Ark 21Shares Bitcoin ETF

Previous wording

Below is a summary of the principal factors that make an investment in the Shares speculative or risky. This summary does not address all the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found below, and should be read in conjunction with the other information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the Trust’s financial statements and related notes thereto, and our other filings with the SEC, before making an investment decision regarding the Shares. See “Glossary of Defined Terms” for the definition of certain capitalized terms used in this Annual Report. All other capitalized terms used, but not defined, herein have the meanings given to them in the Trust Agreement.

Current wording

Below is a summary of the principal factors that make an investment in the Shares speculative or risky. This summary does not address all the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found below, and should be read in conjunction with the other information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the Trust’s financial statements and related notes thereto, and our other filings with the SEC, before making an investment decision regarding the Shares. All other capitalized terms used, but not defined, herein have the meanings given to them in the Trust Agreement.

Previous wording

Extreme volatility may persist, and the value of the Shares may significantly decline in the future without recovery. The digital asset markets may still be experiencing a bubble or may experience a bubble again in the future. For example, in the first half of 2022, each of Celsius Network, Voyager Digital Ltd., and Three Arrows Capital declared bankruptcy, resulting in a loss of confidence in participants of the digital asset ecosystem and negative publicity surrounding digital assets more broadly. In November 2022, FTX Trading Ltd. (“FTX”), one of the largest digital asset exchanges by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals amid rumors of the company’s liquidity issues and likely insolvency, which were subsequently corroborated by its CEO. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned, and FTX and many of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in the United States, while other affiliates have entered insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceedings around the globe, following which the U.S. Department of Justice brought criminal fraud and other charges, and the SEC and CFTC brought civil securities and commodities fraud charges, against certain of FTX’s and its affiliates’ senior executives, including its former CEO, who was found guilty of these criminal charges in November 2023. In addition, several other entities in the digital asset industry filed for bankruptcy following FTX’s bankruptcy filing, such as BlockFi Inc. and Genesis Global Capital, LLC (“Genesis”). In response to these events (collectively, the “2022 Events”), the digital asset markets have experienced extreme price volatility and other entities in the digital asset industry have been, and may continue to be, negatively affected, further undermining confidence in the digital asset markets. These events have also negatively impacted the liquidity of the digital asset markets as certain entities affiliated with FTX engaged in significant trading activity. If the liquidity of the digital asset markets continues to be negatively impacted by these events, digital asset prices, including bitcoin, may continue to experience significant volatility or price declines, and confidence in the digital asset markets may be further undermined. In addition, regulatory and enforcement scrutiny may increase, including from, among others, the U.S. Department of Justice, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress, as well as state regulators and authorities. These events are continuing to develop, and the full facts are continuing to emerge. It is not possible to predict at this time all of the risks that they may pose to the Trust, its service providers or to the digital asset industry as a whole.

Current wording

Extreme volatility may persist, and the value of the Shares may significantly decline in the future without recovery. The digital asset markets may still be experiencing a bubble or may experience a bubble again in the future. For example, in the first half of 2022, each of Celsius Network, Voyager Digital Ltd., and Three Arrows Capital declared bankruptcy, resulting in a loss of confidence in participants of the digital asset ecosystem and negative publicity surrounding digital assets more broadly. In November 2022, FTX Trading Ltd. (“FTX”), one of the largest digital asset exchanges by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals amid rumors of the company’s liquidity issues and likely insolvency, which were subsequently corroborated by its CEO. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned, and FTX and many of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in the United States, while other affiliates have entered insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceedings around the globe, following which the U.S. Department of Justice brought criminal fraud and other charges, and the SEC and CFTC brought civil securities and commodities fraud charges, against certain of FTX’s and its affiliates’ senior executives, including its former CEO, who was found guilty of these criminal charges in November 2023. In addition, several other entities in the digital asset industry filed for bankruptcy following FTX’s bankruptcy filing, such as BlockFi Inc. and Genesis Global Capital, LLC (“Genesis”). In response to these events, the digital asset markets have experienced extreme price volatility and other entities in the digital asset industry have been, and may continue to be, negatively affected, further undermining confidence in the digital asset markets. These events have also negatively impacted the liquidity of the digital asset markets as certain entities affiliated with FTX engaged in significant trading activity. If the liquidity of the digital asset markets continues to be negatively impacted by these events, digital asset prices, including bitcoin, may continue to experience significant volatility or price declines, and confidence in the digital asset markets may be further undermined. In addition, regulatory and enforcement scrutiny may increase, including from, among others, the U.S. Department of Justice, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress, as well as state regulators and authorities. These events are continuing to develop, and the full facts are continuing to emerge. It is not possible to predict at this time all of the risks that they may pose to the Trust, its service providers or to the digital asset industry as a whole.

Previous wording

The Trust’s inability to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions could result in the exchange-traded product arbitrage mechanism failing to function as efficiently as it otherwise would, leading to the potential for the Shares to trade at premiums or discounts to the NAV per Share, and such premiums or discounts could be substantial. Furthermore, if cash creations or redemptions are unavailable, either due to the Sponsor’s decision to reject or suspend such orders or otherwise, it will not be possible for Authorized Participants to redeem or create Shares, in which case the arbitrage mechanism would be unavailable. This could result in impaired liquidity for the Shares, wider bid/ask spreads in secondary trading of the Shares and greater costs to investors and other market participants. In addition, the Trust’s inability to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions, and resulting reliance on cash creations and redemptions, could cause the Sponsor to halt or suspend the creation or redemption of Shares during times of market volatility or turmoil, among other consequences.

Current wording

Even with the SEC Staff’s recent statement clarifying that in-kind creations and redemptions are permitted, the Trust’s limited ability to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions could result in the exchange-traded product arbitrage mechanism failing to function as efficiently as it otherwise would, leading to the potential for the Shares to trade at premiums or discounts to the NAV per Share, and such premiums or discounts could be substantial. Furthermore, if cash creations or redemptions are unavailable, either due to the Sponsor’s decision to reject or suspend such orders or otherwise, Authorized Participants will be limited in their ability to redeem or create Shares, in which case the arbitrage mechanism may not function as efficiently. This could result in impaired liquidity for the Shares, wider bid/ask spreads in secondary trading of the Shares and greater costs to investors and other market participants. In addition, the Trust’s limited ability to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions, and resulting relative reliance on cash creations and redemptions, could cause the Sponsor to halt or suspend the creation or redemption of Shares during times of market volatility or turmoil, among other consequences. Further, there can be no assurance that broker-dealers would be willing to serve as Authorized Participants with respect to the in-kind creation and redemption of Shares. Any of these factors could adversely affect the performance of the Trust and the value of the Shares.

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, or the potential unavailability or exhaustion of the Trust’s ability to borrow bitcoin or cash as trade credit (the “Trade Credits”), which the Trust would not be able to use in connection with in-kind creations and redemptions. Such delays could cause the execution price associated with such trades to materially deviate from the Index 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.

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 originally contemplated in-kind creation and redemption model, or the potential unavailability or exhaustion of the Trust’s ability to borrow bitcoin or cash as trade credit (the “Trade Credits”), which the Trust would not be able to use in connection with in-kind creations and redemptions. Such delays could cause the execution price associated with such trades to materially deviate from the Index price used to determine the NAV. Even though the Authorized Participants are 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

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

Current wording

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

Previous wording

The use of bitcoin to, among other things, buy and sell goods and services is part of a new and rapidly evolving industry that employs digital assets based upon computer-generated mathematical and/or cryptographic protocols. Bitcoin is a prominent, but not unique, part of this industry. The growth of this industry is subject to a high degree of uncertainty, as new assets and technological innovations continue to develop and evolve. Currently, there is relatively limited use of bitcoin in the retail and commercial marketplace in comparison to relatively extensive use as a store of value, thus contributing to price volatility that could adversely affect an investment in the Shares. However, bitcoin may not be suited for a number of commercial uses, including those requiring real time payments, partially due to the amount of time that bitcoin transactions may potentially require in order to clear. This could result in decreasing usage of the network, to the extent that bitcoin does not otherwise become a store of asset value or meet the needs of another commercial use.

Current wording

The use of digital assets such as bitcoin to, among other things, buy and sell goods and services or facilitate cross-border payments, is part of a new and rapidly evolving industry that employs digital assets based upon computer-generated mathematical and/or cryptographic protocols. Bitcoin is a prominent, but not unique, part of this industry. The growth of this industry is subject to a high degree of uncertainty, as new assets and technological innovations continue to develop and evolve. Currently, there is relatively limited use of bitcoin in the retail and commercial marketplace in comparison to relatively extensive use as a store of value, thus contributing to price volatility that could adversely affect an investment in the Shares. However, bitcoin may not be suited for a number of commercial uses, including those requiring real time payments, partially due to the amount of time that bitcoin transactions may potentially require in order to clear. This could result in decreasing usage of the network, to the extent that bitcoin does not otherwise become a store of asset value or meet the needs of another commercial use.

Previous wording

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

Current wording

Bitcoin transactions recorded on the Bitcoin network are not, from an administrative perspective, reversible without the consent and active participation of the recipient of the transaction or, in theory, control or consent of a majority of the Bitcoin network’s aggregate hash rate. Once a transaction has been verified and recorded in a block that is added to the blockchain, an incorrect transfer of a bitcoin or a theft of bitcoin generally will not be reversible, and the Trust may not be capable of seeking compensation for any such transfer or theft. Although the Trust’s transfers of bitcoin will regularly be made to or from the Trust’s accounts with the Bitcoin Custodians, it is possible that, through computer or human error, or through theft or criminal action, the Trust’s bitcoin could be transferred from the Trust’s accounts with the Bitcoin Custodians in incorrect amounts or to unauthorized third parties, or to uncontrolled accounts. To the extent that the Trust is unable to successfully seek redress for such error or theft, such loss could adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

Previous wording

On September 11, 2024, the Trust entered into separate custodial services agreements (each, a “Custodial Services Agreement” and, collectively, including the agreement with Coinbase Custodian entered into between the Trust and Coinbase Custodian on May 8, 2024 (the “Coinbase Custody Agreement”), the “Custodial Services Agreements”) with each of (i) BitGo (the “BitGo Custody Agreement”) and (ii) Anchorage (the “Anchorage Custody Agreement”). While the Bitcoin Custodians have advised the Sponsor that they have insurance coverage that covers certain losses of the digital assets it custodies on behalf of its clients, including the Trust’s bitcoin, resulting from theft, Shareholders cannot be assured that the Bitcoin Custodians will maintain adequate insurance, that such coverage will cover losses with respect to the Trust’s bitcoin, or that sufficient insurance proceeds will be available to cover the Trust’s losses in full. The Bitcoin Custodians’ insurance may not cover the type of losses experienced by the Trust. Alternatively, the Trust may be forced to share such insurance proceeds with other clients or customers of the Bitcoin Custodians, which could reduce the amount of such proceeds that are available to the Trust. In addition, the bitcoin insurance market is limited, and the level of insurance maintained by the Bitcoin Custodians may be substantially lower than the assets of the Trust. While the Bitcoin Custodians maintain certain capital reserve requirements depending on the assets under custody, and such capital reserves may provide additional means to cover client asset losses, the Trust cannot be assured that the Bitcoin Custodians will maintain capital reserves sufficient to cover actual or potential losses with respect to the Trust’s digital assets. The insurance maintained by the Bitcoin Custodians is shared among all of the Bitcoin Custodians’ customers, is not specific to the Trust or to customers holding ether with the Bitcoin Custodians, and may not be available or sufficient to protect the Trust from all possible losses or sources of losses.

Current wording

On September 11, 2024, the Trust entered into separate custodial services agreements (each, a “Custodial Services Agreement” and, collectively, including the agreement with Coinbase Custodian entered into between the Trust and Coinbase Custodian on May 8, 2024 (the “Coinbase Custody Agreement”), and the agreement with BitGo entered into between the Trust and BitGo on December 12, 2025 (the “BitGo Custody Agreement”), the “Custodial Services Agreements”) with each of (i) BitGo New York (the “BitGo New York Custody Agreement”) and (ii) Anchorage (the “Anchorage Custody Agreement”). While the Bitcoin Custodians have advised the Sponsor that they have insurance coverage that covers certain losses of the digital assets it custodies on behalf of its clients, including the Trust’s bitcoin, resulting from theft, Shareholders cannot be assured that the Bitcoin Custodians will maintain adequate insurance, that such coverage will cover losses with respect to the Trust’s bitcoin, or that sufficient insurance proceeds will be available to cover the Trust’s losses in full. The Bitcoin Custodians’ insurance may not cover the type of losses experienced by the Trust. Alternatively, the Trust may be forced to share such insurance proceeds with other clients or customers of the Bitcoin Custodians, which could reduce the amount of such proceeds that are available to the Trust. In addition, the bitcoin insurance market is limited, and the level of insurance maintained by the Bitcoin Custodians may be substantially lower than the assets of the Trust. While the Bitcoin Custodians maintain certain capital reserve requirements depending on the assets under custody, and such capital reserves may provide additional means to cover client asset losses, the Trust cannot be assured that the Bitcoin Custodians will maintain capital reserves sufficient to cover actual or potential losses with respect to the Trust’s digital assets. The insurance maintained by the Bitcoin Custodians is shared among all of the Bitcoin Custodians’ customers, is not specific to the Trust or to customers holding bitcoin with the Bitcoin Custodians, and may not be available or sufficient to protect the Trust from all possible losses or sources of losses.

Previous wording

Furthermore, under each of the Custodial Services Agreements, the respective Bitcoin Custodian’s liability is limited. With respect to the Coinbase Custody Agreement, Coinbase Custody’s liability is as follows, among others: (i) other than with respect to claims and losses arising from spot trading of bitcoin, fraud or willful misconduct, or the Mutually Capped Liabilities (defined below), the Coinbase Custodian’s aggregate liability under the Custodial Services Agreement shall not exceed the greater of (A) the greater of (x) $5 million and (y) the aggregate fees paid by the Trust to the Coinbase Custodian in the 12 months prior to the event giving rise to the Coinbase Custodian’s liability, and (B) the value of the affected bitcoin or cash giving rise to the Coinbase Custodian’s liability; (ii) the Coinbase Custodian’s aggregate liability in respect of each cold storage address shall not exceed $100 million; (iii) in respect of the Coinbase Custodian’s obligations to indemnify the Trust and its affiliates against third-party claims and losses to the extent arising out of or relating to, among others, the Coinbase Custodian’s gross negligence, violation of its confidentiality, data protection and/or information security obligations, or violation of any law, rule or regulation with respect to the provision of its services (the “Mutually Capped Liabilities”), the Coinbase Custodian’s liability shall not exceed the greater of (A) $5 million and (B) the aggregate fees paid by the Trust to the Coinbase Custodian in the 12 months prior to the event giving rise to the Coinbase Custodian’s liability; and (iv) in respect of any incidental, indirect, special, punitive, consequential or similar losses, the Coinbase Custodian is not liable, even if the Coinbase Custodian has been advised of or knew or should have known of the possibility thereof. In general, the Coinbase Custodian is not liable under the Custodial Services Agreement unless in the event of its negligence, fraud, material violation of applicable law or willful misconduct. The Coinbase Custodian is not liable for delays, suspension of operations, failure in performance, or interruption of service to the extent it is directly due to a cause or condition beyond the reasonable control of the Coinbase Custodian. In the event of potential losses incurred by the Trust as a result of the Coinbase Custodian losing control of the Trust’s bitcoin or failing to properly execute instructions on behalf of the Trust, the Coinbase Custodian’s liability with respect to the Trust will be subject to certain limitations which may allow it to avoid liability for potential losses or may be insufficient to cover the value of such potential losses, even if the Coinbase Custodian directly caused such losses. Furthermore, the insurance maintained by the Coinbase Custodian may be insufficient to cover its liabilities to the Trust.

Current wording

Furthermore, under the Custodial Services Agreements, the Bitcoin Custodians’ liability is limited. With respect to the Coinbase Custody Agreement, the Coinbase Custodian’s liability is as follows, among others: (i) the Coinbase Custodian’s aggregate liability with respect to any breach of its obligations under the Coinbase Custody Agreement shall not exceed the aggregate amount of fees paid by the Trust to the Coinbase Custodian in respect of the services relating to custody, trade execution, lending or post-trade credit (if applicable), and other services (collectively, the “Prime Broker Services”) in the 12 months prior to the event giving rise to such liability; (ii) the Coinbase Custodian’s aggregate liability under the Coinbase Custody Agreement shall not exceed the greater of (A) the aggregate fees paid by the Trust to the Coinbase Custodian in respect of the custodial services in the 12 months prior to the event giving rise to the Coinbase Custodian’s liability, and (B) the value of the supported bitcoin on deposit in the Trust’s custodial account(s) giving rise to the Coinbase Custodian’s liability at the time of the event giving rise to the Coinbase Custodian’s liability; (iii) the Coinbase Custodian’s aggregate liability in respect of each cold storage address shall not exceed $100 million; (iv) in respect of any incidental, indirect, special, punitive, consequential or similar losses, the Coinbase Custodian is not liable, even if the Coinbase Custodian has been advised of or knew of or should have known of the possibility thereof; and (v) in no event shall the Coinbase Custodian or its affiliates have any liability to the Trust or any third party with respect to any breach of its obligations under the Coinbase Custody Agreement, express or implied, which does not result solely from its gross negligence, fraud or willful misconduct. Coinbase Custodian is not liable for delays, suspension of operations, failure in performance, or interruption of service which result directly or indirectly from any cause or condition beyond the reasonable control of the Coinbase Custodian. In the event of potential losses incurred by the Trust as a result of the Coinbase Custodian losing control of the Trust’s bitcoin or failing to properly execute instructions on behalf of the Trust, the Coinbase Custodian’s liability with respect to the Trust will be subject to certain limitations which may allow it to avoid liability for potential losses or may be insufficient to cover the value of such potential losses, even if the Coinbase Custodian directly caused such losses. Furthermore, the insurance maintained by the Coinbase Custodian may be insufficient to cover its liabilities to the Trust.

Previous wording

With respect to the Anchorage Custody Agreement, except for Anchorage’s bad acts, confidentiality obligations under the Anchorage Custody Agreement, indemnification obligations under Anchorage Custody Agreement, or obligations with respect to rights to or limits on use under the Anchorage Custody Agreement, Anchorage is not liable for any losses, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, for any amount in excess of fees paid by the Trust in the twelve (12) months prior to when the liability arises. Moreover, Anchorage is not liable for (i) losses which arise from its compliance with applicable laws, including sanctions laws administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “U.S. Treasury Department”); or (ii) special, indirect or consequential damages, or lost profits or loss of business arising in connection with the Anchorage Custody Agreement. In addition, Anchorage is not liable for any losses which arise as a result of the non-return of digital assets that the Trust has delegated to Anchorage or a third party for on-chain services, such as staking, voting, vesting, and signaling, unless such losses occur as a result of Anchorage’s fraud or intentional misconduct.

Current wording

With respect to the Anchorage Custody Agreement, except for the Anchorage Custodian’s bad acts, confidentiality obligations under the Anchorage Custody Agreement, indemnification obligations under Anchorage Custody Agreement, or obligations with respect to rights to or limits on use under the Anchorage Custody Agreement, the Anchorage Custodian is not liable for any losses, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, for any amount in excess of fees paid by the Trust in the twelve (12) months prior to when the liability arises. Moreover, the Anchorage Custodian is not liable for (i) losses which arise from its compliance with applicable laws, including sanctions laws administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “U.S. Treasury Department”); or (ii) special, indirect or consequential damages, or lost profits or loss of business arising in connection with the Anchorage Custody Agreement. In addition, the Anchorage Custodian is not liable for any losses which arise as a result of the non-return of digital assets that the Trust has delegated to the Anchorage Custodian or a third party for on-chain services, such as staking, voting, vesting, and signaling, unless such losses occur as a result of the Anchorage Custodian’s fraud or intentional misconduct.

Previous wording

Similarly, under the Prime Broker Agreement, the Prime Broker’s liability is limited as follows, among others: (i) other than with respect to claims and losses arising from spot trading of bitcoin, fraud or willful misconduct, or the PB Mutually Capped Liabilities (defined below), the Prime Broker’s aggregate liability shall not exceed the greater of (A) the greater of (x) $5 million and (y) the aggregate fees paid by the Trust to the Prime Broker in the 12 months prior to the event giving rise to the Prime Broker’s liability, and (B) the value of the cash or affected bitcoin giving rise to the Prime Broker’s liability; (ii) in respect of the Prime Broker’s obligations to indemnify the Trust and its affiliates against third-party claims and losses to the extent arising out of or relating to, among others, the Prime Broker’s gross negligence, violation of its confidentiality, data protection and/or information security obligations, violation of any law, rule or regulation with respect to the provision of its services, or the full amount of the Trust’s assets lost due to the insolvency of or security event at a Connected Trading Venue (the “PB Mutually Capped Liabilities”), the Prime Broker’s liability shall not exceed the greater of (A) $5 million and (B) the aggregate fees paid by the Trust to the Prime Broker in the 12 months prior to the event giving rise to the Prime Broker’s liability; and (iii) in respect of any incidental, indirect, special, punitive, consequential or similar losses, the Prime Broker is not liable, even if the Prime Broker has been advised of or knew or should have known of the possibility thereof. In general, with limited exceptions (such as for failing to execute an order), the Prime Broker is not liable under the Prime Broker Agreement unless in the event of its gross negligence, fraud, material violation of applicable law or willful misconduct. The Prime Broker is not liable for delays, suspension of operations, failure in performance, or interruption of service to the extent it is directly due to a cause or condition beyond the reasonable control of the Prime Broker. These and the other limitations on the Prime Broker’s liability may allow it to avoid liability for potential losses or may be insufficient to cover the value of such potential losses, even if the Prime Broker directly caused such losses. Both the Trust and the Prime Broker and its affiliates (including the Bitcoin Custodians) are required to indemnify each other under certain circumstances.

Current wording

Similarly, under the Prime Broker Agreement, the Prime Broker’s liability is limited as follows, among others: (i) the Prime Broker’s aggregate liability shall not exceed the aggregate fees paid by the Trust to the Prime Broker in respect of the Prime Broker Services in the 12 months prior to the event giving rise to the Prime Broker’s liability; and (ii) in respect of any incidental, indirect, special, punitive, consequential or similar losses, the Prime Broker is not liable, even if the Prime Broker has been advised of or knew of or should have known of the possibility thereof. In general, with limited exceptions, the Prime Broker is not liable under the Prime Broker Agreement unless in the event of its gross negligence, fraud, or willful misconduct. The Prime Broker is not liable for delays, suspension of operations, failure in performance, or interruption of service which result directly or indirectly from any cause or condition beyond the reasonable control of the Prime Broker. These and the other limitations on the Prime Broker’s liability may allow it to avoid liability for potential losses or may be insufficient to cover the value of such potential losses, even if the Prime Broker directly caused such losses.

Previous wording

Moreover, in the event of an insolvency or bankruptcy of the Prime Broker (in the case of the Trading Balance) or the Bitcoin Custodians (in the case of the Cold Vault Balance) in the future, given that the contractual protections and legal rights of customers with respect to digital assets held on their behalf by third parties are relatively untested in a bankruptcy of an entity such as the Bitcoin Custodians or Prime Broker in the virtual currency industry, there is a risk that customers’ assets – including the Trust’s assets – may be considered the property of the bankruptcy estate of the Prime Broker (in the case of the Trading Balance) or the Bitcoin Custodians (in the case of the Cold Vault Balance), and customers – including the Trust – may be at risk of being treated as general unsecured creditors of such entities and subject to the risk of total loss or markdowns on value of such assets.

Current wording

Moreover, in the event of an insolvency or bankruptcy of the Prime Broker (in the case of the Trading Balance) or the Bitcoin Custodians (in the case of the Cold Vault Balance) in the future, given that the contractual protections and legal rights of customers with respect to digital assets held on their behalf by third parties are relatively untested in a bankruptcy of entities such as the Bitcoin Custodians or Prime Broker in the digital asset industry, there is a risk that customers’ assets – including the Trust’s assets – may be considered the property of the bankruptcy estate of the Prime Broker (in the case of the Trading Balance) or the Bitcoin Custodians (in the case of the Cold Vault Balance), and customers – including the Trust – may be at risk of being treated as general unsecured creditors of such entities and subject to the risk of total loss or markdowns on value of such assets.

Previous wording

The Coinbase Custody Agreement contains an agreement by the parties to treat the bitcoin credited to the Cold Vault Balance as financial assets under Article 8 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (“Article 8”), in addition to stating that the Bitcoin Custodians will serve as fiduciaries and custodians on the Trust’s behalf. One of the Bitcoin Custodian’s parent, Coinbase Global Inc., has stated in its most recent 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 Bitcoin 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 a Bitcoin Custodian became subject to insolvency proceedings and a court were to rule that the custodied bitcoin were part of such Bitcoin Custodian’s general estate and not the property of the Trust, then the Trust would be treated as a general unsecured creditor in the Bitcoin Custodian’s insolvency proceedings and the Trust could be subject to the loss of all or a significant portion of its assets. Moreover, in the event of the bankruptcy of a Bitcoin Custodian, an automatic stay could go into effect and protracted litigation could be required in order to recover the assets held with such Bitcoin Custodian, all of which could significantly and negatively impact the Trust’s operations and the value of the Shares.

Current wording

The Coinbase Custody Agreement contains an agreement by the parties thereto to treat the bitcoin credited to the Trust’s Cold Vault Balance with Coinbase as financial assets under Article 8 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (“Article 8”), in addition to stating that the Coinbase Custodian will serve as fiduciary and custodian on the Trust’s behalf. The Coinbase Custodian’s parent, Coinbase Global Inc. (“Coinbase Global”), has stated in recent 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 Coinbase Custodian were to experience insolvency. 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 Bitcoin Custodians become subject to insolvency proceedings and a court were to rule that the custodied bitcoin were part of such Bitcoin Custodian’s general estates and not the property of the Trust, then the Trust would be treated as a general unsecured creditor in the Bitcoin Custodian’s insolvency proceedings and the Trust could be subject to the loss of all or a significant portion of its assets. Moreover, in the event of the bankruptcy of a Bitcoin Custodian, an automatic stay could go into effect and protracted litigation could be required in order to recover the assets held with such Bitcoin Custodian, all of which could significantly and negatively impact the Trust’s operations and the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

Under the Trust Agreement, the Trustee and the Sponsor will not be liable for any liability or expense incurred, including, without limitation, as a result of any loss of bitcoin by the Bitcoin Custodians or Prime Broker, absent willful misconduct, gross negligence, reckless disregard or bad faith on the part of the Trustee or the Sponsor or breach by the Sponsor of the Trust Agreement, as the case may be. As a result, the recourse of the Trust or the Shareholders to the Trustee or the Sponsor, including in the event of a loss of bitcoin by the Bitcoin Custodians or Prime Broker, is limited.

Current wording

Under the Trust Agreement, the Trustee and the Sponsor will not be liable for any liability or expense incurred, including, without limitation, as a result of any loss of bitcoin by the Bitcoin Custodians or the Prime Broker, absent willful misconduct, gross negligence, or bad faith on the part of the Trustee or the Sponsor, fraud of the Sponsor or material breach by the Sponsor of the Trust Agreement, as the case may be. As a result, the recourse of the Trust or the Shareholders to the Trustee or the Sponsor, including in the event of a loss of bitcoin by the Bitcoin Custodians or the Prime Broker, is limited.

Previous wording

The Shareholders’ recourse against the Sponsor, the Trustee, and the Trust’s other service providers for the services they provide to the Trust, including, without limitation, those relating to the holding of bitcoin or the provision of instructions relating to the movement of bitcoin, is limited. For the avoidance of doubt, neither the Sponsor, the Trustee, nor any of their affiliates, nor any other party has guaranteed the assets or liabilities, or otherwise assumed the liabilities, of the Trust, or the obligations or liabilities of any service provider to the Trust, including, without limitation, the Bitcoin Custodians and Prime Broker. The Prime Broker Agreement and Custodial Services Agreements provide that neither the Sponsor, the Trustee, nor their affiliates shall have any obligation of any kind or nature whatsoever, by guaranty, enforcement or otherwise, with respect to the performance of any the Trust’s obligations, agreements, representations or warranties under the Prime Broker Agreement or Custodial Services Agreements or any transaction thereunder. Consequently, a loss may be suffered with respect to the Trust’s bitcoin that is not covered by the Bitcoin Custodians’ insurance and for which no person is liable in damages. As a result, the recourse of the Trust or the Shareholders, under applicable law, is limited.

Current wording

The Shareholders’ recourse against the Sponsor, the Trustee, and the Trust’s other service providers for the services they provide to the Trust, including, without limitation, those relating to the holding of bitcoin or the provision of instructions relating to the movement of bitcoin, is limited. For the avoidance of doubt, neither the Sponsor, the Trustee, nor any of their affiliates, nor any other party has guaranteed the assets or liabilities, or otherwise assumed the liabilities, of the Trust, or the obligations or liabilities of any service provider to the Trust, including, without limitation, the Bitcoin Custodians and the Prime Broker. The Prime Broker Agreement and Custodial Services Agreements provide that neither the Sponsor, the Trustee, nor their affiliates shall have any obligation of any kind or nature whatsoever, by guaranty, enforcement or otherwise, with respect to the performance of any of the Trust’s obligations, agreements, representations or warranties under the Prime Broker Agreement or Custodial Services Agreements or any transactions thereunder. Consequently, a loss may be suffered with respect to the Trust’s bitcoin that is not covered by the Bitcoin Custodians’ insurance policies and for which no person is liable in damages. As a result, the recourse of the Trust or the Shareholders, under applicable law, is limited.

Previous wording

To the extent that the Trust or Prime Broker faces difficulty establishing or maintaining banking relationships, the loss of the Trust or Prime Broker’s banking partners, the imposition of operational restrictions by these banking partners and the inability for the Trust or the Prime Broker to utilize other financial institutions may result in a disruption of creation and redemption activity of the Trust or the Prime Broker, or cause other operational disruptions or adverse effects for the Trust or the Prime Broker. In the future, it is possible that the Trust or the Prime Broker could be unable to establish accounts at new banking partners or establish new banking relationships, or that the banks with which the Trust or the Prime Broker is able to establish relationships may not be as large or well-capitalized or subject to the same degree of prudential supervision as the existing providers.

Current wording

To the extent that the Trust or the Prime Broker faces difficulty establishing or maintaining banking relationships, the loss of the Trust or the Prime Broker’s banking partners, the imposition of operational restrictions by these banking partners and the inability for the Trust or the Prime Broker to utilize other financial institutions may result in a disruption of creation and redemption activity of the Trust or the Prime Broker, or cause other operational disruptions or adverse effects for the Trust or the Prime Broker. In the future, it is possible that the Trust or the Prime Broker could be unable to establish accounts at new banking partners or establish new banking relationships, or that the banks with which the Trust or the Prime Broker is able to establish relationships may not be as large or well-capitalized or subject to the same degree of prudential supervision as the existing providers.

Previous wording

The Trust could also suffer losses in the event that a bank in which the Trust holds assets fails, becomes insolvent, enters receivership, is taken over by regulators, enters financial distress, or otherwise suffers adverse effects to its financial condition or operational status. Recently, some banks have experienced financial distress. For example, on March 8, 2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (“DFPI”) announced that Silvergate Bank had entered voluntary liquidation, and on March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank, (“SVB”), was closed by the DFPI, which appointed the FDIC as receiver. Similarly, on March 12, 2023, the New York Department of Financial Services took possession of Signature Bank and appointed the FDIC as receiver. A joint statement by the U.S. Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC on March 12, 2023, stated that depositors in Signature and SVB will have access to all of their funds, including funds held in deposit accounts, in excess of the insured amount. On May 1, 2023, First Republic Bank was closed by the DFPI. Following a bidding process, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, to acquire the substantial majority of the assets and assume certain liabilities of First Republic Bank from the FDIC.

Current wording

The Trust could also suffer losses in the event that a bank in which the Trust holds assets fails, becomes insolvent, enters receivership, is taken over by regulators, enters financial distress, or otherwise suffers adverse effects to its financial condition or operational status. Recently, some banks have experienced financial distress. For example, on March 8, 2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (“DFPI”) announced that Silvergate Bank had entered voluntary liquidation, and on March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank, (“SVB”), was closed by the DFPI, which appointed the FDIC as receiver. Similarly, on March 12, 2023, the New York Department of Financial Services took possession of Signature Bank and appointed the FDIC as receiver. A joint statement by the U.S. Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC on March 12, 2023, stated that depositors in Signature and SVB will have access to all of their funds, including funds held in deposit accounts, in excess of the insured amount. On May 1, 2023, First Republic Bank was closed by the DFPI, which appointed the FDIC as receiver. Following a bidding process, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, to acquire the substantial majority of the assets and assume certain liabilities of First Republic Bank from the FDIC.

Previous wording

If any of the Custodial Services Agreements or Prime Broker Agreement is terminated or any of the Bitcoin Custodians or Prime Broker fails to provide services as required, the Trustee may need to find and appoint a replacement Bitcoin Custodian or Prime Broker, which could pose a challenge to the safekeeping of the Trust’s bitcoin, and the Trust’s ability to continue to operate may be adversely affected.

Current wording

If any of the Custodial Services Agreements or the Prime Broker Agreement are terminated or the Bitcoin Custodians or the Prime Broker fail to provide services as required, the Trustee may need to find and appoint a replacement custodian or prime broker, which could pose a challenge to the safekeeping of the Trust’s bitcoin, and the Trust’s ability to continue to operate may be adversely affected.

Previous wording

The Trust is dependent on the Bitcoin Custodians and the Prime Broker to operate. The Bitcoin Custodians perform essential functions in terms of safekeeping the Trust’s bitcoin in the Cold Vault Balance, and the Prime Broker facilitates the selling of bitcoin by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and, to the extent applicable, other Trust expenses, and in extraordinary circumstances, to liquidate the Trust. If any of the Bitcoin Custodians or Coinbase Inc. fails to perform the functions they perform for the Trust, the Trust may be unable to operate or create or redeem Baskets, which could force the Trust to liquidate or adversely affect the price of the Shares.

Current wording

The Trust is dependent on the Bitcoin Custodians as well as the Prime Broker to operate. The Bitcoin Custodians perform essential functions in terms of safekeeping the Trust’s bitcoin in the Cold Vault Balance, and the Prime Broker facilitates the selling of bitcoin by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and, to the extent applicable, other Trust expenses, and in extraordinary circumstances, to liquidate the Trust. If any of the Bitcoin Custodians or the Prime Broker fail to perform the functions they perform for the Trust, the Trust may be unable to operate or create or redeem Baskets, which could force the Trust to liquidate or adversely affect the price of the Shares.

Previous wording

On March 22, 2023, the Prime Broker and its parent, Coinbase Global, Inc. (such parent, “Coinbase Global” and together with Coinbase Inc., 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 Exchange Act and 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 Inc. 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 Inc. 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 Inc.’s violations of the Exchange Act to the same extent as Coinbase Inc. On February 27, 2025, the SEC announced that it had filed a joint stipulation with Coinbase Inc. and Coinbase Global Inc. to dismiss the ongoing civil enforcement action against the two entities. The SEC’s complaint against the Relevant Coinbase Entities does not allege that bitcoin is a security nor does it allege that Coinbase Inc’s activities involving bitcoin caused the alleged registration violations, and Coinbase Custodian was not named as a defendant. In the event of any future SEC or other governmental, regulatory or other enforcement action or litigation, Coinbase Inc., as Prime Broker, 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 services to the Trust could be affected. If the Prime Broker were to be required or choose, as a result of a regulatory action or litigation, to restrict or curtail the services it offers, it could negatively affect the Trust’s ability to operate or process creations or redemptions of Baskets, which could force the Trust to liquidate or adversely affect the price of the Shares. While Coinbase Custodian was not named in the complaint, if Coinbase Global, as the parent of Coinbase Custody, is required, as a result of a judicial determinati…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

In March 2023, the Prime Broker and Coinbase Global (together with Coinbase Inc., 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 Exchange Act and 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. In June 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 Inc. 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 Inc. 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 Inc.’s violations of the Exchange Act to the same extent as Coinbase Inc. In February 2025, the SEC announced that it had filed a joint stipulation with Coinbase Inc. and Coinbase Global to dismiss the ongoing civil enforcement action against the two entities. The SEC’s complaint against the Relevant Coinbase Entities did not allege that bitcoin is offered or sold as a security nor did it allege that Coinbase Inc’s activities involving bitcoin caused the alleged registration violations, and the Coinbase Custodian was not named as a defendant. In the event of any future SEC or other governmental, regulatory or other enforcement action or litigation, Coinbase Inc., as Prime Broker, 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 services to the Trust could be affected. If the Prime Broker were to be required or choose, as a result of a regulatory action or litigation, to restrict or curtail the services it offers, it could negatively affect the Trust’s ability to operate or process creations or redemptions of Baskets, which could force the Trust to liquidate or adversely affect the price of the Shares. While the Coinbase Custodian was not named in the complaint, if Coinbase Global, as the parent of the Coinbase Custodian, is required, as a result of a judicial determination, or could choose, to restrict or cu…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Alternatively, the Trust could replace Coinbase Custodian as a custodian with custody of the Trust’s bitcoin, pursuant to the Coinbase Custody Agreement. Similarly, Coinbase Custodian or Coinbase Inc. could terminate services under the Prime Broker Agreement respectively upon providing the applicable notice to the Trust for any reason, or immediately for Cause (as defined below). Transferring maintenance responsibilities of the Trust’s account at Coinbase Custodian to another custodian will likely be complex and could subject the Trust’s bitcoin to the risk of loss during the transfer, which could have a negative impact on the performance of the Shares or result in loss of the Trust’s assets. As Prime Broker, Coinbase Inc. does not guarantee uninterrupted access to the Trading Platform or the services it provides to the Trust as Prime Broker. Under certain circumstances, Coinbase Inc. is permitted to halt or suspend trading on its trading platform, or impose limits on the amount or size of, or reject, the Trust’s orders, including in the event of, among others, (a) delays, suspension of operations, failure in performance, or interruption of service that are directly due to a cause or condition beyond the reasonable control of Coinbase Inc, (b) the Trust has engaged in unlawful or abusive activities or fraud, (c) the acceptance of the Trust’s order would cause the amount of Trade Credits extended to exceed the maximum amount of Trade Credit that the Trust’s agreement with the Trade Credit Lender permits to be outstanding at any one time, or (d) a security or technology issue occurred and is continuing that results in Coinbase Inc. being unable to provide trading services or accept the Trust’s order, in each case, subject to certain protections for the Trust. Also, if Coinbase Custodian or Coinbase Inc. become insolvent, suffer business failure, cease business operations, default on or fail to perform their obligations under their contractual agreements with the Trust, or abruptly discontinue the services they provide to the Trust for any reason, the Trust’s operations would be adversely affected.

Current wording

Alternatively, the Trust could replace the Coinbase Custodian as a Bitcoin Custodian pursuant to the Coinbase Custody Agreement. Similarly, Coinbase Custodian or Coinbase Inc. could terminate services under the Prime Broker Agreement respectively upon providing the applicable notice to the Trust for any reason, or immediately for Cause (as such term is defined in the Prime Broker Agreement). Transferring maintenance responsibilities of the Trust’s accounts with the Bitcoin Custodians to another custodian would likely be complex and could subject the Trust’s bitcoin to the risk of loss during the transfer, which could have a negative impact on the performance of the Shares or result in loss of the Trust’s assets. As Prime Broker, Coinbase Inc. does not guarantee uninterrupted access to the Trading Platform or the services it provides to the Trust as Prime Broker. Under certain circumstances, Coinbase Inc. is permitted to halt or suspend trading on its trading platform, or impose limits on the amount or size of, or reject, the Trust’s orders, including in the event of, among others, (a) delays, suspension of operations, failure in performance, or interruption of service that are directly due to a cause or condition beyond the reasonable control of Coinbase Inc, (b) the Trust has engaged in unlawful or abusive activities or fraud, (c) the acceptance of the Trust’s order would cause the amount of Trade Credits extended to exceed the maximum amount of Trade Credit that the Trust’s agreement with the Trade Credit Lender permits to be outstanding at any one time, or (d) a security or technology issue occurred and is continuing that results in Coinbase Inc. being unable to provide trading services or accept the Trust’s order, in each case, subject to certain protections for the Trust. Also, if the Coinbase Custodian or Coinbase Inc. become insolvent, suffer business failure, cease business operations, default on or fail to perform their obligations under their contractual agreements with the Trust, or abruptly discontinue the services they provide to the Trust for any reason, the Trust’s operations would be adversely affected.

Previous wording

The Trustee may not be able to find a party willing to serve as a bitcoin custodian of the Trust’s bitcoin or as the Trust’s prime broker under the same terms as the current Custodial Service Agreements or Prime Broker Agreement or at all. To the extent that Trustee is not able to find a suitable party willing to serve as the custodian or prime broker, the Trustee may be required to terminate the Trust and liquidate the Trust’s bitcoin. In addition, to the extent that the Trustee finds a suitable party but must enter into a new custodian agreement or prime broker agreement that is less favorable for the Trust or Trustee, the value of the Shares could be adversely affected. If the Trust is unable to find a replacement prime broker, its operations could be adversely affected.

Current wording

The Trustee may not be able to find a party willing to serve as a custodian of the Trust’s bitcoin or as the Trust’s prime broker under the same terms as the current Custodial Services Agreements or Prime Broker Agreement or at all. To the extent that the Trustee is not able to find a suitable party willing to serve as the custodian or prime broker, the Trustee may be required to terminate the Trust and liquidate the Trust’s bitcoin. In addition, to the extent that the Trustee finds a suitable party but must enter into a modified custodial services agreement or prime broker agreement that is less favorable for the Trust or Trustee, the value of the Shares could be adversely affected. If the Trust is unable to find a replacement prime broker, its operations could be adversely affected.

Previous wording

The Bitcoin Custodians and Prime Broker may act in the same or similar capacity for other competing products.

Current wording

The Bitcoin Custodians and the Prime Broker may act in the same or similar capacity for other competing products.

Previous wording

Currently, the number of digital assets intermediaries with the reputation and operational capability to serve as custodian and/or prime broker to the Trust or other competing products is limited. The Bitcoin Custodians and Prime Broker may act in the same or similar capacity for other competing products, including exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot bitcoin market or other digital assets. The Trust is therefore subject to risks associated with these competing products utilizing the same service providers for bitcoin custodial and prime brokerage services.

Current wording

Currently, the number of digital assets intermediaries with the reputation and operational capability to serve as custodian and/or prime broker to the Trust or other competing products is limited. The Bitcoin Custodians and the Prime Broker may act in the same or similar capacity for other competing products, including exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot bitcoin market or other digital assets. The Trust is therefore subject to risks associated with these competing products utilizing the same service providers for bitcoin custodial and prime brokerage services.

Previous wording

This industry concentration also may have the effect of magnifying the risks associated with the Bitcoin Custodians and Prime Broker, as operational disruptions or adverse developments impacting the Bitcoin Custodians or the Prime Broker may be felt on an industry-wide basis. A loss of confidence or breach of the Bitcoin Custodians or Prime Broker may adversely affect not only the Trust and the value of an investment in the Shares, but also these competing products utilizing the same service providers for bitcoin custodial and prime brokerage services and, more generally, exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot bitcoin market or other digital assets. These industry-wide adverse effects could result in a broader loss of confidence in exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot bitcoin market or other digital assets, which could further impact the Trust and the value of an investment in the Shares.

Current wording

This industry concentration also may have the effect of magnifying the risks associated with the Bitcoin Custodians and Prime Broker, as operational disruptions or adverse developments impacting the Bitcoin Custodians or the Prime Broker may be felt on an industry-wide basis. A loss of confidence in or breach of a Bitcoin Custodian or the Prime Broker may adversely affect not only the Trust and the value of an investment in the Shares, but also these competing products utilizing the same service providers for bitcoin custodial and prime brokerage services and, more generally, exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot bitcoin market or other digital assets. These industry-wide adverse effects could result in a broader loss of confidence in exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot bitcoin market or other digital assets, which could further impact the Trust and the value of an investment in the Shares.

Previous wording

The Sponsor and the Trust have adopted and implemented policies and procedures that are designed to ensure that they do not violate applicable AML and sanctions laws and regulations and to comply with any applicable KYC laws and regulations. The Sponsor and the Trust will only interact with known third party service providers with respect to whom it has engaged in a due diligence process to ensure a thorough KYC process, such as the Authorized Participants and the Bitcoin Custodians. Authorized Participants, as broker-dealers, and the Bitcoin Custodians, as a limited purpose trust company subject to New York Banking Law, are subject to the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act (as amended) (“BSA”) and U.S. economic sanctions laws. In addition, the Trust will only accept creations and redemption requests from regulated Authorized Participants who themselves are subject to applicable sanctions and anti-money laundering laws and have compliance programs that are designed to ensure compliance with those laws. In addition, Bitcoin Counterparties will be contractually obligated that all bitcoin they deliver to the Trust will be from lawful sources. The Trust will not hold any bitcoin except those that have been delivered by a Bitcoin Counterparty in connection with creation requests.

Current wording

The Sponsor and the Trust have adopted and implemented policies and procedures that are designed to ensure that they do not violate applicable AML and sanctions laws and regulations and to comply with any applicable KYC laws and regulations. The Sponsor and the Trust will only interact with known third party service providers with respect to whom it has engaged in a due diligence process to ensure a thorough KYC process, such as the Authorized Participants and the Bitcoin Custodians. Authorized Participants, as broker-dealers, and the Bitcoin Custodians, as limited purpose trust companies subject to New York Banking Law, in the case of the Coinbase Custodian and BitGo New York Custodian, and the National Bank Act of 1864, in the case of the BitGo Custodian and Anchorage Custodian, are subject to the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act (as amended) (“BSA”) and U.S. economic sanctions laws. In addition, the Trust will only accept creations and redemption requests from regulated Authorized Participants who themselves are subject to applicable sanctions and anti-money laundering laws and have compliance programs that are designed to ensure compliance with those laws. In addition, Bitcoin Counterparties will be contractually obligated that all bitcoin they deliver to the Trust will be from lawful sources. The Trust will not hold any bitcoin except those that have been delivered by a Bitcoin Counterparty in connection with creation requests.

Previous wording

There is no guarantee that such procedures will always be effective. If the Authorized Participants or Bitcoin Counterparties have inadequate policies, procedures and controls for complying with applicable anti-money laundering and applicable sanctions laws or the Trust’s diligence is ineffective, violations of such laws could result, which could result in regulatory liability for the Trust, the Sponsor, the Trustee or their affiliates under such laws, including governmental fines, penalties, and other punishments, as well as potential liability to or cessation of services by the Prime Broker and its affiliates, including the Bitcoin Custodians. Any of the foregoing could result in losses to the Shareholders or negatively affect the Trust’s ability to operate.

Current wording

There is no guarantee that such procedures will always be effective. If the Authorized Participants or Bitcoin Counterparties have inadequate policies, procedures and controls for complying with applicable anti-money laundering and applicable sanctions laws or the Trust’s diligence is ineffective, violations of such laws could result, which could result in regulatory liability for the Trust, the Sponsor, the Trustee or their affiliates under such laws, including governmental fines, penalties, and other punishments, as well as potential liability to or cessation of services by the Prime Broker and its affiliates, including the Coinbase Custodian. Any of the foregoing could result in losses to the Shareholders or negatively affect the Trust’s ability to operate.

Previous wording

The actual or perceived use of bitcoin and other digital assets in illicit transactions, which may adversely affect the bitcoin industry and an investment in the Trust.

Current wording

The actual or perceived use of bitcoin and other digital assets in illicit transactions may adversely affect the bitcoin industry and an investment in the Trust.

Previous wording

Recent years have seen digital assets used at times as part of criminal activities and to launder criminal proceeds, as means of payment for illicit activities, or as an investment fraud currency. Although the number of cases involving cryptocurrencies for the financing of terrorism remains limited, criminals have nonetheless become more sophisticated in their use of digital assets.

Current wording

Recent years have seen digital assets used at times as part of criminal activities and to launder criminal proceeds, as means of payment for illicit activities, or as an investment fraud currency. Although the number of cases involving digital assets for the financing of terrorism remains limited, criminals have nonetheless become more sophisticated in their use of digital assets.

Previous wording

Although Bitcoin transaction details are logged on the blockchain, a buyer or seller of Bitcoin may never know to whom the public key belongs or the true identity of the party with whom it is transacting, as public key addresses are randomized sequences of alphanumeric characters that, standing alone, do not provide sufficient information to identify users. Further, identifying users can be made even more difficult where a user utilizes a tumbling or mixing services (e.g., Tornado Cash) to further obfuscate transaction details.

Current wording

Although Bitcoin transaction details are logged on the blockchain, a buyer or seller of Bitcoin may never know to whom the public key belongs or the true identity of the party with whom it is transacting, as public key addresses are randomized sequences of alphanumeric characters that, standing alone, do not provide sufficient information to identify users. Further, identifying users can be made even more difficult where a user utilizes a tumbling or mixing service (e.g., Tornado Cash) to further obfuscate transaction details.

Previous wording

From time to time, the Trust may be entitled to or come into possession of rights to acquire, or otherwise establish dominion and control over, any virtual currency or other asset or right, which rights are incident to the Trust’s ownership of bitcoin and arise without any action of the Trust, or of the Sponsor or Sub-Adviser on behalf of the Trust (“Incidental Rights”) and/or virtual currency tokens, or other asset or right, acquired by the Trust through the exercise (subject to the applicable provisions of the Trust Agreement) of any Incidental Right (“IR Virtual Currency”) by virtue of its ownership of bitcoin, generally through a fork in the Bitcoin blockchain, an airdrop offered to holders of bitcoin or other similar event. Pursuant to the Trust Agreement, the Sponsor has the right, in their discretion, to determine what action to take in connection with the Trust’s entitlement to or ownership of Incidental Rights or any IR Virtual Currency. Under the terms of the Trust Agreement, the Trust may take any lawful action necessary or desirable in connection with the Trust’s ownership of Incidental Rights, including the acquisition of IR Virtual Currency, as determined by the Sponsor in the Sponsor’s sole discretion, unless such action would adversely affect the status of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes or otherwise be prohibited by the Trust Agreement.

Current wording

From time to time, the Trust may be entitled to or come into possession of rights to acquire, or otherwise establish dominion and control over, any virtual currency or other asset or right, which rights are incident to the Trust’s ownership of bitcoin and arise without any action of the Trust, or of the Sponsor or Sub-Adviser on behalf of the Trust (“Incidental Rights”) and/or virtual currency tokens, or other asset or right, acquired by the Trust through the exercise (subject to the applicable provisions of the Trust Agreement) of any Incidental Right (“IR Virtual Currency”) by virtue of its ownership of bitcoin, generally through a fork in the Bitcoin blockchain, an airdrop offered to holders of bitcoin or other similar event. In an airdrop, the promoters of a new digital asset announce to holders of another digital asset that they will be entitled to claim a certain amount of the new digital asset for free, based on the fact that they hold such other digital asset. For example, in March 2017, the promoters of Stellar Lumens announced that anyone that owned bitcoin as of June 26, 2017, could claim, until August 27, 2017, a certain amount of Stellar Lumens. Airdrops are not included in the Index under its current methodology. Pursuant to the Trust Agreement, the Sponsor has the right, in their discretion, to determine what action to take in connection with the Trust’s entitlement to or ownership of Incidental Rights or any IR Digital Assets. Under the terms of the Trust Agreement, the Trust may take any lawful action necessary or desirable in connection with the Trust’s ownership of Incidental Rights, including the acquisition of IR Digital Assets, as determined by the Sponsor in the Sponsor’s sole discretion, unless such action would adversely affect the status of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes or otherwise be prohibited by the Trust Agreement.

Previous wording

With respect to any fork, airdrop or similar event, the Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. In the event the Trust seeks to change this position, an application would need to be filed with the SEC by the Exchange seeking approval to amend its listing rules.

Current wording

With respect to any fork, airdrop or similar event, the Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon the Incidental Rights or IR Digital Assets. In the event the Trust seeks to change this position, an application would need to be filed with the SEC by the Exchange seeking approval to amend its listing rules. If such regulatory approval is received, the Trust will notify the owners of the beneficial interests of Shares in a prospectus supplement, in its periodic Exchange Act reports, as applicable, and on the Sponsor’s website.

Previous wording

Forks occur for a variety of reasons. A fork could occur after a significant security breach. Participants on the network could elect to “fork” the network to its state before the hack, effectively reversing the hack. A fork could also be introduced by an unintentional, unanticipated software flaw in the multiple versions of otherwise compatible software users run. Such a fork could adversely affect bitcoin’s viability. It is possible, however, that a substantial number of users and miners could adopt an incompatible version of the digital asset while resisting community-led efforts to merge the two chains. This would result in a permanent fork. For example, in July 2016, Ethereum “forked” into Ethereum and a new digital asset, Ethereum Classic, as a result of the Ethereum network community’s response to a significant security breach in which an anonymous hacker exploited a smart contract running on the Ethereum network to syphon approximately $60 million of ETH held by the DAO, a distributed autonomous organization, into a segregated account. In response to the hack, most participants in the Ethereum community elected to adopt a “fork” that effectively reversed the hack. However, a minority of users continued to develop the original blockchain, now referred to as “Ethereum Classic” with the digital asset on that blockchain now referred to as Ethereum Classic, or ETC. ETC now trades on several digital asset exchanges.

Current wording

Forks occur for a variety of reasons. A fork could occur after a significant security breach. Participants on the network could elect to “fork” the network to its state before the hack, effectively reversing the hack. A fork could also be introduced by an unintentional, unanticipated software flaw in the multiple versions of otherwise compatible software users run. Such a fork could adversely affect bitcoin’s viability. It is possible, however, that a substantial number of users and miners could adopt an incompatible version of the digital asset while resisting community-led efforts to merge the two chains. This would result in a permanent fork. For example, in July 2016, Ethereum “forked” into Ethereum Classic, the original blockchain, and a new digital asset, Ethereum, as a result of the Ethereum network community’s response to a significant security breach in which an anonymous hacker exploited a smart contract running on the Ethereum network to syphon approximately $60 million of ETH held by the DAO, a distributed autonomous organization, into a segregated account. In response to the hack, most participants in the Ethereum community elected to adopt a “fork” that effectively reversed the hack. However, a minority of users continued to develop the original blockchain, now referred to as “Ethereum Classic” with the digital asset on that blockchain now referred to as Ethereum Classic, or ETC. ETC now trades on several digital asset exchanges.

Previous wording

A fork may occur as a result of disagreement among network participants as to whether a proposed modification to the network should be accepted. For example, on August 1, 2017, after extended debates among developers as to how to improve the Bitcoin network’s transaction capacity, the Bitcoin network was forked by a group of developers and miners resulting in the creation of a new blockchain, which underlies the new digital asset “Bitcoin Cash.” Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash now operate on separate, independent blockchains. Since then, the Bitcoin network has forked several times to launch new digital assets, such as Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Silver and Bitcoin Diamond. Litecoin was also the result of a fork from the original Bitcoin blockchain.

Current wording

A fork may occur as a result of disagreement among network participants as to whether a proposed modification to the network should be accepted. For example, on August 1, 2017, after extended debates among developers as to how to improve the Bitcoin network’s transaction capacity, the Bitcoin network was forked by a group of developers and miners resulting in the creation of a new blockchain, which underlies the new digital asset “Bitcoin Cash.” Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash now operate on separate, independent blockchains. Since then, the Bitcoin network has forked several times to launch new digital assets, such as Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Silver and Bitcoin Diamond.

Previous wording

Forks may have a detrimental effect on the value of bitcoin, including by negatively affecting cryptocurrency allocations or by failing to capture of the full value of the newly-forked bitcoin if it is excluded from the Index. Forks can also introduce new security risks. For example, forks may result in “replay attacks,” or attacks in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast to nefarious effect on the other network. After a hard fork, it may become easier for an individual miner or mining pool’s hashing power to exceed 50% of the processing power of the digital asset network, thereby making digital assets that rely on proof of work more susceptible to attack. For example, when the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks, two other digital asset networks, split in July 2016, replay attacks, in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast to nefarious effect on the other network, plagued Ethereum exchanges through at least October 2016. An Ethereum exchange announced in July 2016 that it had lost 40,000 Ethereum Classic, worth about $100,000 at that time, as a result of replay attacks. Similar replay attack concerns occurred in connection with the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV networks split in November 2018. Another possible result of a hard fork is an inherent decrease in the level of security due to significant amounts of mining power remaining on one network or migrating instead to the new forked network. After a hard fork, it may become easier for an individual miner or mining pool’s hashing power to exceed 50% of the processing power of a digital asset network that retained or attracted less mining power, thereby making digital assets that rely on proof-of-work more susceptible to attack.

Current wording

Forks may have a detrimental effect on the value of bitcoin, including by negatively affecting digital asset allocations or by failing to capture of the full value of the newly-forked bitcoin if it is excluded from the Index. Forks can also introduce new security risks. For example, forks may result in “replay attacks,” or attacks in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast to nefarious effect on the other network. After a hard fork, it may become easier for an individual miner or mining pool’s hashing power to exceed 50% of the processing power of the digital asset network, thereby making digital assets that rely on proof of work more susceptible to attack. For example, when the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks, two other digital asset networks, split in July 2016, replay attacks, in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast to nefarious effect on the other network, plagued Ethereum exchanges through at least October 2016. An Ethereum exchange announced in July 2016 that it had lost 40,000 Ethereum Classic, worth about $100,000 at that time, as a result of replay attacks. Similar replay attack concerns occurred in connection with the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV networks split in November 2018. Another possible result of a hard fork is an inherent decrease in the level of security due to significant amounts of mining power remaining on one network or migrating instead to the new forked network. After a hard fork, it may become easier for an individual miner or mining pool’s hashing power to exceed 50% of the processing power of a digital asset network that retained or attracted less mining power, thereby making digital assets that rely on proof-of-work more susceptible to attack.

Previous wording

Bitcoin may become subject to an occurrence similar to a fork, which is known as an “airdrop.” In an airdrop, the promotors of a new digital asset announce to holders of another digital asset that they will be entitled to claim a certain amount of the new digital asset for free, based on the fact that they hold such other digital asset. For example, in March 2017, the promoters of Stellar Lumens announced that anyone that owned bitcoin as of June 26, 2017, could claim, until August 27, 2017, a certain amount of Stellar Lumens. The Index does not include airdrops under its current methodology or track airdrops involving bitcoin. Accordingly, the Trust will not participate in airdrops.

Current wording

Bitcoin may become subject to an occurrence similar to a fork, which is known as an “airdrop.” In an airdrop, the promoters of a new digital asset announce to holders of another digital asset that they will be entitled to claim a certain amount of the new digital asset for free, based on the fact that they hold such other digital asset. Airdrops are not included in the Pricing Benchmark under its current methodology. For example, in March 2017, the promoters of Stellar Lumens announced that anyone that owned bitcoin as of June 26, 2017, could claim, until August 27, 2017, a certain amount of Stellar Lumens. The Index does not include airdrops under its current methodology or track airdrops involving bitcoin. Accordingly, the Trust will not participate in airdrops.

Previous wording

Thefts and cyber-attacks can have a negative impact on the reputation, market price, value, or liquidity of bitcoin. Through investment in the Trust, investors would be indirectly exposed to the risk and potential impact of a cyber-attack. A loss associated with a cyber-attack, including a total loss, is possible. While the Sponsor and the Bitcoin Custodians have taken reasonable measures to prevent a theft or hacking of the Trust’s bitcoin holdings, such an event cannot be fully excluded from the Trust’s overall market exposure, and the losses associated with such an event would be borne by investors.

Current wording

Thefts and cyber-attacks can have a negative impact on the reputation, market price, value, or liquidity of bitcoin. Through investment in the Trust, investors would be indirectly exposed to the risk and potential impact of a cyberattack. A loss associated with a cyber-attack, including a total loss, is possible. While the Sponsor and the Bitcoin Custodians have taken reasonable measures to prevent a theft or hacking of the Trust’s bitcoin holdings, such an event cannot be fully excluded from the Trust’s overall market exposure, and the losses associated with such an event would be borne by investors.

Previous wording

A 51% attack is more likely to happen in the context of digital assets with smaller market capitalizations due to the reduced computing power threshold required to control a majority of a given network. Nevertheless, it is theoretically possible, albeit computationally expensive, to mount a similar 51% attack on bitcoin or other digital assets with large market capitalization. If the feasibility of a bad actor gaining control of the processing power on the Bitcoin network increases, there may be a negative effect on an investment in the Trust.

Current wording

A 51% attack is more likely to happen in the context of digital assets with both smaller market capitalizations due to the reduced computing power threshold required to control a majority of a given network. Nevertheless, it is theoretically possible, albeit computationally expensive, to mount a similar 51% attack on bitcoin or other digital assets with large market capitalization. If the feasibility of a bad actor gaining control of the processing power on the Bitcoin network increases, there may be a negative effect on an investment in the Trust.

Previous wording

The Bitcoin network and bitcoin, as an asset, hold a “first-to-market” advantage over other digital assets. This first-to-market advantage has resulted in the Bitcoin network evolving into the most well-developed network of any digital asset. The Bitcoin network enjoys the largest user base and has more mining power in use to secure the Bitcoin network than any other digital asset. However, despite the first-mover advantage of the Bitcoin network over other digital assets, it is possible that real or perceived shortcomings in the Bitcoin network, or technological, regulatory or other developments, could result in a decline in popularity and acceptance of bitcoin and the Bitcoin network, and other digital currencies and trading systems could become more widely accepted and used than the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin is one of the few virtual currencies in which there are strong arguments that bitcoin is not a “security” under the federal securities laws. See Risk Factors—Future legal or regulatory developments may negatively affect the value of bitcoin or require the Trust or the Sponsor to become registered with the SEC or CFTC, which may cause the Trust to incur unforeseen expenses or liquidate. Regulatory changes or guidance that result in other virtual currencies not meeting the definition of “security” will reduce advantages associated with bitcoin’s current regulatory status, which could adversely impact an investment in the Shares. Promoters of other digital assets claim that those digital assets have solved certain of the purported drawbacks of the Bitcoin network, for example, allowing faster settlement times, reducing mining fees, or reducing electricity usage in connection with mining. If these digital assets are successful, such success could reduce demand for bitcoin and adversely affect the value of bitcoin and an investment in the Trust. It is currently unclear which digital assets, if any, will become and remain dominant, as the sector continues to innovate and evolve. Changes in the viability of any digital asset ecosystem may adversely impact pricing and liquidity of bitcoin and, therefore, of the Trust.

Current wording

The Bitcoin network and bitcoin, as an asset, hold a “first-to-market” advantage over other digital assets. This first-to-market advantage has resulted in the Bitcoin network evolving into the most well-developed network of any digital asset. The Bitcoin network enjoys the largest user base and has more mining power in use to secure the Bitcoin network than any other digital asset. However, despite the first-mover advantage of the Bitcoin network over other digital assets, it is possible that real or perceived shortcomings in the Bitcoin network, or technological, regulatory or other developments, could result in a decline in popularity and acceptance of bitcoin and the Bitcoin network, and other digital assets and trading systems could become more widely accepted and used than the Bitcoin network. Promoters of other digital assets claim that those digital assets have solved certain of the purported drawbacks of the Bitcoin network, for example, allowing faster settlement times, reducing mining fees, or reducing electricity usage in connection with mining. If these digital assets are successful, such success could reduce demand for bitcoin and adversely affect the value of bitcoin and an investment in the Trust. It is currently unclear which digital assets, if any, will become and remain dominant, as the sector continues to innovate and evolve. Changes in the viability of any digital asset ecosystem may adversely impact pricing and liquidity of bitcoin and, therefore, of the Trust.

Previous wording

Central banks have introduced digital forms of legal tender. China’s CBDC project, known as Digital Currency Electronic Payment, has reportedly been tested in a live pilot program conducted in multiple cities in China. A recent study published by the Bank for International Settlements estimated that at least 36 central banks have published retail or wholesale CBDC work ranging from research to pilot projects. Whether or not they incorporate blockchain or similar technology, CBDCs, as legal tender in the issuing jurisdiction, could have an advantage in competing with, or replacing, bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as a medium of exchange or store of value. Central banks and other governmental entities have also announced cooperative initiatives and consortia with private sector entities, with the goal of leveraging blockchain and other technology to reduce friction in cross-border and interbank payments and settlement, and commercial banks and other financial institutions have also recently announced a number of initiatives of their own to incorporate new technologies, including blockchain and similar technologies, into their payments and settlement activities, which could compete with, or reduce the demand for, bitcoin. As a result of any of the foregoing factors, the value of bitcoin could decrease, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

Current wording

Central banks have introduced digital forms of legal tender. China’s CBDC project, known as Digital Currency Electronic Payment, has reportedly been tested in a live pilot program conducted in multiple cities in China. A recent study published by the Bank for International Settlements estimated that at least 36 central banks have published retail or wholesale CBDC work ranging from research to pilot projects. Whether or not they incorporate blockchain or similar technology, CBDCs, as legal tender in the issuing jurisdiction, could have an advantage in competing with, or replacing, bitcoin and other digital assets as a medium of exchange or store of value. Central banks and other governmental entities have also announced cooperative initiatives and consortia with private sector entities, with the goal of leveraging blockchain and other technology to reduce friction in cross-border and interbank payments and settlement, and commercial banks and other financial institutions have also recently announced a number of initiatives of their own to incorporate new technologies, including blockchain and similar technologies, into their payments and settlement activities, which could compete with, or reduce the demand for, bitcoin. As a result of any of the foregoing factors, the value of bitcoin could decrease, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust.