Grayscale Zcash Trust (ZEC)

Previous wording

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

Current wording

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

Previous wording

The trading prices of many digital assets, including ZEC, have experienced extreme volatility throughout their existence, including in recent periods and may continue to do so. For instance, following significant increases throughout the majority of 2020, digital asset prices, including ZEC, experienced significant volatility throughout 2021 and 2022. This volatility became extreme in November 2022 when FTX, then a major Digital Asset Trading Platform, halted customer withdrawals. See “—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.” Digital asset prices, including ZEC, have continued to fluctuate widely through the date of this Annual Report.

Current wording

The trading prices of many digital assets, including ZEC, have experienced extreme volatility throughout their existence and may continue to do so. For instance, following significant increases throughout the majority of 2020, digital asset prices, including ZEC, experienced significant volatility throughout 2021 and 2022. This volatility became extreme in November 2022 when FTX Trading Ltd. (“FTX”), halted customer withdrawals. Additionally, on October 10, 2025, it was reported that a sharp decline in digital asset market prices triggered the liquidation of approximately $20 billion in leveraged positions across the digital asset industry. Any similar halting of withdrawals or liquidations across leveraged positions in the digital asset industry in the future could further impact trading prices. See “—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.” Digital asset prices, including ZEC, have continued to fluctuate widely through the date of this Annual Report.

Previous wording

The open-source structure of many digital asset network protocols, such as the protocol for the Zcash 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 Zcash Network could damage that network.

Current wording

The open-source structure of many digital asset network protocols, such as the protocol for the Zcash Network, means that developers and other contributors are often 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 Zcash Network could damage that network.

Previous wording

Moreover, in the past, flaws in the source code for digital asset networks and related protocols have been exposed and exploited, including flaws that disabled some functionality for users, exposed users’ personal information and/or resulted in the theft of users’ digital assets. The cryptography underlying ZEC 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 ZEC, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, functionality of the Zcash Network may be negatively affected by such an exploit such that it is no longer attractive to users, thereby dampening demand for ZEC. Even if another digital asset other than ZEC were affected by similar circumstances, any reduction in confidence in the source code or cryptography underlying digital asset networks and related protocols generally could negatively affect the demand for digital assets and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

Moreover, in the past, flaws in the source code for digital asset networks and related protocols have been exposed and exploited, including flaws that disabled some functionality for users, exposed users’ personal information and/or resulted in the theft of users’ digital assets. The cryptography underlying the Zcash Network could prove to be flawed or ineffective, or developments in mathematics and/or technology, including advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry and quantum computing, could result in such cryptography becoming ineffective. Quantum computing technology is an emerging phenomenon which, because it is still developing, makes it difficult to predict its ultimate effect on the future value of Zcash and other digital assets. However, if quantum computing technology is able to advance and significantly increase its capacity relative to the capacity of today’s leading quantum computers, it could potentially undermine the viability of many of the cryptographic algorithms used across the world’s information technology infrastructure, including the cryptographic algorithms used for digital assets like Zcash. If quantum computing is able to advance in that way, there is a risk that quantum computing could materially reduce the security assumptions underlying Zcash’s protocol and result in the cryptography underlying the Zcash Network becoming ineffective. If such is realized,it could compromise the security of the Zcash Network or allow a malicious actor to compromise the wallets holding Zcash owned by the Trust or others on the Zcash Network, which would result in losses to Shareholders. For example, if sufficiently powerful quantum computers are developed, they could use known quantum algorithms to derive private keys from publicly available public keys, potentially allowing malicious actors to forge transaction signatures and misappropriate Zcash. 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 Zcash Network community and may result in a fork (or multiple forks), and there can be no assurance that such consensus would be achieved or the changes implemented successfully. In such a scenario, the Zcash Network may not be able to transition to quantum-resistant cryptography in a timely or effective manner. In any of these circumstances, a malicious actor may be able to take the Trust’s ZEC, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, functionality of the Zcash Network may be negatively affected by such an exploit such that it is no longer attractive to users, thereby dampening demand for ZEC. Even if another digital asset other than ZEC were affected by similar circumstances, any reduction in confidence in the source code or cryptography underlying digital asset networks and related protocols generally could negatively…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Moreover, because digital assets, including ZEC, have existed for a short period of time and are continuing to be developed, there may be additional risks to the digital asset networks and related protocols that are impossible to predict as of the date of this Annual Report.

Current wording

Moreover, because digital assets, including ZEC, have existed for a short period of time and are continuing to be developed, there may be additional risks to digital asset networks and related protocols that are impossible to predict as of the date of this Annual Report.

Previous wording

The first digital asset, Bitcoin, was launched in 2009. ZEC launched in 2016. In general, digital asset networks, including the Zcash Network and related protocols represent a new and rapidly evolving industry that is subject to a variety of factors that are difficult to evaluate. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

Current wording

The first digital asset, Bitcoin, was launched in 2009. ZEC launched in 2016. In general, digital asset networks, including the Zcash Network and related protocols represent a relatively new and rapidly evolving industry that is subject to a variety of factors that are difficult to evaluate. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

Previous wording

As of December 31, 2024, the Zcash Network was capable of handling approximately 5 transactions per second, or approximately 40% of the daily transaction volume of the Bitcoin network. In an effort to increase the volume of transactions that can be processed on a given digital asset network, many digital assets are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. For example, in August 2017, the Bitcoin Network was upgraded with a technical feature known as “Segregated Witness” that potentially doubles the transactions per second that can be handled on-chain. More importantly, Segregated Witness also enables so-called second layer solutions, such as the Lightning Network, or payment channels that greatly increase transaction throughput (i.e., millions of transactions per second). Wallets and “intermediaries,” or connecting nodes that facilitate payment channels, that support Segregated Witness or Lightning Network-like technologies have not seen wide-scale use as of December 31, 2024. Additionally, questions remain regarding Lightning Network services, such as its cost and who will serve as intermediaries.

Current wording

As of December 31, 2025, the Zcash Network was capable of handling approximately 5 transactions per second, or approximately 40% of the daily transaction volume of the Bitcoin Network. In an effort to increase the volume of transactions that can be processed on a given digital asset network, many digital asset networks are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions.

Previous wording

As corresponding increases in throughput lag behind growth in the use of digital asset networks, average transaction fees and settlement times may increase considerably. For example, the Bitcoin network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. Since January 1, 2022, Bitcoin average daily transaction fees have ranged from $0.38 per transaction on September 8, 2024, to as high as $124.17 per transaction, on April 20, 2024. As of December 31, 2024, Bitcoin average daily transaction fees stood at $1.79 per transaction. Since January 1, 2021, Zcash Network average daily transaction fees have ranged from $0.001 per transaction on February 26, 2023, to as high as $0.29 per transaction, on March 6, 2024. As of December 31, 2024, Zcash Network average daily transaction fees stood at $0.05 per transaction. Notwithstanding the increase in throughput on the Zcash Network as compared to the Bitcoin network, settlement speeds on the Zcash Network have remained relatively constant since December 2019, when a network upgrade halved the target block interval to 1.3 minutes, although they can vary depending on the size of the number of pending transactions waiting to be included in a block. Increased transaction fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for ZEC (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, ZEC, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Current wording

As corresponding increases in throughput lag behind growth in the use of digital asset networks, average transaction fees and settlement times may increase considerably. For example, the Bitcoin Network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. Since January 1, 2023, Bitcoin average daily transaction fees have ranged from $0.31 per transaction on December 7, 2025, to as high as $124.17 per transaction, on April 20, 2024. As of December 31, 2025, Bitcoin average daily transaction fees stood at $0.65 per transaction. Since January 1, 2023, Zcash Network average daily transaction fees have ranged from $0.001 per transaction on February 26, 2023, to as high as $29.15 per transaction, on September 14, 2025. As of December 31, 2025, Zcash Network average daily transaction fees stood at $0.31 per transaction. Notwithstanding the increase in throughput on the Zcash Network as compared to the Bitcoin Network, settlement speeds on the Zcash Network have remained relatively constant since December 2019, when a network upgrade halved the target block interval to 1.3 minutes, although they can vary depending on the size of the number of pending transactions waiting to be included in a block. Increased transaction fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for ZEC (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of ZEC, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

As of the date of this Annual Report, the largest unshielded 100 ZEC wallets held approximately 53% of the ZEC in circulation. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant amount of ZEC, 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. Furthermore, because of Zcash’s privacy-preserving features, it is possible that some persons or entities have accumulated large positions of ZEC using shielded transactions, which would not be reflected in available token concentration data, and therefore ownership of ZEC may be more concentrated than is currently known. 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 ZEC.

Current wording

As of the date of this Annual Report, the largest unshielded 100 ZEC wallets held approximately 46% of the ZEC in circulation. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant amount of ZEC, 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. Furthermore, because of Zcash’s privacy-preserving features, it is possible that some persons or entities have accumulated large positions of ZEC using shielded transactions, which would not be reflected in available token concentration data, and therefore ownership of ZEC may be more concentrated than is currently known. 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 ZEC.

Previous wording

If the digital asset award for mining blocks and transaction fees for recording transactions on the Zcash Network are not sufficiently high to incentivize miners, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit or otherwise regulate mining activities, miners may cease expanding processing power or demand high transaction fees, which could negatively impact the value of ZEC and the value of the Shares.

Current wording

If the digital asset rewards for mining blocks and transaction fees for recording transactions on the Zcash Network are not sufficiently high to incentivize miners, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit or otherwise regulate mining activities, miners may cease expanding processing power or demand high transaction fees, which could negatively impact the value of ZEC and the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

If the digital asset awards for mining blocks or the transaction fees for recording transactions on the Zcash Network are not sufficiently high to incentivize miners, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit or otherwise regulate mining activities, miners may cease expending processing power to mine blocks and the security of the Zcash Blockchain could be compromised. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

Current wording

If the digital asset rewards for mining blocks or the transaction fees for recording transactions on the Zcash Network are not sufficiently high to incentivize miners, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit or otherwise regulate mining activities, miners may cease expending processing power to mine blocks and the security of the Zcash Blockchain could be compromised. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

Previous wording

Alternatively, miners could collude in an anti-competitive manner to reject low transaction fees on the Zcash Network and force users to pay higher fees, thus reducing the attractiveness of the Zcash Network. Higher transaction confirmation fees resulting through collusion or otherwise may adversely affect the attractiveness of the Zcash Network, the value of ZEC and the value of the Shares.

Current wording

Alternatively, miners could collude in an anti-competitive manner to reject low transaction fees on the Zcash Network and force users to pay higher fees, thus reducing the attractiveness of the Zcash Network. Higher transaction confirmation fees resulting from collusion or otherwise may adversely affect the attractiveness of the Zcash Network, the value of ZEC and the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

Moreover, because of the Zcash Network’s privacy-preserving features, it is possible that certain pools have exceeded in the past, or may exceed now or in Zcash’s future, the 50% threshold on the Zcash Network. As of the date of this Annual Report, there are no known reports of malicious activity on, or control of, the Zcash Network, and no mining pools on the Zcash Network are believed to have exceeded the 50% hashrate threshold. However, because of Zcash’s privacy-preserving features, it is possible that certain mining pools have exceeded in the past, or may exceed now or in the future, the 50% threshold on the Zcash Network. The crossing of the 50% threshold indicates a greater risk that a single mining pool could exert authority over the validation of ZEC transactions, and this risk is heightened if over 50% of the processing power on the network falls within the jurisdiction of a single governmental authority. If network participants, including the core developers and the administrators of mining pools, do not act to ensure greater decentralization of ZEC mining processing power, the feasibility of a malicious actor obtaining control of the processing power on the Zcash Network will increase, which may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

Moreover, because of the Zcash Network’s privacy-preserving features, it is possible that certain pools have exceeded in the past, or may exceed now or in Zcash’s future, the 50% threshold on the Zcash Network. As of the date of this Annual Report, there are no known reports of malicious activity on, or control of, the Zcash Network, and while historically there have been mining pools that reportedly exceeded the 50% hashrate threshold, no mining pools on the Zcash Network are currently believed to have exceeded the threshold. Further, because of Zcash’s privacy-preserving features, it is possible that certain mining pools have exceeded in the past, or may exceed now or in the future, the 50% threshold on the Zcash Network. The possible crossing of the 50% threshold indicates a greater risk that a single mining pool or small group of mining pools, for example, could exert authority over the validation of ZEC transactions, and this risk is heightened if over 50% of the processing power on the network falls within the jurisdiction of a single governmental authority. If network participants, including the core developers and the administrators of mining pools, do not act to ensure greater decentralization of ZEC mining processing power, the feasibility of a malicious actor obtaining control of the processing power on the Zcash Network will increase, which may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

For example, 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. Furthermore, on June 2, 2018, the Horizen Network, another zk-SNARKs-based protocol, was the target of a double-spend attack by an unknown actor that gained more than 50% of the processing power of the Horizen Network. The attack was the result of delayed submission of blocks to the Horizen Network. Any similar attacks on the Zcash Network could negatively impact the value of ZEC and the value of the Shares.

Current wording

Furthermore, on June 2, 2018, the Horizen network, another zk-SNARKs-based protocol, was the target of a double-spend attack by an unknown actor that gained more than 50% of the processing power of the Horizen network. The attack was the result of delayed submission of blocks to the Horizen network. Any similar attacks on the Zcash Network could negatively impact the value of ZEC and the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

The Zcash Network operates using open-source protocols, meaning that any user can download the software, modify it and then propose that the users and miners of ZEC adopt the modification. When a modification is introduced and a substantial majority of users and miners’ consent to the modification, the change is implemented and the network remains uninterrupted. However, if less than a substantial majority of users and miners’ consent to the proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the software prior to its modification, the consequence would be what is known as a “hard fork” of the Zcash Network, with one group running the pre-modified software and the other running the modified software. The effect of such a fork would be the existence of two versions of Bitcoin running in parallel, yet lacking interchangeability. For example, in August 2017, Bitcoin “forked” into Bitcoin and a new digital asset, Bitcoin Cash, as a result of a several-year dispute over how to increase the rate of transactions that the Bitcoin network can process. Some users of the original network may harbor ill will toward the Bitcoin Cash network, and vice versa. These users may attempt to negatively impact the use or adoption of the Bitcoin Cash network. A fork may also occur as a result of an unintentional or unanticipated software flaw in the various versions of otherwise compatible software that users run. Such a fork could lead to users and miners abandoning the digital asset with the flawed software. 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 could result in a permanent fork.

Current wording

The Zcash Network operates using open-source protocols, meaning that any user can download the software, modify it and then propose that the users and miners of ZEC adopt the modification. When a modification is introduced and a substantial majority of users and miners’ consent to the modification, the change is implemented and the network remains uninterrupted. However, if less than a substantial majority of users and miners’ consent to the proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the software prior to its modification, the consequence would be what is known as a “hard fork” of the Zcash Network, with one group running the pre-modified software and the other running the modified software. The effect of such a fork would be the existence of two versions of the Zcash Network running in parallel, yet lacking interchangeability. For example, in August 2017, Bitcoin “forked” into Bitcoin and a new digital asset, Bitcoin Cash, as a result of a several-year dispute over how to increase the rate of transactions that the Bitcoin Network can process. Some users of the original network may harbor ill will toward the new network, and vice versa. These users may attempt to negatively impact the use or adoption of the new network. A fork may also occur as a result of an unintentional or unanticipated software flaw in the various versions of otherwise compatible software that users run. Such a fork could lead to users and miners abandoning the digital asset with the flawed software. 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 could result in a permanent fork.

Previous wording

The cryptography used to enhance the privacy of transactions on the Zcash Network is new and could ultimately fail, or could be used to facilitate illicit activities, and businesses that facilitate transactions in ZEC may be at increased risk of criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having services cut off, which could negatively affect the price of ZEC and the value of the Shares.

Current wording

The cryptography used to enhance the privacy of transactions on the Zcash Network is new and could ultimately fail, or could be used to facilitate illicit activities, and businesses that facilitate transactions in ZEC could be at increased risk of criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having services cut off, which could negatively affect the price of ZEC and the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

When the Trust and the Sponsor, acting on behalf of the Trust, sell or deliver, as applicable, ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, they generally do not transact directly with counterparties other than the Authorized Participant, a Liquidity Provider or other similarly eligible financial institutions that are subject to federal and state licensing requirements and maintain practices and policies designed to comply with AML and KYC regulations. When an Authorized Participant or Liquidity Provider sources ZEC in connection with the creation of the Shares or facilitates transactions in ZEC at the direction of the Trust or the Sponsor, it directly faces its counterparty and, in all instances, the Authorized Participant or Liquidity Provider, as applicable, follow policies and procedures designed to ensure that it knows the identity of its counterparty. The Authorized Participant is a registered broker-dealer and therefore subject to AML and countering the financing of terrorism obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act as administered by FinCEN and further overseen by the SEC and FINRA.

Current wording

When the Trust and the Sponsor, acting on behalf of the Trust, sell or deliver, as applicable, ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, they generally do not transact directly with counterparties other than the Authorized Participant, a Liquidity Provider or other similarly eligible financial institutions that are subject to federal and state licensing requirements and maintain practices and policies designed to comply with AML and KYC regulations. When an Authorized Participant or a Liquidity Provider sources ZEC in connection with the creation of the Shares or facilitates transactions in ZEC at the direction of the Trust or the Sponsor, it directly faces its counterparty and, in all instances, the Authorized Participant or the Liquidity Provider, as applicable, follow policies and procedures designed to ensure that it knows the identity of its counterparty. The Authorized Participant is a registered broker-dealer and therefore subject to AML and countering the financing of terrorism obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act as administered by FinCEN and further overseen by the SEC and FINRA.

Previous wording

These events have led to a substantial increase in regulatory and enforcement scrutiny of the industry as a whole and of Digital Asset Trading Platforms in particular, including from the Department of Justice, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress. 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. Binance and Kraken continue to litigate these charges against the SEC; in February 2025, the SEC announced it had filed a joint stipulation with Coinbase to dismiss the enforcement action against it. The Binance Complaint and the Kraken Complaint have led, and may in the future lead, to further volatility in digital asset prices.

Current wording

These events have also led to a substantial increase in regulatory and enforcement scrutiny of the industry as a whole and of Digital Asset Trading Platforms in particular, including from the Department of Justice, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress. For example, in June 2023, the SEC brought charges against Binance (the “Binance Complaint”) and Coinbase (the “Coinbase Complaint”), 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 have led, and may in the future lead, to further volatility in digital asset prices. Between February 2025 and May 2025, the SEC entered into court-approved joint stipulations to dismiss each of the Binance Complaint, Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint. The SEC has terminated its investigation or enforcement action into many other digital asset market participants including the Zcash Foundation in January 2026.

Previous wording

An increase in the global ZEC supply;

Current wording

an increase in the global ZEC supply that is publicly available for trading;

Previous wording

Fees associated with processing a ZEC transaction and the speed at which ZEC transactions are settled;

Current wording

fees associated with processing a ZEC transaction and the speed at which ZEC transactions are settled on the Zcash Network;

Previous wording

The Index has a limited history and the Index Price is a composite reference rate calculated using trading price data from various Digital Asset Trading Platforms chosen by the Index Provider. The Digital Asset Trading Platforms chosen by the Index Provider have also changed over time. For example, on July 28, 2024, the Index Provider added Bitfinex to the Index due to the trading platform meeting the Index Provider’s minimum liquidity requirement as part of its scheduled quarterly review, and removed Gemini from the Index due to the trading platform failing to meet the Index Provider’s minimum liquidity requirement. On December 22, 2024, the Index Provider added back Gemini to the Index due to the trading platform meeting the Index Provider’s minimum liquidity requirement, and did not remove any Constituent Trading Platforms as part of its scheduled quarterly review. The Index Provider may remove or add Digital Asset Trading Platforms to the Index in the future at its discretion. For more information on the inclusion criteria for Digital Asset Trading Platforms in the Index, see “Item 1. Business—Overview of the ZEC Industry and Market—ZEC Value—The Index and the Index Price.”

Current wording

The Index has a limited history and the Index Price is a composite reference rate calculated using trading price data from various Digital Asset Trading Platforms chosen by the Index Provider. The Digital Asset Trading Platforms chosen by the Index Provider have also changed over time. The Index Provider may remove or add Digital Asset Trading Platforms to the Index in the future at its discretion. For more information on the inclusion criteria for Digital Asset Trading Platforms in the Index, see “Item 1. Business—Overview of the ZEC Industry and Market—ZEC Value—The Index and the Index Price.”

Previous wording

Although the Index is designed to accurately capture the market price of ZEC, third parties may be able to purchase and sell ZEC on public or private markets not included among the Constituent Trading Platforms of the Index, and such transactions may take place at prices materially higher or lower than the Index Price. Moreover, there may be variances in the prices of ZEC on the various Digital Asset Trading Platforms, including as a result of differences in fee structures or administrative procedures on different Digital Asset Trading Platforms. For example, based on data provided by the Index Provider, on any given day during the year ended December 31, 2024, the maximum differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time spot price of any single Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Index and the Index Price was 7.93% and the average of the maximum differentials of the 4:00 p.m., New York time spot price of each Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Index and the Index Price was 5.01%. During this same period, the average differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time spot prices of all the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index and the Index Price was 0.06%. All Digital Asset Trading Platforms that were included in the Index throughout the period were considered in this analysis. To the extent such prices differ materially from the Index Price, investors may lose confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of ZEC, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

Although the Index is designed to accurately capture the market price of ZEC, third parties may be able to purchase and sell ZEC on public or private markets not included among the Constituent Trading Platforms of the Index, and such transactions may take place at prices materially higher or lower than the Index Price. Moreover, there may be variances in the prices of ZEC on the various Digital Asset Trading Platforms, including as a result of differences in fee structures or administrative procedures on different Digital Asset Trading Platforms. For example, based on data provided by the Index Provider, on any given day during the year ended December 31, 2025, the maximum differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time spot price of any single Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Index and the Index Price was 32.50% and the average of the maximum differentials of the 4:00 p.m., New York time spot price of each Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Index and the Index Price was 11.98%. During this same period, the average differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time spot prices of all the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index and the Index Price was 0.67%. All Digital Asset Trading Platforms that were included in the Index throughout the period were considered in this analysis. To the extent such prices differ materially from the Index Price, investors may lose confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of ZEC, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

The price of ZEC on public Digital Asset Trading Platforms has a very limited history, and during this history, ZEC prices on the Digital Asset Markets more generally, and on Digital Asset Trading Platforms individually, have been volatile and subject to influence by many factors, including operational interruptions. While the Index is designed to limit exposure to the interruption of individual Digital Asset Trading Platforms, the Index Price, and the price of ZEC generally, remains subject to volatility experienced by Digital Asset Trading Platforms, and such volatility could adversely affect the value of the Shares. For example, from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2024, the Index Price ranged from $18.14 to $365.90, with the straight average being $72.09. In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2024, the Index Price ranged from $18.14 to $76.20. The Sponsor has not observed a material difference between the Index Price and average prices from the Constituent Trading Platforms individually or as a group. The price of ZEC more generally has experienced volatility similar to the Index Price during these periods. For additional information on movement of the Index Price and the price of ZEC, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Historical NAV and ZEC Prices.”

Current wording

The price of ZEC on public Digital Asset Trading Platforms has a very limited history, and during this history, ZEC prices on the Digital Asset Markets more generally, and on Digital Asset Trading Platforms individually, have been volatile and subject to influence by many factors, including operational interruptions. While the Index is designed to limit exposure to the interruption of individual Digital Asset Trading Platforms, the Index Price, and the price of ZEC generally, remains subject to volatility experienced by Digital Asset Trading Platforms, and such volatility could adversely affect the value of the Shares. For example, from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2025, the Index Price ranged from $18.14 to $685.96, with the straight average being $87.08. In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2025, the Index Price ranged from $29.50 to $685.96. The Sponsor has not observed a material difference between the Index Price and average prices from the Constituent Trading Platforms individually or as a group. The price of ZEC more generally has experienced volatility similar to the Index Price during these periods. For additional information on movement of the Index Price and the price of ZEC, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Historical NAV and ZEC Prices.”

Previous wording

As of December 31, 2024, ZEC was the 104 largest digital asset by market capitalization as tracked by CoinMarketCap.com. As of December 31, 2024, the alternative digital assets tracked by CoinMarketCap.com, had a total market capitalization of approximately $3,291.9 billion (including the approximately $916.4 million market cap of ZEC), as calculated using market prices and total available supply of each digital asset, excluding tokens pegged to other assets. ZEC faces competition from a wide range of digital assets. For example, Monero, Dash and Oasis Network are all focused on enhancing privacy. Many consortiums and financial institutions are also researching and investing resources into private or permissioned blockchain platforms rather than open platforms like the Zcash Network. In addition, ZEC is currently supported by fewer trading platforms than more established digital assets, such as Bitcoin and Ether, which could impact its liquidity. Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, ZEC and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

As of December 31, 2025, ZEC was the 15th largest digital asset by market capitalization as tracked by CoinMarketCap.com. As of December 31, 2025, the alternative digital assets tracked by CoinMarketCap.com, had a total market capitalization of approximately $2,678.0 billion (including the approximately $8.4 million market cap of ZEC), as calculated using market prices and total available supply of each digital asset, excluding stablecoins and tokens pegged to other assets. ZEC faces competition from a wide range of digital assets. For example, XMR, DASH, and ROSE are all focused on enhancing privacy. Many consortiums and financial institutions are also researching and investing resources into private or permissioned blockchain platforms rather than open platforms like the Zcash Network. In addition, ZEC is currently supported by fewer trading platforms than more established digital assets, such as Bitcoin and Ether, which could impact its liquidity. Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, ZEC and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, the growth of tokenized assets and other on-chain financial products that offer yield, stability, or regulatory clarity may also divert capital and user engagement away from the Zcash Network, which could negatively impact Zcash’s market demand and the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

Investors may also invest in ZEC through means other than the Shares, including through direct investments in ZEC and other potential financial vehicles, possibly including securities backed by or linked to ZEC and digital asset financial vehicles similar to the Trust. Market and financial conditions, and other conditions beyond the Sponsor’s control, may make it more attractive to invest in other financial vehicles or to invest in ZEC directly, which could limit the market for, and reduce the liquidity of, the Shares. In addition, to the extent digital asset financial vehicles other than the Trust tracking the price of ZEC are formed and represent a significant proportion of the demand for ZEC, large purchases or redemptions of the securities of these digital asset financial vehicles, or private funds holding ZEC, could negatively affect the Index Price, the NAV, the NAV per Share, the value of the Shares, the Principal Market NAV and the Principal Market NAV per Share. Moreover, any reduced demand for Shares of the Trust may cause the Shares of the Trust to trade at a discount to the NAV per Share.

Current wording

Investors may also invest in ZEC through means other than the Shares, including through direct investments in ZEC and other potential financial vehicles, possibly including securities backed by or linked to ZEC and digital asset financial vehicles similar to the Trust. Market and financial conditions, and other conditions beyond the Sponsor’s control, may make it more attractive to invest in other financial vehicles or to invest in ZEC directly, which could limit the market for, and reduce the liquidity of, the Shares. In addition, to the extent digital asset financial vehicles other than the Trust tracking the price of ZEC are formed and represent a significant proportion of the demand for ZEC, large purchases or redemptions of the securities of these digital asset financial vehicles, or private funds holding ZEC, could negatively affect the Index Price, the NAV, the NAV per Share, the value of the Shares, the Principal Market NAV and the

Previous wording

The SEC may approve applications under Rule 19b-4 of the Exchange Act to list competing digital assets as exchange-traded products, which could reduce demand for, and the price of, ZEC and adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Current wording

The SEC has approved generic listing standards for commodity-based trust shares and may approve other applications under Rule 19b-4 of the Exchange Act to list competing digital assets as exchange-traded products, which could reduce demand for, and the price of, ZEC and adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

To date, the SEC has only approved applications under Rule 19b-4 of the Exchange Act to list spot digital asset exchange-traded products which hold Bitcoin and Ether. However, applications for competing digital assets have been filed and are currently pending, and there can be no guarantee the SEC will not one day approve any such application. If applications to list spot digital asset exchange-traded products are approved, to the extent such competing digital asset exchange-traded products come to represent a significant proportion of the demand for digital assets generally, demand for, and the price of, ZEC could be reduced. Such reduced demand could in turn negatively affect the Index Price, the NAV, the NAV per Share, the value of the Shares, the Principal Market NAV and the Principal Market NAV per Share. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the Trust will be able to maintain its scale and achieve its intended competitive positioning relative to competitors, which could adversely affect the performance of the Trust and the value of the Shares.

Current wording

To date, the SEC has approved applications under Rule 19b-4 of the Exchange Act to list spot digital asset exchange-traded products which hold Bitcoin and Ether, as well as generic listing standards for commodity-based trust shares holding digital assets. To the extent competing digital asset exchange-traded products come to represent a significant proportion of the demand for digital assets generally, demand for, and the price of, ZEC could be reduced. Such reduced demand could in turn negatively affect the Index Price, the NAV, the NAV per Share, the value of the Shares, the Principal Market NAV and the Principal Market NAV per Share. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the Trust will be able to maintain its scale and achieve its intended competitive positioning relative to competitors, which could adversely affect the performance of the Trust and the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

Prices of ZEC may be affected due to stablecoins (including Tether and U.S. Dollar Coin (“USDC”)), the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment.

Current wording

Prices of ZEC may be affected due to stablecoins (including Tether and USDC), the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment.

Previous wording

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 regulatory concerns about stablecoin issuers or intermediaries, such as Bitcoin spot markets, that support stablecoins, could impact individuals’ willingness to trade on trading venues that rely on stablecoins and could impact the price of ZEC, and in turn, an investment in the Shares.

Current wording

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 regulatory concerns about stablecoin issuers or intermediaries that support stablecoins, could impact individuals’ willingness to trade on trading venues that rely on stablecoins and could impact the price of ZEC, and in turn, an investment in the Shares.

Previous wording

Moreover, the legal rights of customers with respect to digital assets held on their behalf by a third-party custodian, such as the Custodian, in insolvency proceedings are currently uncertain. The Custodian Agreement contains an agreement by the parties to treat the digital assets credited to the Trust’s Digital Asset Account as financial assets under Article 8 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (“Article 8”), in addition to stating that the Custodian will serve as fiduciary and custodian on the Trust’s behalf. The Custodian’s parent, Coinbase Global Inc., has stated in its public securities filings that in light of the inclusion in its custody agreements of provisions relating to Article 8 it believes that a court would not treat custodied digital assets as part of its general estate in the event the Custodian were to experience insolvency. However, due to the novelty of digital asset custodial arrangements courts have not yet considered this type of treatment for custodied digital assets and it is not possible to predict with certainty how they would rule in such a scenario. If the Custodian became subject to insolvency proceedings and a court were to rule that the custodied digital assets were part of the Custodian’s general estate and not the property of the Trust, then the Trust would be treated as a general unsecured creditor in the Custodian’s insolvency proceedings and the Trust could be subject to the loss of all or a significant portion of its assets.

Current wording

Moreover, the legal rights of customers with respect to digital assets held on their behalf by a third-party custodian, such as the Custodian, in insolvency proceedings are currently uncertain. The Custodian Agreement contains an agreement by the parties to treat the digital assets credited to the Trust’s Digital Asset Account as financial assets under Article 8 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (“Article 8”), in addition to stating that the Custodian will serve as fiduciary and custodian on the Trust’s behalf. The Custodian’s parent, Coinbase Global Inc., has stated in its public securities filings that in light of the inclusion in its custody agreements of provisions relating to Article 8 it believes that a court would not treat custodied digital assets as part of its general estate in the event the Custodian were to experience insolvency. However, due to the novelty of digital asset custodial arrangements courts have not yet considered this type of treatment for custodied digital assets and it is not possible to predict with certainty how they would rule in such a scenario. If the Custodian became subject to insolvency proceedings and a court were to rule that the custodied digital assets were part of the Custodian’s general estate and not the property of the Trust, then the Trust would be treated as a general unsecured creditor in the Custodian’s insolvency proceedings and the Trust would be subject to the loss of all or a significant portion of its assets.

Previous wording

To the extent that Sponsor is not able to find a suitable party willing to serve as the custodian, the Sponsor may be required to terminate the Trust and liquidate the Trust’s ZEC. In addition, to the extent that the Sponsor finds a suitable party and must enter into a modified Custodian Agreement that is less favorable for the Trust or Sponsor and/or transfer the Trust’s assets in a relatively short time period, the safekeeping of the Trust’s ZEC may be adversely affected, which may in turn adversely affect value of the Shares. Likewise, if the Sponsor and/or the Authorized Participant is required to replace any other service provider, they may not be able to find a party willing to serve in such capacity in a timely manner or at all. If the Sponsor decides, or is required, to replace the Authorized Participant and/or if a Liquidity Provider is replaced or required to be replaced, this could negatively impact the Trust’s ability to create new Shares, which would impact the Shares’ liquidity and could have a negative impact on the value of the Shares.

Current wording

To the extent that the Sponsor is not able to find a suitable party willing to serve as custodian, the Sponsor may be required to terminate the Trust and liquidate the Trust’s ZEC. In addition, to the extent that the Sponsor finds a suitable party and must enter into a modified Custodian Agreement that is less favorable for the Trust or Sponsor and/or transfer the Trust’s assets in a relatively short time period, the safekeeping of the Trust’s ZEC may be adversely affected, which may in turn adversely affect the value of the Shares. Likewise, if the Sponsor is required to replace any other service provider, they may not be able to find a party willing to serve in such capacity in a timely manner or at all. If the Sponsor decides, or is required, to replace the Authorized Participant and/or if a Liquidity Provider is replaced or required to be replaced, this could negatively impact the Trust’s ability to create new Shares, which would impact the Shares’ liquidity and could have a negative impact on the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

The Shares may trade at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share as a result of the non-current trading hours between OTCQX and the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market;

Current wording

The Shares may trade at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share as a result of the non-concurrent trading hours between OTCQX and the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market.

Previous wording

Historically, the Shares have traded at both premiums and discounts to the NAV per Share, which at times have been substantial. If the Shares trade at a premium, investors who purchase Shares on OTCQX will pay more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares directly from Authorized Participants. In contrast, if the Shares trade on OTCQX at a discount, investors who purchase Shares directly from Authorized Participants will pay more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares on OTCQX. The premium or discount at which the Shares have traded has fluctuated over time. From October 18, 2021 to December 31, 2024, the maximum premium of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX over the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 240%, the average premium was 72%, the maximum discount of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX below the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 55% and the average discount was 22%. The closing price of the Shares, as quoted on OTCQX at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day between October 18, 2021 to December 31, 2024, has been quoted at a discount on 482 days. As of December 31, 2024, the last business day of the period, the Trust’s Shares were quoted on OTCQX at a premium of 22% to the Trust’s NAV per Share. As a result, shareholders who purchase Shares on OTCQX may suffer a loss on their investment if they sell their Shares at a time when the premium has decreased from the premium at which they purchased the Shares even if the NAV per Share remains the same. Likewise, shareholders that purchase Shares directly from the Trust may suffer a loss on their investment if they sell their Shares at a time when the Shares are trading at a discount on OTCQX. Furthermore, shareholders may suffer a loss on their investment even if the NAV per Share increases because the decrease in any premium or increase in any discount may offset any increase in the NAV per Share.

Current wording

Historically, the Shares have traded at both premiums and discounts to the NAV per Share, which at times have been substantial. If the Shares trade at a premium, investors who purchase Shares on OTCQX will pay more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares directly from Authorized Participants. In contrast, if the Shares trade on OTCQX at a discount, investors who purchase Shares directly from Authorized Participants will pay more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares on OTCQX. The premium or discount at which the Shares have traded has fluctuated over time. From October 18, 2021 to December 31, 2025, the maximum premium of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX over the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 240%, the average premium was 53%, the maximum discount of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX below the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 55% and the average discount was 20%. The closing price of the Shares, as quoted on OTCQX at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day between October 18, 2021 to December 31, 2025, has been quoted at a discount on 583 days. As of December 31, 2025, the last business day of the period, the Trust’s Shares were quoted on OTCQX at a discount of 24% to the Trust’s NAV per Share. As a result, shareholders who purchase Shares on OTCQX may suffer a loss on their investment if they sell their Shares at a time when the premium has decreased from the premium at which they purchased the Shares even if the NAV per Share remains the same. Likewise, shareholders that purchase Shares directly from the Trust may suffer a loss on their investment if they sell their Shares at a time when the Shares are trading at a discount on OTCQX. Furthermore, shareholders may suffer a loss on their investment even if the NAV per Share increases because the decrease in any premium or increase in any discount may offset any increase in the NAV per Share.

Previous wording

The Sponsor’s Fee accrues daily in U.S. dollars at an annual rate based on the NAV Fee Basis Amount, which is based on the NAV of the Trust, and is paid to the Sponsor in ZEC. See “Item 1. Business—Valuation of ZEC and Determination of NAV—Disposition of ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency” and “Item 1. Business—Activities of the Trust—Hypothetical Expense Example.” As a result, the amount of Trust’s assets represented by each Share declines as the Trust pays the Sponsor’s Fee (or sells ZEC in order to raise cash to pay any Additional Trust Expenses), which may cause the Shares to decrease in value over time or dampen any increase in value.

Current wording

The Sponsor’s Fee accrues daily in U.S. dollars at an annual rate based on the NAV Fee Basis Amount, which is based on the NAV of the Trust, and is paid to the Sponsor in ZEC. See “Item 1. Business—Valuation of ZEC and Determination of NAV—Disposition of ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency”. As a result, the amount of Trust’s assets represented by each Share declines as the Trust pays the Sponsor’s Fee (or sells ZEC in order to raise cash to pay any Additional Trust Expenses), which may cause the Shares to decrease in value over time or dampen any increase in value.

Previous wording

At this time the Sponsor is not accepting redemption requests from shareholders. Because the Sponsor does not believe that the SEC would, at this time, entertain an application for the waiver of rules needed in order to operate an ongoing redemption program, the Sponsor currently has no intention of seeking regulatory approval from the SEC for the Trust to operate an ongoing redemption program and significant barriers to regulatory approval for any request to list the shares of other digital asset investment vehicles, including the Shares of the Trust, remain. Absent the institution of such redemption program, the Shares may trade at a discount in the future, and may do so indefinitely. Therefore, unless the Trust is permitted to, and does, establish a Share redemption program, shareholders will be unable to (or could be significantly impeded in attempting to) sell or otherwise liquidate investments in the Shares, which could have a material adverse impact on demand for the Shares and their value.

Current wording

At this time the Sponsor is not accepting redemption requests from shareholders. Absent the institution of such redemption program, the Shares may trade at a discount in the future, and may do so indefinitely. Therefore, unless the Trust is permitted to, and does, establish a Share redemption program, shareholders will be unable to (or could be significantly impeded in attempting to) sell or otherwise liquidate investments in the Shares, which could have a material adverse impact on demand for the Shares and their value.

Previous wording

On April 1, 2014, Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF, an affiliate of the Trust, launched a program pursuant to which its shareholders could request redemptions from Genesis, an affiliate of the Trust and the sole Authorized Participant of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF at that time. On September 23, 2014, Genesis received a letter from the staff of the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations summarizing the staff’s findings from an onsite review of Genesis’s broker-dealer activities conducted in June 2014. In its exit report, the staff stated that it had concluded that Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF’s redemption program, in which its shareholders were permitted to request the redemption of their shares through Genesis, appeared to violate Regulation M under the Exchange Act because such redemptions of shares took place at the same time Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF was in the process of creating shares. On July 11, 2016, Genesis and Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC whereby they agreed to a cease-and-desist order against future violations of Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M under the Exchange Act. Genesis also agreed to pay disgorgement of $51,650.11 in redemption fees it collected, plus prejudgment interest of $2,105.68, for a total of $53,755.79. The Trust currently has no intention of seeking an exemption from the SEC under Regulation M in order to instate a redemption program.

Current wording

On April 1, 2014, Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF, an affiliate of the Trust, launched a program pursuant to which its shareholders could request redemptions from Genesis, an affiliate of the Trust and the sole Authorized Participant of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF at that time. On September 23, 2014, Genesis received a letter from the staff of the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations summarizing the staff’s findings from an onsite review of Genesis’s broker-dealer activities conducted in June 2014. In its exit report, the staff stated that it had concluded that Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF’s redemption program, in which its shareholders were permitted to request the redemption of their shares through Genesis, appeared to violate Regulation M under the Exchange Act because such redemptions of shares took place at the same time Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF was in the process of creating shares. On July 11, 2016, Genesis and Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC whereby they agreed to a cease-and-desist order against future violations of Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M under the Exchange Act. Genesis also agreed to pay disgorgement of $51,650.11 in redemption fees it collected, plus prejudgment interest of $2,105.68, for a total of $53,755.79.

Previous wording

While the Custodian is required under the Custodian Agreement to maintain insurance coverage that is commercially reasonable for the custodial services it provides, and the Custodian has advised the Sponsor that it maintains insurance coverage at commercially reasonable amounts for the digital assets custodied on behalf of clients, including the Trust’s ZEC, shareholders cannot be assured that the Custodian will maintain adequate insurance or that such coverage will cover losses with respect to the Trust’s ZEC. Moreover, while the Custodian maintains certain capital reserve requirements depending on the assets under custody and to the extent required by applicable law, and such capital reserves may provide additional means to cover client asset losses, the Sponsor does not know the amount of such capital reserves, and neither the Trust nor the Sponsor have access to such information. The Trust cannot be assured that the Custodian will maintain capital reserves sufficient to cover losses with respect to the Trust’s digital assets. Furthermore, Coinbase has represented in securities filings that the total value of crypto assets in its possession and control is significantly greater than the total value of insurance coverage that would compensate Coinbase in the event of theft or other loss of funds.

Current wording

While the Custodian is required under the Custodian Agreement to maintain insurance coverage that is commercially reasonable for the custodial services it provides, and the Custodian has advised the Sponsor that it maintains insurance coverage at commercially reasonable amounts for the digital assets custodied on behalf of clients, including the Trust’s ZEC, resulting from theft, shareholders cannot be assured that the Custodian will maintain adequate insurance or that such coverage will cover losses with respect to the Trust’s ZEC. Moreover, while the Custodian maintains certain capital reserve requirements depending on the assets under custody and to the extent required by applicable law, and such capital reserves may provide additional means to cover client asset losses, the Sponsor does not know the amount of such capital reserves, and neither the Trust nor the Sponsor have access to such information. The Trust cannot be assured that the Custodian will maintain capital reserves sufficient to cover losses with respect to the Trust’s digital assets. Furthermore, Coinbase has represented in securities filings that the total value of crypto assets in its possession and control is significantly greater than the total value of insurance coverage that would compensate Coinbase in the event of theft or other loss of funds.

Previous wording

The Trust has informed the Custodian that it is irrevocably abandoning, as of any date on which the Trust creates Shares, any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency to which it would otherwise be entitled as of such date and with respect to which it has not taken any Affirmative Action at or prior to such date. In order to avert abandonment of an Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency, the Trust will send a notice to the Custodian of its intention to retain such Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency. The Sponsor intends to evaluate each future fork or airdrop on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the Trust’s legal advisers, tax consultants and Custodian. Any inability to recognize the economic benefit of a hard fork or airdrop could adversely affect the value of the Shares. See “Item 1. Business—Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency.”

Current wording

Trust will send a notice to the Custodian of its intention to retain such Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency. The Sponsor intends to evaluate each future fork or airdrop on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the Trust’s legal advisers, tax consultants and Custodian. Any inability to recognize the economic benefit of a hard fork or airdrop could adversely affect the value of the Shares. See “Item 1. Business—Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency.”

Previous wording

As such, notwithstanding the Sponsor’s receipt of a memorandum regarding the status of ZEC under the federal securities laws from external counsel and the Sponsor’s view that ZEC is not a security and the Sponsor’s transactions in Ether are not securities transactions, the SEC or a federal court may in the future take a different view as to the security status of ZEC.

Current wording

As such, notwithstanding the Sponsor’s receipt of a memorandum regarding the status of ZEC under the federal securities laws from external counsel and the Sponsor’s view that ZEC is not a security and the Sponsor’s transactions in ZEC are not securities transactions, the SEC or a federal court may in the future take a different view as to the security status of ZEC.

Previous wording

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

Current wording

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