21Shares Ethereum ETF
For the period ended Dec 31, 2025. Filed Mar 31, 2026.
View on SEC.govAbout this filing
A company's yearly report to the SEC, with audited financial statements. It is the fullest account a company gives of its business, its finances and the risks it sees.
FY2025 · Filed Mar 31, 2026
TETH$11.12-0.9%Stored close · as of Nov 6, 2026
What changed in Risk Factors?
Read the current filingPrevious report: 10-K
Period ended 2024-12-31; filed 2025-03-26.
0001013762-25-002795
Item 1A. Risk FactorsCurrent report: 10-K
Period ended 2025-12-31; filed 2026-03-31.
0001213900-26-036641
Item 1A. Risk FactorsThe baseline is this issuer’s latest earlier reporting period of the same form that was filed before the current report. A previous 10-Q is a different quarter, not a year-over-year comparison. Amendments are excluded.
Compared 281 previous paragraphs and 322 current paragraphs.
199 unchanged; 69 reworded; 49 added; 9 removed; 4 previous and 5 current paragraphs rearranged.
Tables are not compared: 35 previous and 43 current tables excluded. Dates, whitespace, punctuation and numbering changes are ignored; changes to financial figures remain significant.
A changed paragraph is not evidence that risk increased or decreased. An unchanged paragraph does not establish that risk stayed the same.
Added paragraphs (49)
Current report
The Trust is dependent on third parties to effectively execute the Trust’s Staking Activities.
Current report
The Trust will stake its ether only if it may do so without undue legal or regulatory risk, such as, without limitation, the risk of jeopardizing the Trust’s ability to qualify as a grantor trust for tax purposes, which could harm the value of the Shares.
Current report
The Trust’s investment objective is to seek to track the performance of ether, as measured by the performance of the Index adjusted for the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, and to reflect rewards from staking a portion of the Trust’s ether, to the extent the Sponsor in its sole discretion determines that the Trust may do so without undue legal or regulatory risk, such as, without limitation, the risk of jeopardizing the Trust’s ability to qualify as a grantor trust for tax purposes. If the Sponsor determines the Trust is not able to so carry out staking activities, the Trust may cease some or all of its staking activities. Staking on the Ethereum network involves delegating ether to validators and carries risks discussed further below. Staked ether may be subject to community-determined penalties for validator misbehavior, or slashing. If the Staking Services Providers cause the Trust’s staked ether to be subject to such slashing losses, the Trust could suffer losses of the staked ether. Additionally, the staking process includes protocol-defined warm-up, activation and withdrawal periods, during which staked ether is temporarily locked and inaccessible. These phases affect when ether begins earning rewards, participates in consensus and becomes available for transfer or redelegation.
Current report
The Staking Services Providers stake the Trust’s ether as the node operator and operate a validator node to stake the Trust’s ether. The Staking Services Providers perform their staking services in collaboration with the Ether Custodians, as the ether is staked directly from the Trust’s ether accounts with the Ether Custodians. The Trust maintains control of the ether while it is staked because it remains in the Trust’s account with the Ether Custodians (i.e., it is kept in a separate account for which the Trust is the beneficial and record owner and is not commingled with other parties’ accounts with the Ether Custodians). Staking is a passive activity for the Trust, as it does not operate its own staking program. The Trust’s role is limited to evaluating and contracting with one or more Staking Services Providers and instructing such Staking Services Provider on when to stake and/or unstake the Trust’s ether.
Current report
The rewards owed or paid to the Staking Services Providers reduce the amount of ether rewards that are generated from the Trust’s Staking Program that are available as the assets of the Trust. Each Staking Services Provider that generates staking rewards is entitled to Staking Provider Consideration. The portion of the consideration paid to the Sponsor for arranging for the staking of the Trust’s ether (the “Sponsor’s Staking Portion”) is comprised of an aggregate of 25% of the gross proceeds generated from staking (“Staking Consideration”). Of the Sponsor’s Staking Portion, the Sponsor pays the Staking Services Providers for their services in connection with staking activities. The Trust receives and retains the remainder of the gross Staking Consideration. The staking rewards earned by the Trust accrue to the Trust’s account with the Ether Custodians and are generally staked in the same way as the Trust’s already staked ether. Block rewards and transaction fees are not considered staking rewards and do not accrete to the Trust.
Current report
The Trust may be negatively impacted by Staking Activities.
Current report
The Ethereum network uses a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism to secure and operate the network, meaning that the voting power of a validator in the network is determined by the amount of stake delegated to them by ether token holders. In proof-of-stake, validators risk or “stake” coins to compete to be randomly selected to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the total amount of coins staked. The more stake delegated to a validator, the more voting power they have, the higher the likelihood is that the validator will be selected to propose and validate blocks and the higher the associated reward will be. This, in turn, leads to higher ether earnings for the ether tokenholders who chose to stake with the validator in question.
Current report
If an ether tokenholder chooses to engage in staking, they must either choose a specific validator to stake with or have sufficient ether to be selected as a validator by the Ethereum network themselves. The choice of validator can potentially impact the amount of staking rewards the tokenholder receives. The factors determining this amount include, but are not limited to:
Current report
If any Staking Services Provider experiences operational or other difficulties, terminates their services, fails to comply with regulations, raises their prices or disputes key intellectual property rights sold or licensed to, the Trust, the Trust could suffer losses. The Trust may also suffer the consequences of such Staking Services Provider’s mistakes. For example, if the Trust’s Ether Custodians or Staking Services Provider selected to act as validators fail to behave as expected, default, fail to perform, suffer cybersecurity attacks, experience security issues or encounter other problems, the assets of the Trust may be irretrievably lost. The failure or capacity restraints of vendors and services, a cybersecurity breach involving any service providers or the termination or change in terms or price or commission rate of a vendor, third-party software license or service agreement on which the Trust relies, could disrupt the Trust’s Staking Activities or cause losses. Replacing any Staking Services Provider or addressing other issues with vendors and service providers could entail significant delay, expense and disruption for the Trust. As a result, if these vendors and service providers experience difficulties, are subject to cybersecurity breaches, terminate their services, dispute the terms of intellectual property agreements or raise their prices, and the Sponsor is unable to replace them with other vendors and service providers, particularly on a timely basis, the Trust’s Staking Activities could be interrupted or disrupted, and the Trust could suffer a loss.
Current report
The Ethereum network dictates requirements for participation in the network’s protocols and may reduce rewards if the relevant activities are not performed correctly. Malicious or poorly performing validators may also be “blacklisted”, meaning that ether tokenholders may decide to no longer delegate stake to such actors thereby resulting in such actors not being selected to validate and they would therefore be unable to receive staking rewards therefrom. Should any of the Trust’s Staking Services Providers engage in malicious activity or perform poorly, then such Staking Services Providers may be blacklisted which could negatively impact the Trust’s abilities to engage in Staking Activities and/or otherwise result in the Trust earning reduced staking rewards.
Current report
Staking requires that the Trust lock up the staked ether and become subject to an unbonding period to unstake the staked ether, meaning that the Trust cannot transfer the staked ether during the time that the ether is staked and during which it is being unbonded. The unbonding period may be longer than anticipated based on network activity. Note that the duration of the bonding period may depend on a range of factors including network load.
Current report
In addition, depending on the anticipated length of the unbonding period, the staked ether may be classified as illiquid under the Trust’s liquidity risk management program. In addition, if ether is determined to be a security under the 1933 Act, it could be subject to significant constraints in terms of any transfer or disposal of such ether. In such event, the Trust may consider ether to be an “illiquid security”, which it defines as a security that the Trust reasonably expects cannot be sold or disposed of in current market conditions in seven calendar days or less without the sale or disposition significantly changing the market value of the security.
Current report
Rewards for staked ether may be accrued even before the staked ether is unbonded. Once accrued, such ether rewards are considered part of the Trust’s assets, even if unbonding has not occurred. The Sponsor and the Trust will manage liquidity in accordance with the Trust’s liquidity risk policies and procedures and will monitor staking and bonding/unbonding activity closely on a daily basis.
Current report
There is no guarantee that the Trust will receive any rewards with respect to staked ether. Past rewards are not indicative of future returns. The staking rewards that the Trust may receive from staking ether, if any, may be affected by, among other factors:
Current report
The Trust relies on the resources of the Staking Services Providers to facilitate the Sponsor’s staking activities. The Staking Services Providers provide the hardware, software and services necessary to stake the ether from a validator node. The hardware and software utilized by the Staking Services Providers may prove to be inadequate to maximize the Trust’s staking revenue. The Trust is dependent on the hardware, software and services of the Staking Services Providers to effectively execute the staking activities. The Sponsor has no ability to supervise or direct the conduct of the Staking Services Providers.
Current report
In addition, the Staking Provider Consideration is paid from the proceeds of the staking program received by the Trust. The payment of the Staking Provider Consideration reduces the portion of the staking rewards generated by the staking activities that are actually retained by the Trust. Accordingly, the staking rewards actually retained by the Trust are less than what the Trust would retain if the Sponsor were to administer its own staking activities without the assistance of third-party service providers.
Current report
The Trust may vary the amount of ether to be staked and the rewards received may accordingly change from time to time.
Current report
While the Trust may stake a maximum of 100% of its ether holdings, the amount of ether that remains unstaked is determined based on the Trust’s Utilization Rate analysis, and accordingly may vary from time to time. Based on Utilization Rate analysis applied to historical data, the Trust generally intends to stake between 40% and 70% of the ether it holds, although the amount of ether that is staked may be lesser or greater from time to time. The precise percentage to be staked will be based on the estimated liquidity needs of the Trust, as determined by the Sponsor. Accordingly, changes in the percentage of ether holdings that are staked could impact the value of Shares held by investors.
Current report
Authorized Participants must be registered broker-dealers. Registered broker-dealers are subject to various requirements of the federal securities laws and rules, including, financial responsibility rules such as the customer protection rule, the net capital rule and recordkeeping requirements. On May 15, 2025, the staff of the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets stated that broker-dealers are permitted to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions in connection with spot exchange-traded products; however, there is as yet no definitive regulatory guidance on the specific details of how registered broker-dealers can comply with SEC rules with regard to transacting in or holding spot ether. Absent further regulatory clarity regarding whether and how registered broker-dealers can hold and deal in ether under applicable broker-dealer financial responsibility and other rules, there is a risk that registered broker-dealers participating in the in-kind creation or redemption of Shares for ether may be unable to demonstrate compliance with such rules. While compliance with rules such as the customer protection rule, the net capital rule and recordkeeping requirements are primarily the broker-dealer’s responsibility, a national securities exchange is required to enforce compliance by its member broker-dealers with applicable federal securities law and rules. Only certain Authorized Participants at present have the ability (either acting themselves or through their affiliates) to support in-kind creation and redemption activity.
Current report
On December 12, 2025, the Trust entered into the BitGo Custody Agreement with BitGo Bank & Trust, N.A., a federally chartered national trust bank. Pursuant to the BitGo Custody Agreement, BitGo will establish and maintain one or more segregated custody accounts, controlled and secured by BitGo, on its books for the receipt, safekeeping, and maintenance of the Trust’s ether holdings. The BitGo Custody Agreement also requires BitGo to maintain reasonable insurance policies and coverage. The BitGo Custody Agreement commenced on December 12, 2025, and will continue for one year, unless earlier terminated in accordance with its terms or if either party notifies the other of its intention not to renew at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the then-current term. After the initial term, the BitGo Custody Agreement will automatically renew for successive one-year periods, unless either party notifies the other of its intention not to renew with prior notice.
Current report
With respect to the BitGo Custody Agreement, the BitGo Custodian and its affiliates, including their officers, directors, agents, and employees, are not liable for any lost profits, special, incidental, indirect, intangible, or consequential damages resulting from authorized or unauthorized use of the Trust or Sponsor’s site or services. This includes damages arising from any contract, tort, negligence, strict liability, or other legal grounds, even if the BitGo Custodian was previously advised of, knew, or should have known about the possibility of such damages. However, this exclusion of liability does not extend to cases of the BitGo Custodian’s fraud, willful misconduct, or gross negligence. In situations of gross negligence, the BitGo Custodian’s liability is specifically limited to the value of the digital assets or fiat currency that were affected by the negligence. Additionally, the total liability of the BitGo Custodian for direct damages is capped at the fees paid or payable to them under the BitGo Custody Agreement during the twelve-month period immediately preceding the first incident that caused the liability.
Current report
Under the BitGo New York Custody Agreement, the BitGo New York Custodian and its affiliates, including their officers, directors, agents, and employees, are not liable for any lost profits, special, incidental, indirect, intangible, or consequential damages resulting from authorized or unauthorized use of the Trust or Sponsor’s site or services. This includes damages arising from any contract, tort, negligence, strict liability, or other legal grounds, even if the BitGo New York Custodian was previously advised of, knew, or should have known about the possibility of such damages. However, this exclusion of liability does not extend to cases of the BitGo New York Custodian’s fraud, willful misconduct, or gross negligence. In situations of gross negligence, the BitGo New York Custodian’s liability is specifically limited to the value of the digital assets or fiat currency that were affected by the negligence. Additionally, the total liability of the BitGo New York Custodian for direct damages is capped at the fees paid or payable to them under the BitGo New York Custody Agreement during the twelve-month period immediately preceding the first incident that caused the liability.
Current report
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.
Current report
As part of their counterparty onboarding processes, the Authorized Participants use third-party services to screen prospective counterparties against various watch lists, including the Specially Designated Nationals List of the OFAC and countries and territories identified as non-cooperative by the Financial Action Task Force.
Current report
The Sponsor’s Staking Portion is comprised of an aggregate of 25% of the Staking Consideration. Of the Sponsor’s Staking Portion, the Sponsor pays the Staking Services Provider for its services under the Staking Services Agreement and the Trust’s ether custodians in connection with staking activities. The Trust receives and retains the remainder of the gross Staking Consideration. This arrangement creates a financial incentive for the Sponsor to maximize the amount of ether staked by the Trust, as higher levels of staked ether would generally result in greater staking rewards to the Sponsor. However, the Sponsor’s interest in maximizing staking rewards may conflict with the Trust’s need to maintain sufficient liquid ether to meet redemption requests and other operational requirements. If the Sponsor directs the Trust to stake excessive amounts of ether relative to the Trust’s liquidity needs, the Trust could become unable to timely meet redemption requests in amounts that are greater than the portion of the Trust’s ether that remains unstaked, leading to temporary delays in settlement and, in extreme scenarios, the temporary unavailability of the Trust’s redemption program.
Current report
While the Trust’s staking policies are designed to balance expected yield against potential risks and is based on various factors including historical redemption patterns and liquidity analysis, the Sponsor has sole discretion in determining the amount of ether to stake. Shareholders have no ability to influence or override the Sponsor’s determinations regarding staking levels. The Sponsor’s financial interest in staking rewards may cause it to prioritize staking income over maintaining adequate liquidity reserves, particularly during periods when staking yields are attractive relative to the costs and risks of maintaining liquid ether reserves.
Current report
Operational cost may exceed the award for validating transaction fees, and increased transaction fees may adversely affect the usage of the Ethereum network.
Current report
A loss of confidence in or breach of an Ether Custodian may adversely affect the Trust and the value of an investment in the Shares.
Current report
Under the BitGo New York Custody Agreement, the BitGo New York Custodian and its affiliates, including their officers, directors, agents, and employees, are not liable for any lost profits, special, incidental, indirect, intangible, or consequential damages resulting from authorized or unauthorized use of the Trust or Sponsor’s site or services. This includes damages arising from any contract, tort, negligence, strict liability, or other legal grounds, even if the BitGo New York Custodian was previously advised of, knew, or should have known about the possibility of such damages. However, this exclusion of liability does not extend to cases of the BitGo New York Custodian’s fraud, willful misconduct, or gross negligence. In situations of gross negligence, the BitGo New York Custodian’s liability is specifically limited to the value of the digital assets or fiat currency that were affected by the negligence. Additionally, the total liability of the BitGo New York Custodian for direct damages is capped at the fees paid or payable to them under the BitGo New York Custody Agreement during the twelve-month period immediately preceding the first incident that caused the liability.
Current report
Amendment of Trust Agreement without shareholder consent.
Current report
Subject to certain exceptions set forth in the Trust Agreement, the Trust Agreement can be amended by the Sponsor in its sole discretion and without the shareholders’ consent by making an amendment, an agreement supplemental to the Trust Agreement, or an amended and restated trust agreement, which amendments may materially adversely affect the interests of the Shareholders.
Current report
Further, the Sponsor may have a conflict with respect to any future transactions that may be entered into with either the Sponsor’s ultimate parent company, FalconX, a leading institutional digital asset prime brokerage, or with any of the other affiliates of FalconX.
Current report
Ether’s status as being offered or sold as a “security” under U.S. federal securities laws remains unsettled.
Current report
The SEC has asserted its belief that a number of digital assets are properly classified as “securities” under U.S. federal securities laws in a number of complaints against the issuers of such assets, or against platforms trading or transacting in such assets. Courts have agreed that such assets may have been offered or sold in transactions that constituted securities, or have agreed that the SEC has a plausible case that such assets may have been offered or sold in transactions that constituted securities. In future litigation, other courts might disagree with the assessment that these or other digital assets, such as ether, are offered or sold as securities depending on the characteristics of the transaction. To the extent that a court were to find that the Trust had engaged in unregistered sales of securities, the Trust would be subject to penalties, disgorgement and other sanctions, which would significantly negatively impact the Trust and the value of the Shares.
Current report
In accordance with the Sponsor’s internal policies and procedures, the Sponsor engaged in a review process to determine whether ether has been offered or sold as a security and based off the review it has determined it has not. The Sponsor has reviewed publicly available materials relating to ether. Among other things, the Sponsor has reviewed publicly available materials relating to the circumstances around the creation of ether, the market and technological needs that the Ether network was intended to address, the Ether network’s role in enabling blockchain interoperability and cross-blockchain communications, and the Ether network’s consensus mechanism. Based on the Sponsor’s review of these materials, the Sponsor believes there is a reasonable basis to conclude that at this time offers and sales of ether would not constitute offers and sales of a “security” as that term is defined under Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act. This determination is a risk-based judgement by the Sponsor that is attendant with legal risk as it is possible regulatory agencies or courts could disagree with this determination.
Current report
If ether is determined to be offered or sold as a security by a federal court or transactions in ether are determined to be securities transactions by a federal court, the Trust could be considered an unregistered “investment company” under the 1940 Act, which could necessitate the Trust’s liquidation. In this case, the Trust and the Sponsor may be deemed to have participated in an illegal offering of investment company securities and there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will be able to register the Trust under the 1940 Act at such time or take such other actions as may be necessary to ensure the Trust’s activities comply with applicable law, which could force the Sponsor to liquidate the Trust.
Current report
It may also become more difficult for ether to be traded, cleared and custodied as compared to other digital assets that are not considered to be offered or sold as securities, which could in turn negatively affect the liquidity and general acceptance of ether and cause users to migrate to other digital assets. Further, if any other digital asset with widespread markets is determined to be offered or sold as a “security” under federal or state securities laws by the SEC or any other agency, or in a proceeding in a court of law or otherwise, it may have material adverse consequences for ether as a digital asset due to negative publicity or a decline in the general acceptance of digital assets. In addition, digital asset trading platforms that feature digital assets that are determined to be offered or sold as securities may face penalties or be required to shut down if they do not have the licenses required to facilitate electronic markets in securities, which could result in a reduction of the liquidity of ether markets. As such, any determination that ether or any other digital asset is offered or sold as a security under federal or state securities laws may adversely affect the price of ether and, as a result, the value of the Shares.
Current report
In February 2022, Representative Warren Davidson introduced the “Keep Your Coins Act,” which is intended “[t]o prohibit Federal agencies from restricting the use of convertible virtual currency by a person to purchase goods or services for the person’s own use, and for other purposes.”
Current report
In March 2022, Representative Stephen Lynch, along with co-sponsors Jesús G. García, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, and Alma Adams, introduced H.R. 7231, the Electronic Currency and Secure Hardware Act, which would direct the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Department (not the Federal Reserve) to develop and issue a digital analogue to the U.S. dollar, or “e-cash,” which is intended to “replicate and preserve the privacy, anonymity-respecting, and minimal transactional data-generating properties of physical currency instruments such as coins and notes to the greatest extent technically and practically possible,” all without requiring a bank account. E-cash would be legal tender, payable to the bearer and functionally identical to physical U.S. coins and notes, “capable of instantaneous, final, direct, peer-to-peer, offline transactions using secured hardware devices that do not involve or require subsequent or final settlement on or via a common or distributed ledger, or any other additional approval or validation by the United States Government or any other third party payments processing intermediary,” including fully anonymous transactions, and “interoperable with all existing financial institutions and payment systems and generally accepted payments standards and network protocols, as well as other public payments programs.”
Current report
Several other bills have advanced through Congress to curb digital assets as a payment gateway for illicit activity and money laundering. The “Blockchain Regulatory Clarity Act” would provide clarity to the regulatory classification of digital assets, providing market certainty for innovators and clear jurisdictional boundaries for regulators by affirming that blockchain developers and other related service providers that do not custody customer funds are not money transmitters. The “Financial Technology Protection Act,” another bipartisan measure, would set up an independent Financial Technology Working Group to combat terrorism and illicit financing in digital assets. The “Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act” aims to protect certain blockchain platforms from being designated as money-services businesses. Both acts advanced through the House with bipartisan support.
Showing the first 40 of 49 passages. Open the source sections for the rest.
Removed paragraphs (9)
Previous report
Currently, neither the Trust, nor the Sponsor, nor the Ether Custodians, nor any other person associated with the Trust will, directly or indirectly, employ any portion of the Trust’s assets in actions where any portion of the Trust’s ether becomes subject to the Ethereum proof-of-stake validation or is used to earn additional ether or generate income or other earnings (“Staking Activities”). Accordingly, the Trust currently does not derive any income from, or receive any form of staking rewards of any kind in connection with, or otherwise recognize any economic benefit from, any Staking Activity. Upon receiving regulatory approval to do so, the Sponsor may, from time to time, stake a portion of the Trust’s ether on behalf of the Trust through one or more trusted staking providers.
Previous report
Investors should be aware that investing in Shares of the Trust differs significantly from investing ether directly or in an investment strategy that involves the staking of ether. An investor in Shares of the Trust currently will not receive any additional income or ether rewards that they otherwise may receive from Staking Activities. Foregoing potential returns from Staking Activities could cause an investment in the Shares to deviate from that which would have been obtained by purchasing and holding ether directly by virtue of giving up staking as a source of return when an investor holds the Shares. This may adversely impact the value of an investment in Shares of the Trust.
Previous report
Currently, neither the Trust, nor the Sponsor, nor the Ether Custodians, nor any other person associated with the Trust will, directly or indirectly, employ any Staking Activities. Upon receiving regulatory approval to do so, the Sponsor may, from time to time, stake a portion of the Trust’s ether on behalf of the Trust through one or more trusted staking providers.
Previous report
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.
Previous report
With respect to the BitGo Custody Agreement, BitGo and its affiliates, including their officers, directors, agents, and employees, are not liable for any lost profits, special, incidental, indirect, intangible, or consequential damages resulting from authorized or unauthorized use of the Trust or Sponsor’s site or services. This includes damages arising from any contract, tort, negligence, strict liability, or other legal grounds, even if BitGo was previously advised of, knew, or should have known about the possibility of such damages. However, this exclusion of liability does not extend to cases of BitGo’s fraud, willful misconduct, or gross negligence. In situations of gross negligence, BitGo’s liability is specifically limited to the value of the digital assets or fiat currency that were affected by the negligence. Additionally, the total liability of BitGo for direct damages is capped at the fees paid or payable to them under the relevant agreement during the twelve-month period immediately preceding the first incident that caused the liability.
Previous report
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.
Previous report
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.
Previous report
The Trust may, in its discretion, suspend the right of creation or redemption or may postpone the redemption or purchase settlement date, for (1) any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which the fulfilment of a purchase order or the redemption distribution is not reasonably practicable (for example, as a result of a significant technical failure, power outage, or network error), or (2) such other period as the Sponsor determines to be necessary for the protection of the Shareholders of the Trust (for example, where acceptance of the total deposit required to create each Basket would have certain adverse tax consequences to the Trust or its Shareholders). In addition, the Trust may reject a redemption order if the order is not in proper form as described in the Authorized Participant Agreement or if the fulfilment of the order might be unlawful. Any such postponement, suspension or rejection could adversely affect a redeeming Authorized Participant. Suspension of creation privileges may adversely impact how the Shares are traded and arbitraged on the secondary market, which could cause them to trade at levels materially different (premiums and discounts) from the fair value of their underlying holdings.
Reworded paragraphs (69)
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
In September 2022, the Ethereum network moved from a proof-of-work to a proof-of-stake mechanism called Serenity, or Ethereum 2.0. Unlike proof-of-work, in which miners expend computational resources to compete to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the amount of computational resources expended, in proof-of-stake, validators risk or “stake” coins to compete to be randomly selected to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the total amount of coins staked. Any malicious activity, such as disagreeing with the eventual consensus or otherwise violating protocol rules, results in the forfeiture or “slashing” of a portion of the staked coins. Proof-of-stake is viewed as more energy efficient and scalable than proof-of-work. There is no guarantee that the Ethereum community will embrace Ethereum 2.0, and the new protocol may never fully scale.
Current wording
In September 2022, the Ethereum network moved from a proof-of-work to a proof-of-stake mechanism called Serenity, or Ethereum 2.0. Unlike proof-of-work, in which miners expend computational resources to compete to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the amount of computational resources expended, in proof-of-stake, validators risk or “stake” coins to compete to be randomly selected to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the total amount of coins staked. Any malicious activity, such as disagreeing with the eventual consensus or otherwise violating protocol rules, results in the forfeiture or “slashing” of a portion of the staked coins. Should any of the Trust’s Staking Services Providers engage in malicious activity or perform poorly, then such Staking Services Providers may be blacklisted which could negatively impact the Trust’s abilities to engage in Staking Activities and/or otherwise result in the Trust earning reduced staking rewards. Proof-of-stake is viewed as more energy efficient and scalable than proof-of-work. There is no guarantee that the Ethereum community will embrace Ethereum 2.0, and the new protocol may never fully scale.
Previous wording
Upon receiving regulatory approval to do so, the Sponsor may, from time to time, stake a portion of the Trust’s ether on behalf of the Trust through one or more trusted staking providers. Under current Ethereum network protocols, staked ether tokens are permitted to be un-staked by the holder of such ether tokens. However, as part of the “activating” and “exiting” processes of staking, staked ether tokens will be inaccessible for a variable period of time determined by a range of factors, including network congestion, resulting in certain liquidity risks that the Sponsor plans to manage.
Current wording
The Sponsor may, from time to time, stake a portion of the Trust’s ether on behalf of the Trust through one or more Staking Services Providers. Under current Ethereum network protocols, staked ether tokens are permitted to be un-staked by the holder of such ether tokens. However, as part of the “activating” and “exiting” processes of staking, staked ether tokens will be inaccessible for a variable period of time determined by a range of factors, including network congestion, resulting in certain liquidity risks that the Sponsor plans to manage.
Previous wording
Even in the event the Trust is then permitted to operate an ongoing redemption program due to the time involved in “exiting” the staking process there is a risk that the Trust could become unable to timely meet excessive redemption requests in amounts that are greater than the portion of the Trust’s ether that remains un-staked, leading to temporary delays in settlement and, in extreme scenarios, the temporary unavailability of the Trust’s redemption program. Moreover, any staked ether which must be un-staked in order to fulfill a redemption (to the extent such redemption cannot be fulfilled utilizing the portion of the Trust’s ether that has not been staked) will be un-staked only after the redemption request is approved by the Trust, the Sponsor executes an un-stake or withdrawal transaction, and such transaction is processed by the Ethereum Network. The staking provider will not be able to change the addresses on the Ethereum network to which staked ether is to be withdrawn or to which ether rewards shall be sent.
Current wording
Even in the event the Trust is then permitted to operate an ongoing redemption program due to the time involved in “exiting” the staking process there is a risk that the Trust could become unable to timely meet excessive redemption requests in amounts that are greater than the portion of the Trust’s ether that remains un-staked, leading to temporary delays in settlement and, in extreme scenarios, the temporary unavailability of the Trust’s redemption program. Moreover, any staked ether which must be un-staked in order to fulfill a redemption (to the extent such redemption cannot be fulfilled utilizing the portion of the Trust’s ether that has not been staked) will be un-staked only after the redemption request is approved by the Trust, the Sponsor executes an un-stake or withdrawal transaction, and such transaction is processed by the Ethereum Network. The Staking Services Provider will not be able to change the addresses on the Ethereum network to which staked ether is to be withdrawn or to which ether rewards shall be sent.
Previous wording
As the Sponsor currently anticipates that Staking may be carried out by the Custodian, its affiliates, or third-party staking providers, the amount of staking rewards that the Trust’s staking activity will generate will be dependent on the performance of the staking provider, including the adequacy and reliability of the hardware and software utilized by the staking provider. If the staking providers experience service outages or otherwise are unable to optimally execute the staking of the Trust’s Ether, the Trust’s staking rewards may be adversely affected.
Current wording
The amount of staking rewards that the Trust’s staking activity will generate is dependent on the performance of the Staking Services Providers, including the adequacy and reliability of the hardware and software utilized by the Staking Services Providers. If the Staking Services Providers experience service outages or otherwise are unable to optimally execute the staking of the Trust’s ether, the Trust’s staking rewards may be adversely affected.
Previous wording
Ether is the second largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization behind bitcoin. As of December 31, 2024, ether had a total market capitalization of approximately $401 billion and represented approximately 12.0% of the entire digital asset market.
Current wording
Ether is the second largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization behind bitcoin. As of December 31, 2025, ether had a total market capitalization of approximately $358 billion and represented approximately 11.42% of the entire digital asset market.
Previous wording
The rate at which new ether are issued and put into circulation is expected to vary. The Ethereum network has no formal cap on the total supply of ether. As of December 31, 2024, the Ethereum network has a total outstanding supply of approximately 120.5M ether. The Ethereum network does, however, feature several mechanisms that, individually and in aggregate, have the effect of limiting the total supply of ether outstanding. These mechanisms are sometimes referred to collectively as the “Ethereum Triple Halving.”
Current wording
The rate at which new ether are issued and put into circulation is expected to vary. The Ethereum network has no formal cap on the total supply of ether. As of December 31, 2025, the Ethereum network has a total outstanding supply of approximately 117.8M ether. The Ethereum network does, however, feature several mechanisms that, individually and in aggregate, have the effect of limiting the total supply of ether outstanding. These mechanisms are sometimes referred to collectively as the “Ethereum Triple Halving.”
Previous wording
As a result of the Merge, where the Ethereum network moved from a proof-of-work to a proof-of-stake mechanism under Ethereum 2.0, the rate of issuance is greatly reduced. Under proof-of-work, miners expend computational resources to compete to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the amount of computational resources expended, which resulted in comparably more new tokens rewarded. By contrast, under proof-of-stake, validators risk or “stake” coins to compete to be randomly selected to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the amount of coins staked, which results in comparably fewer new tokens rewarded. Following the Merge, approximately 1,700 ether are issued per day, though the issuance rate varies based on the number of validators on the network. As of December 31, 2024, approximately 2,197 ether were issued in the previous day. The issuance rate varies based on the number of validators on the network and other factors. As of December 31, 2024, approximately 453 ether were burned in the previous day.
Current wording
As a result of the Merge, where the Ethereum network moved from a proof-of-work to a proof-of-stake mechanism under Ethereum 2.0, the rate of issuance is greatly reduced. Under proof-of-work, miners expend computational resources to compete to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the amount of computational resources expended, which resulted in comparably more new tokens rewarded. By contrast, under proof-of-stake, validators risk or “stake” coins to compete to be randomly selected to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the amount of coins staked, which results in comparably fewer new tokens rewarded. Following the Merge, approximately 1,700 ether are issued per day, though the issuance rate varies based on the number of validators on the network. As of December 31, 2025, approximately 1406 ether were issued in the previous day. The issuance rate varies based on the number of validators on the network and other factors. As of December 31, 2025, approximately 13.67 ether were burned in the previous day.
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 ether 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 ether, 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 ether, 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 ether held by the Trust or sell Shares at a price lower than the value of the underlying ether 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 ether 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 ether, 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 ether, 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 ether held by the Trust or sell Shares at a price lower than the value of the underlying ether held by the Trust, causing Shareholders to suffer losses.
Previous wording
A decline in the adoption of ether could negatively impact the Trust.
Current wording
A decline in the adoption of ether or the Ethereum network could negatively impact the Trust.
Previous wording
The use of digital assets such as ether 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. Ether 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 ether 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, ether may not be suited for a number of commercial uses, including those requiring real time payments, partially due to the amount of time that Ethereum transactions may potentially require in order to clear. This could result in decreasing usage of the network, to the extent that ether 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 ether 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. Ether 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 ether 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, ether may not be suited for a number of commercial uses, including those requiring real time payments, partially due to the amount of time that Ethereum transactions may potentially require in order to clear. This could result in decreasing usage of the network, to the extent that ether does not otherwise become a store of asset value or meet the needs of another commercial use.
Previous wording
Ether transactions recorded on the Ethereum 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 Ethereum 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 ether or a theft of ether 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 ether 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 ether through error or theft, the Trust will be unable to revert or otherwise recover incorrectly transferred ether. 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
Ether transactions recorded on the Ethereum 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 Ethereum 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 ether or a theft of ether 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 ether will regularly be made to or from the Trust’s accounts with the Ether Custodians, it is possible that, through computer or human error, or through theft or criminal action, the Trust’s ether could be transferred from the Trust’s accounts with the Ether 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
An investment in the Trust is not a deposit and is not FDIC-insured. Shareholders’ limited rights of legal recourse against the Trust, Trustee, Sponsor, Administrator, Prime Broker and Custodians expose the Trust and its Shareholders to the risk of loss of the Trust’s ether for which no person or entity is liable.
Current wording
An investment in the Trust is not a deposit and is not FDIC-insured. Shareholders’ limited rights of legal recourse against the Trust, Trustee, Sponsor, Administrator, Prime Broker and Ether Custodians expose the Trust and its Shareholders to the risk of loss of the Trust’s ether for which no person or entity is liable.
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 Ether 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 ether, resulting from theft, Shareholders cannot be assured that the Ether Custodians will maintain adequate insurance, that such coverage will cover losses with respect to the Trust’s ether, or that sufficient insurance proceeds will be available to cover the Trust’s losses in full. The Ether 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 Ether Custodians, which could reduce the amount of such proceeds that are available to the Trust. In addition, the ether insurance market is limited, and the level of insurance maintained by the Ether Custodians may be substantially lower than the assets of the Trust. While the Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether Custodians is shared among all of the Custodians’ customers, is not specific to the Trust or to customers holding ether with the Ether 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 Ether 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 ether, resulting from theft, Shareholders cannot be assured that the Ether Custodians will maintain adequate insurance, that such coverage will cover losses with respect to the Trust’s ether, or that sufficient insurance proceeds will be available to cover the Trust’s losses in full. The Ether 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 Ether Custodians, which could reduce the amount of such proceeds that are available to the Trust. In addition, the ether insurance market is limited, and the level of insurance maintained by the Ether Custodians may be substantially lower than the assets of the Trust. While the Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether Custodians is shared among all of the Custodians’ customers, is not specific to the Trust or to customers holding ether with the Ether 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 Ether Custodian’s liability is limited. With respect to the Coinbase Custody Agreement, Coinbase Custodian’s liability is as follows, among others: (i) other than with respect to claims and losses arising from spot trading of ether, 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) $100 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 ether 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 ether 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 Ether 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 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 ether 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 ether 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 OFAC of 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
Moreover, in the event of an insolvency or bankruptcy of the Prime Broker (in the case of the Trading Balance) or the Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether 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 ether 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 Ether Custodians will serve as fiduciaries and custodians on the Trust’s behalf. One of the Ether 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 Ether Custodians were to experience insolvency. However, due to the novelty of digital asset custodial arrangements courts have not yet considered this type of treatment for custodied digital assets and it is not possible to predict with certainty how they would rule in such a scenario. If the Ether Custodians became subject to insolvency proceedings and a court were to rule that the custodied ether were part of such Ether Custodians’ general estate and not the property of the Trust, then the Trust would be treated as a general unsecured creditor in the Ether Custodians’ 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 an Ether Custodian, an automatic stay could go into effect and protracted litigation could be required in order to recover the assets held with the Ether Custodians, 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 ether 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 estates 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 Ether Custodians become subject to insolvency proceedings and a court were to rule that the custodied ether were part of such Ether Custodian’s general estate and not the property of the Trust, then the Trust would be treated as a general unsecured creditor in the Ether 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 an Ether Custodian, an automatic stay could go into effect and protracted litigation could be required in order to recover the assets held with such Ether Custodian, all of which could significantly and negatively impact the Trust’s operations and the value of the Shares.
Previous wording
The amount of ether that may be held in the Trading Balance will be limited to the amount necessary to process a given creation or redemption transaction, as applicable, or to pay for Trust Expenses not assumed by the Sponsor in consideration for the Sponsor Fee.
Current wording
The amount of ether that may be held in the Trading Balance is limited to the amount necessary to process a given creation or redemption transaction, as applicable, or to pay for Trust Expenses not assumed by the Sponsor in consideration for the Sponsor Fee.
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 ether by the Ether 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 ether by the Ether 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 ether by the Ether Custodians or 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 ether by the Ether 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 ether or the provision of instructions relating to the movement of ether, 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 Ether 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 ether that is not covered by the Ether 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 ether or the provision of instructions relating to the movement of ether, 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 Ether 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 transactions thereunder. Consequently, a loss may be suffered with respect to the Trust’s ether that is not covered by the Ether 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
If any of the Custodial Services Agreements or Prime Broker Agreement is terminated or any of the Ether Custodians or Prime Broker fails to provide services as required, the Trustee may need to find and appoint a replacement Ether Custodian or Prime Broker, which could pose a challenge to the safekeeping of the Trust’s ether, 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 Ether 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 ether, and the Trust’s ability to continue to operate may be adversely affected.
Previous wording
The Trust is dependent on the Ether Custodians and the Prime Broker to operate. The Ether Custodians perform essential functions in terms of safekeeping the Trust’s ether in the Cold Vault Balance, and the Prime Broker facilitates the selling of ether 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 Ether 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 Ether Custodians as well as the Prime Broker to operate. The Ether Custodians perform essential functions in terms of safekeeping the Trust’s ether in the Cold Vault Balance, and the Prime Broker facilitates the selling of ether 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 Ether 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 ether is a security nor does it allege that Coinbase Inc’s activities involving ether 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 Custodian, is required, as a result of a judicial determination…
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. 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 did not allege that ether is offered or sold as a security nor did it allege that Coinbase Inc’s activities involving ether 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 Coinbase Custodian was not named in the complaint, if Coinbase Global, as the parent of Coinbase Custodian, is required, as a result of a judicial determination, or could choose, to restrict or curtai…
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 ether, 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 ether 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 an Ether 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 Ether Custodians to another custodian would likely be complex and could subject the Trust’s ether 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 an ether custodian of the Trust’s ether 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 an ether custodian or prime broker, the Trustee may be required to terminate the Trust and liquidate the Trust’s ether. 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 an ether custodian of the Trust’s ether 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 an ether custodian or prime broker, the Trustee may be required to terminate the Trust and liquidate the Trust’s ether. 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 Ether Custodians and Prime Broker may act in the same or similar capacity for other competing products.
Current wording
The Ether Custodians and the Prime Broker may act in the same or similar capacity for other competing products.
Previous wording
This industry concentration also may have the effect of magnifying the risks associated with the Ether Custodians and Prime Broker, as operational disruptions or adverse developments impacting the Ether Custodians or the Prime Broker may be felt on an industry-wide basis. A loss of confidence or breach of the Ether 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 ether custodial and prime brokerage services and, more generally, exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot ether 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 ether 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 Ether Custodians and Prime Broker, as operational disruptions or adverse developments impacting the Ether Custodians or the Prime Broker may be felt on an industry-wide basis. A loss of confidence in or breach of the Ether Custodians or breach of an Ether 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 ether custodial and prime brokerage services and, more generally, exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot ether 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 ether 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 Ether Custodians. Authorized Participants, as broker-dealers, and the Ether 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, Ether Counterparties will be contractually obligated that all ether they deliver to the Trust will be from lawful sources. The Trust will not hold any ether except those that have been delivered by an Ether 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 Ether Custodians. Authorized Participants, as broker-dealers, and the Ether Custodians, as a limited purpose trust company 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, Ether Counterparties will be contractually obligated that all ether they deliver to the Trust will be from lawful sources. The Trust will not hold any ether except those that have been delivered by an Ether Counterparty in connection with creation requests.
Previous wording
The actual or perceived use of ether and other digital assets in illicit transactions, which may adversely affect the ether industry and an investment in the Trust.
Current wording
The actual or perceived use of ether and other digital assets in illicit transactions may adversely affect the ether industry and an investment in the Trust.
Previous wording
Although ether transaction details are logged on the blockchain, a buyer or seller of ether 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 ether transaction details are logged on the blockchain, a buyer or seller of ether 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
The only digital asset to be held by the Trust will be ether.
Current wording
The only digital asset to be held by the Trust is ether.
Previous wording
Ethereum 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 ether. Accordingly, the Trust will not participate in airdrops.
Current wording
Ethereum 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. 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 ether. Accordingly, the Trust will not participate in airdrops.
Previous wording
Validation on the Ethereum network requires ether to be transferred into smart contracts on the underlying blockchain networks not under the Trust’s or anyone else’s control. If the Ethereum network source code or protocol fail to behave as expected, suffer cybersecurity attacks or hacks, experience security issues, or encounter other problems, such assets may be irretrievably lost. In addition, the Ethereum networks dictate requirements for participation in validation activity, and may impose penalties, or “slashing,” if the relevant activities are not performed correctly, such as if the staker acts maliciously on the network, “double signs” any transactions, or experience extended downtimes. If validators’ staked ether are slashed by the Ethereum network, their assets may be confiscated, withdrawn, or burnt by the network, resulting in losses to them. Furthermore, the Ethereum network requires the payment of base fees and the practice of paying tips is common, and such fees can become significant as the amount and complexity of the transaction grows, depending on the degree of network congestion and the price of ether. Any cybersecurity attacks, security issues, hacks, penalties, slashing events, or other problems could damage validators’ willingness to participate in validation, discourage existing and future validators from serving as such, and adversely impact the Ethereum network’s adoption or the price of ether. Any disruption of validation on the Ethereum network could interfere with network operations and cause the Ethereum network to be less attractive to users and application developers than competing blockchain networks, which could cause the price of ether to decrease.
Current wording
Validation on the Ethereum network requires ether to be transferred into smart contracts on the underlying blockchain networks not under the Trust’s or anyone else’s control. If the Ethereum network source code or protocol fail to behave as expected, suffer cybersecurity attacks or hacks, experience security issues, or encounter other problems, such assets may be irretrievably lost. In addition, the Ethereum networks dictate requirements for participation in validation activity, and may impose penalties, or “slashing,” if the relevant activities are not performed correctly, such as if the staker acts maliciously on the network, “double signs” any transactions, or experience extended downtimes. Such penalties include the reduction of staking rewards for malicious actors and poorly performing validators and the “blacklisting” of such actors which may result in ether tokenholders no longer delegating their stakes to such actors thereby resulting in such actors not being selected to validate in the future. Should any of the Trust’s Staking Services Providers engage in malicious activity or perform poorly, then such Staking Services Providers may be blacklisted which could negatively impact the Trust’s abilities to engage in Staking Activities and/or otherwise result in the Trust earning reduced staking rewards. If validators’ staked ether are slashed by the Ethereum network, their assets may be confiscated, withdrawn, or burnt by the network, resulting in losses to them. Furthermore, the Ethereum network requires the payment of base fees and the practice of paying tips is common, and such fees can become significant as the amount and complexity of the transaction grows, depending on the degree of network congestion and the price of ether. Any cybersecurity attacks, security issues, hacks, penalties, slashing events, or other problems could damage validators’ willingness to participate in validation, discourage existing and future validators from serving as such, and adversely impact the Ethereum network’s adoption or the price of ether. Any disruption of validation on the Ethereum network could interfere with network operations and cause the Ethereum network to be less attractive to users and application developers than competing blockchain networks, which could cause the price of ether to decrease.
Previous wording
As of December 31, 2024, the Ethereum network handled approximately 15 transactions per second. In an effort to increase the volume of transactions that can be processed on a given digital asset network, many digital assets are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. As corresponding increases in throughput lag behind growth in the use of digital asset networks, average fees and settlement times may increase considerably. For example, the Ethereum network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. In December 2017, the popularity of the blockchain-based game Cryptokitties led to significant network congestion on the Ethereum network. The game, which allows players to trade and create virtual kitties, represented by non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”), was reported by some sources to have accounted for more than 10% of the entire Ethereum network traffic at the time causing increases in transaction fees and delays in transaction processing times, and driving Ethereum network traffic to a reported then-all time high. Since January 1, 2020, ether transaction fees have increased from $0.08 average daily transaction fees per ether transaction, to a high of up to approximately $[200] (in ether) average daily transaction fees per transaction on [April 30, 2022]. As of December 31, 2024, ether transaction fees stood at $[●] (in Ether) per transaction, on average. Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for ether (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, ether, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.
Current wording
As of December 31, 2024, the Ethereum network handled approximately 15 transactions per second. In an effort to increase the volume of transactions that can be processed on a given digital asset network, many digital assets are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. As corresponding increases in throughput lag behind growth in the use of digital asset networks, average fees and settlement times may increase considerably. For example, the Ethereum network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. In December 2017, the popularity of the blockchain-based game Cryptokitties led to significant network congestion on the Ethereum network. The game, which allows players to trade and create virtual kitties, represented by non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”), was reported by some sources to have accounted for more than 10% of the entire Ethereum network traffic at the time causing increases in transaction fees and delays in transaction processing times, and driving Ethereum network traffic to a reported then-all time high. Since January 1, 2020, ether transaction fees have increased from $0.08 average daily transaction fees per ether transaction, to a high of up to approximately $200 (in ether) average daily transaction fees per transaction on April 30, 2022. As of December 31, 2025, ether transaction fees stood at $0.15 (in Ether) per transaction, on average. Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for ether (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, ether, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.
Previous wording
The implementation of Ethereum 2.0 has increased the speed and efficiency of the Ethereum network. However, there is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the scale of settlement of Ethereum network transactions will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could adversely impact an investment in the Shares.
Current wording
Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain use cases for ether (e.g., micropayments), and can reduce demand for and the price of ether, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares. There is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the scale of settlement of transactions in ether will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could adversely impact an investment in the Shares.
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, ether and other cryptocurrencies as a medium of exchange or store of value. Central banks and other governmental entities have also announced cooperative initiatives and consortia with private sector entities, with the goal of leveraging blockchain and other technology to reduce friction in cross-border and interbank payments and settlement, and commercial banks and other financial institutions have also recently announced a number of initiatives of their own to incorporate new technologies, including blockchain and similar technologies, into their payments and settlement activities, which could compete with, or reduce the demand for, ether. As a result of any of the foregoing factors, the value of ether could decrease, which could adversely affect an investment in the 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, ether 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, ether. As a result of any of the foregoing factors, the value of ether could decrease, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust.
Previous wording
While the Trust does not invest in stablecoins, it may nonetheless be exposed to these and other risks that stablecoins pose for the ether market through its investment in ether. Stablecoins are digital assets designed to have a stable value over time as compared to typically volatile digital assets, and are typically marketed as being pegged to a fiat currency, such as the U.S. dollar. Although the prices of stablecoins are intended to be stable, in many cases their prices fluctuate, sometimes significantly. This volatility has in the past apparently impacted the price of ether. Stablecoins are a relatively new phenomenon, and it is impossible to know all of the risks that they could pose to participants in the ether market. In addition, some have argued that some stablecoins, particularly Tether, are improperly issued without sufficient backing in a way that could cause artificial rather than genuine demand for ether, raising its price, and also argue that those associated with certain stablecoins are involved in laundering money. On February 17, 2021 the New York Attorney General entered an agreement with Tether’s operators, requiring them to cease any further trading activity with New York persons and pay $18.5 million in penalties for false and misleading statements made regarding the assets backing Tether. On October 15, 2021, the CFTC announced a settlement with Tether’s operators in which they agreed to pay $42.5 million in fines to settle charges that, among others, Tether’s claims that it maintained sufficient U.S. dollar reserves to back every Tether stablecoin in circulation with the “equivalent amount of corresponding fiat currency” held by Tether were untrue.
Current wording
While the Trust does not invest in stablecoins, it may nonetheless be exposed to these and other risks that stablecoins pose for the ether market through its investment in ether. Stablecoins are digital assets designed to have a stable value over time as compared to typically volatile digital assets, and are typically marketed as being pegged to a fiat currency, such as the U.S. dollar. Although the prices of stablecoins are intended to be stable, in many cases their prices fluctuate, sometimes significantly. This volatility has in the past apparently impacted the price of ether. Stablecoins are a relatively new phenomenon, and it is impossible to know all of the risks that they could pose to participants in the ether market. In addition, some have argued that some stablecoins, particularly Tether, are improperly issued without sufficient backing in a way that could cause artificial rather than genuine demand for ether, raising its price, and also argue that those associated with certain stablecoins are involved in laundering money. On February 17, 2021 the New York Attorney General entered into an agreement with Tether’s operators, requiring them to cease any further trading activity with New York persons and pay $18.5 million in penalties for false and misleading statements made regarding the assets backing Tether. In October 2021, the CFTC announced a settlement with Tether’s operators in which they agreed to pay $42.5 million in fines to settle charges that, among others, Tether’s claims that it maintained sufficient U.S. dollar reserves to back every Tether stablecoin in circulation with the “equivalent amount of corresponding fiat currency” held by Tether were untrue.
Previous wording
The ability of the Trust or an Ether Counterparty to buy or sell ether may be adversely affected by limited trading volume, lack of a market maker in the digital asset markets, or legal restrictions. It is also possible that an ether spot market or governmental authority may suspend or restrict trading in ether altogether. Therefore, it may not always be possible to execute a buy or sell order at the desired price or to liquidate an open position due to market conditions on spot markets, regulatory issues affecting ether or other issues affecting counterparties. Ether is a new asset with a very limited trading history. Therefore, the markets for ether may be less liquid and more volatile than other markets for more established products.
Current wording
The ability of the Trust or an Ether Counterparty to buy or sell ether may be adversely affected by limited trading volume, lack of a market maker in the digital asset markets, or legal restrictions. It is also possible that an ether spot market or regulatory or governmental authority may suspend or restrict trading in ether altogether. Therefore, it may not always be possible to execute a buy or sell order at the desired price or to liquidate an open position due to market conditions on spot markets, regulatory issues affecting ether or other issues affecting counterparties. Ether is a new asset with a very limited trading history. Therefore, the markets for ether may be less liquid and more volatile than other markets for more established products.
Previous wording
The Trust’s assets are held in accounts maintained for the Trust by the Ether Custodians, an may in the future be held at other custodian banks which may be located in other jurisdictions. The Ether Custodians are not depository institutions as they are not insured by the FDIC. The insolvency of the Ether Custodians or of any broker, custodian bank or clearing corporation used by the Ether Custodians, may result in the loss of all or a substantial portion of the Trust’s assets or in a significant delay in the Trust having access to those assets. Additionally, custody of digital assets presents inherent and unique risks relating to access loss, theft and means of recourse in such scenarios. These risks are applicable to the Trust’s use of Coinbase Custodian.
Current wording
The Trust’s assets are held in accounts maintained for the Trust by the Ether Custodians, an may in the future be held at other custodian banks which may be located in other jurisdictions. The Ether Custodians are not depository institutions as they are not insured by the FDIC. The insolvency of the Ether Custodians or of any broker, custodian bank or clearing corporation used by the Ether Custodians, may result in the loss of all or a substantial portion of the Trust’s assets or in a significant delay in the Trust having access to those assets. Additionally, custody of digital assets presents inherent and unique risks relating to access loss, theft and means of recourse in such scenarios.
Showing the first 40 of 69 pairs. Open the source sections for the rest.
Rearranged current paragraphs (5)
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
Due to the time involved in “exiting” the staking process, there is a risk that the Trust could become unable to timely meet excessive redemption requests in amounts that are greater than the portion of the Trust’s ether that remains un-staked, leading to temporary delays in settlement and, in extreme scenarios, the temporary unavailability of the Trust’s redemption program. Moreover, any staked ether which must be un-staked in order to fulfill a redemption (to the extent such redemption cannot be fulfilled utilizing the portion of the Trust’s ether that has not been staked, or through another mechanism to manage liquidity in connection with Redemption Orders) will be un-staked only after the redemption request is approved by the Trust, the Sponsor executes an un-stake or withdrawal transaction through the Ether Custodians, and such transaction is processed by the Ethereum network. The Staking Services Providers will not be able to transfer unstaked ether or Staking Provider Consideration to another address on the Ethereum network.
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
The market value of ether is subject to momentum pricing.
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
While the Ether Custodians have advised the Sponsor that they collectively have insurance coverage up to $685 million in the aggregate that covers losses of the digital assets they custody on behalf of their clients, including the Trust’s ether, resulting from theft, Shareholders cannot be assured that the Ether Custodians will maintain adequate insurance, that such coverage will cover losses with respect to the Trust’s ether, or that sufficient insurance proceeds will be available to cover the Trust’s losses in full. The Ether 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 Ether Custodians, which could reduce the amount of such proceeds that are available to the Trust. In addition, the ether insurance market is limited, and the level of insurance maintained by the Ether Custodians may be substantially lower than the assets of the Trust. While the Ether 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 Ether Custodians will maintain capital reserves sufficient to cover actual or potential losses with respect to the Trust’s digital assets. The insurance maintained by each Ether Custodian is shared among all of such Ether Custodian’s customers, is not specific to the Trust or to customers holding ether with such Ether Custodian, and may not be available or sufficient to protect the Trust from all possible losses or sources of losses.
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
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 (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 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.
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
In addition, the BitGo New York Custodian shall not be liable for delays, suspension of operations, whether temporary or permanent, failure in performance, or interruption of service which results directly or indirectly from any cause or condition beyond the reasonable control of the BitGo New York Custodian, including, but not limited to, any delay or failure due to an act of God, natural disasters, act of civil or military authorities, act of terrorists, including, but not limited to, cyber-related terrorist acts, hacking, government restrictions, exchange or market rulings, civil disturbance, war, strike or other labor dispute, fire, interruption in telecommunications or Internet services or network provider services, failure of equipment and/or software, other catastrophe or any other occurrence which is beyond the reasonable control of the BitGo New York Custodian.
Rearranged previous paragraphs (4)
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
The inability to recognize the economic benefit of Staking Activities could adversely impact an investment in the Trust.
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude use cases for ether and could reduce demand for and the price of ether, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
A loss of confidence or breach of the Ether Custodians may adversely affect the Trust and the value of an investment in the Shares.
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. Investors cannot waive compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. Further, there is uncertainty as to whether a court would enforce the exclusive forum jurisdiction for actions arising under the Securities Act or Exchange Act.