persons with a dominant position in bitcoin manipulating bitcoin pricing; (3) hacking of the Bitcoin network and trading platforms; (4) malicious control of the Bitcoin network; (5) trading based on material, non-public information (for example, plans of market participants to significantly increase or decrease their holdings in bitcoin, new sources of demand for bitcoin) or based on the dissemination of false and misleading information; (6) manipulative activity involving purported “stablecoins,” including Tether (for more information, see “Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets—Prices of bitcoin may be affected due to stablecoins (including Tether and U.S. Dollar Coin (“USDC”), the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment”), the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment”); and (7) fraud and manipulation at bitcoin trading platforms. The effect of potential market manipulation, front-running, wash-trading, and other fraudulent or manipulative trading practices may inflate the volumes actually present in crypto market and/or cause distortions in price, which could adversely affect the Trust or cause losses to Shareholders.
Previous wording
The Bitcoin blockchain may be subject to forks or airdrops that create new digital assets. Shareholders may not receive the benefits of any forks, the Trust may not choose, or be able, to participate in an airdrop, and the timing of receiving any benefits from a fork, airdrop or similar event is uncertain. The Sponsor refers to the right to receive any such benefit as an “Incidental Right” and any such virtual currency acquired through an Incidental Right as “IR Virtual Currency.” If a hard fork, airdrop or similar event occurs in the Bitcoin blockchain, the Sponsor will instruct the Trust to immediately and irrevocably disclaim all rights to the IR Virtual Currency so created. Bitcoin is the only digital asset that will be held by the Trust. In the event the Trust seeks to change its treatment of Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency, an application would need to be filed with the SEC by the Exchange seeking approval to amend its listing rules.
Current wording
The Bitcoin blockchain may be subject to forks or airdrops that create new digital assets. Shareholders may not receive the benefits of any forks, the Trust may not choose, or be able, to participate in an airdrop, and the timing of receiving any benefits from a fork, airdrop or similar event is uncertain. The Sponsor refers to the right to receive any such benefit as an “Incidental Right” and any such virtual currency acquired through an Incidental Right as “IR Virtual Currency.” If a hard fork, airdrop or similar event occurs in the Bitcoin blockchain, the Sponsor will instruct the Trust to immediately and irrevocably disclaim all rights to the IR Virtual Currency so created. Bitcoin is the only digital asset that is held by the Trust. In the event the Trust seeks to change its treatment of Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency, an application would need to be filed with the SEC by the Exchange seeking approval to amend its listing rules.
Previous wording
An Authorized Participant may be able to create or redeem a Creation Basket at a discount or a premium to the public trading price per Share. To the extent creations or redemptions take place in kind in the future, the Trust’s operations will therefore not be directly impacted by any discount or premium in the market price of its Shares.
Current wording
An Authorized Participant may be able to create or redeem a Creation Basket at a discount or a premium to the public trading price per Share. To the extent creations or redemptions take place in kind, it is unlikely that the Trust’s operations will be directly impacted by any discount or premium in the market price of its Shares, however, there is no guarantee that the Trust will not be negatively affected by slippage.
Previous wording
The use of cash creations and redemptions, as opposed to in-kind creations and redemptions, could cause delays in trade execution due to potential operational issues arising from implementing a cash creation and redemption model, which involves greater operational steps (and therefore execution risk) than the originally contemplated in-kind creation and redemption model. Such delays could cause the execution price associated with such trades to materially deviate from the Benchmark price used to determine the NAV. Even though the Authorized Participant is responsible for the dollar cost of such difference in prices, Authorized Participants could default on their obligations to the Trust, or such potential risks and costs could lead to Authorized Participants, who would otherwise be willing to purchase or redeem Baskets to take advantage of any arbitrage opportunity arising from discrepancies between the price of the Shares and the price of the underlying bitcoin, to elect to not participate in the Trust’s Share creation and redemption processes. This may adversely affect the arbitrage mechanism intended to keep the price of the Shares closely linked to the price of bitcoin, and as a result, the price of the Shares may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV. If the arbitrage mechanism is not effective, purchases or sales of Shares on the secondary market could occur at a premium or discount to NAV, which could harm Shareholders by causing them buy Shares at a price higher than the value of the underlying bitcoin held by the Trust or sell Shares at a price lower than the value of the underlying bitcoin held by the Trust, causing Shareholders to suffer losses. Further, if and when In-Kind Regulatory Approval is obtained, the Trust may not be able to successfully implement in-kind creation and redemption transactions, which could put the Trust at a disadvantage compared to other digital asset ETPs that are able to implement in-kind creations and redemptions.
Current wording
The use of cash creations and redemptions, as opposed to in-kind creations and redemptions, could cause delays in trade execution due to potential operational issues arising from implementing a cash creation and redemption model, which involves greater operational steps (and therefore execution risk) than the in-kind creation and redemption model. Such delays could cause the execution price associated with such trades to materially deviate from the Benchmark price used to determine the NAV. Even though the Authorized Participant is responsible for the dollar cost of such difference in prices, Authorized Participants could default on their obligations to the Trust, or such potential risks and costs could lead to Authorized Participants, who would otherwise be willing to purchase or redeem Baskets to take advantage of any arbitrage opportunity arising from discrepancies between the price of the Shares and the price of the underlying bitcoin, to elect to not participate in the Trust’s Share creation and redemption processes. This may adversely affect the arbitrage mechanism intended to keep the price of the Shares closely linked to the price of bitcoin, and as a result, the price of the Shares may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV. If the arbitrage mechanism is not effective, purchases or sales of Shares on the secondary market could occur at a premium or discount to NAV, which could harm Shareholders by causing them buy Shares at a price higher than the value of the underlying bitcoin held by the Trust or sell Shares at a price lower than the value of the underlying bitcoin held by the Trust, causing Shareholders to suffer losses.
Previous wording
The Trust will process all creations and redemptions of Shares in transactions with financial firms that are authorized to do so (known as “Authorized Participants”). Shareholders that are not Authorized Participants or who are unable to transact in Creation Baskets through Authorized Participants may only purchase or sell their Shares in secondary trading markets, and the conditions associated with trading in secondary markets may adversely affect Shareholders’ investment in the Shares. Although shares of the Trust are listed for trading on the Exchange, there can be no assurance that an active trading market for such shares will develop or be maintained. Secondary market trading in Shares may be halted by the Exchange because of market conditions or for other reasons. Shares of the Trust, similar to shares of other issuers listed on a stock exchange, may be sold short and are therefore subject to the risk of increased volatility and price decreases associated with being sold short. Shares trade on the Exchange at prices at, above or below the most recent NAV. The NAV is calculated at the end of each Business Day and fluctuates with changes in the market value of the Trust’s bitcoin. The trading price of the Shares fluctuates continuously throughout trading hours based on both market supply of and demand for Shares and the underlying value of the Trust’s bitcoin or the Trust’s NAV. As a result, the trading prices of Shares may deviate significantly from NAV during periods of market volatility. Any of these factors, among others, may lead to the Shares trading at a premium or discount to NAV. While the creation/redemption feature is designed to make it more likely that Shares normally will trade on the Exchange at prices close to the next calculated NAV, market prices are not expected to correlate exactly with the Trust’s NAV due to timing reasons, supply and demand imbalances and other factors. In addition, disruptions to creations and redemptions, including disruptions at Authorized Participants, or other market participants, and during periods of significant market volatility, may result in trading prices for Shares that differ significantly from its NAV. Authorized Participants may be less willing to create or redeem Shares if there is a lack of an active market for such Shares or its underlying investments, which may contribute to the Shares trading at a premium or discount to NAV. Buying or selling Shares on the Exchange involves two types of costs that apply to all securities transactions. When buying or selling Shares through a broker, Shareholders will likely incur a brokerage commission and other charges. In addition, Shareholders may incur the cost of the “spread”; that is, the difference between what investors are willing to pay for Shares (the “bid” price) and the price at which they are willing to sell Shares (the “ask” price). The spread, which varies over time for Shares based on trading volume and market liquidity, is generally n…
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Current wording
The Trust will process all creations and redemptions of Shares in transactions with Authorized Participants. Shareholders that are not Authorized Participants or who are unable to transact in Creation Baskets through Authorized Participants may only purchase or sell their Shares in secondary trading markets, and the conditions associated with trading in secondary markets may adversely affect Shareholders’ investment in the Shares. Although shares of the Trust are listed for trading on the Exchange, there can be no assurance that an active trading market for such shares will develop or be maintained. Secondary market trading in Shares may be halted by the Exchange because of market conditions or for other reasons. Shares of the Trust, similar to shares of other issuers listed on a stock exchange, may be sold short and are therefore subject to the risk of increased volatility and price decreases associated with being sold short. Shares trade on the Exchange at prices at, above or below the most recent NAV. The NAV is calculated at the end of each Business Day and fluctuates with changes in the market value of the Trust’s bitcoin. The trading price of the Shares fluctuates continuously throughout trading hours based on both market supply of and demand for Shares and the underlying value of the Trust’s bitcoin or the Trust’s NAV. As a result, the trading prices of Shares may deviate significantly from NAV during periods of market volatility. Any of these factors, among others, may lead to the Shares trading at a premium or discount to NAV. While the creation/redemption feature is designed to make it more likely that Shares normally will trade on the Exchange at prices close to the next calculated NAV, market prices are not expected to correlate exactly with the Trust’s NAV due to timing reasons, supply and demand imbalances and other factors. In addition, disruptions to creations and redemptions, including disruptions at Authorized Participants, or other market participants, and during periods of significant market volatility, may result in trading prices for Shares that differ significantly from its NAV. Authorized Participants may be less willing to create or redeem Shares if there is a lack of an active market for such Shares or its underlying investments, which may contribute to the Shares trading at a premium or discount to NAV. Buying or selling Shares on the Exchange involves two types of costs that apply to all securities transactions. When buying or selling Shares through a broker, Shareholders will likely incur a brokerage commission and other charges. In addition, Shareholders may incur the cost of the “spread”; that is, the difference between what investors are willing to pay for Shares (the “bid” price) and the price at which they are willing to sell Shares (the “ask” price). The spread, which varies over time for Shares based on trading volume and market liquidity, is generally narrower if the Trust has more trading volume and market li…
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Previous wording
An Authorized Participant may be able to create or redeem a Creation Basket at a discount or a premium to the public trading price per Share. To the extent creations or redemptions take place in-kind in the future, the Trust will therefore maintain its intended fractional exposure to a specific amount of bitcoin per Share.
Current wording
An Authorized Participant may be able to create or redeem a Creation Basket at a discount or a premium to the public trading price per Share. To the extent creations or redemptions take place in-kind, the Trust will therefore maintain its intended fractional exposure to a specific amount of bitcoin per Share.
Rearranged current paragraphs (1)
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
As another example, in January 2015, Bitstamp announced that approximately 19,000 bitcoin had been stolen from its operational or “hot” wallets. In August 2016, it was reported that almost 120,000 bitcoin worth around $78 million were stolen from Bitfinex, a large bitcoin trading platform. The value of bitcoin immediately decreased by more than 10% following reports of the theft at Bitfinex. In addition, in December 2017, Yapian, the operator of Seoul-based digital asset trading 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 trading platform accounts, with any potential further distributions to be made following Yapian’s pending bankruptcy proceedings. In January 2018, Japan-based trading platform
Rearranged previous paragraphs (1)
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
Participant may decrease the liquidity of the Shares, which may adversely affect the value of the Shares, and any dissolution of the Trust in response to the changed regulatory circumstances may be at a time that is disadvantageous to the Shareholders.