iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF

Except as set forth below, there have been no material changes to the Risk Factors last reported under Part I, Item 1A of the registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2025.

The trading prices of many digital assets, including bitcoin, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. The average annualized one-year trailing volatility of bitcoin over the past ten years to date remains elevated at 65%. Over the course of 2021, there were steep increases in the value of certain digital assets, including bitcoin, and multiple market observers asserted that digital assets were experiencing a “bubble.” These increases were followed by steep drawdowns throughout 2022 in digital asset trading prices, including for bitcoin. In the 2021-2022 cycle, the price of bitcoin peaked at $67,734 and bottomed at $15,632, marking a steep 77% drawdown. These episodes of rapid price appreciation followed by steep drawdowns have occurred multiple times throughout bitcoin’s history, including in 2011, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018, before repeating again in 2021-2022. As of the date of this report, digital asset prices have continued to fluctuate in 2025. For example, bitcoin lost approximately 14% of its value according to some sources in mid-October 2025 as part of wider digital asset market turmoil, widely attributed to global trade tensions, which triggered a number of dislocations in the digital asset market (the “October 2025 Flash Crash”), including liquidations of up to $20 billion in collateral in the form of various digital assets (including, but not limited to, bitcoin) securing trades (particularly perpetual futures contracts and various forms of financing transactions), along with reported service interruptions, halted orders, forced unwinding of trades, and other issues, across centralized and decentralized exchanges.

The prices of some digital assets, including bitcoin, have fluctuated significantly following the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States. Many expect the new administration to facilitate a supportive regulatory approach toward the digital asset industry. Through his executive orders, President Trump has indicated that the administration will work toward providing greater regulatory clarity for blockchain technology and digital assets, thereby fostering their development in the U.S. Similarly, the digital asset industry expects favorable legislation from the new U.S. Congress as certain members have expressed interest in advancing digital asset specific legislation. There can be no assurance that market expectations around future activity by the administration or Congress will be fulfilled, or that digital asset prices will rise or maintain their current levels. Some commentators have referred to the digital asset market post-President Trump’s election as a bubble. There can be no assurance that such a bubble does not exist. The failure of the administration and Congress to provide the expected level of regulatory clarity and support for blockchain technology and digital assets, could lead to a decline in digital asset prices, including bitcoin. Such a decline could cause a decline in the value of the Shares and cause Shareholders to suffer losses. Moreover, there can be no assurance that political dynamics and sentiments toward the digital asset industry, or market perceptions of those sentiments, will not shift over time.

On March 6, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order for the “Establishment of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile” (the “Order”). The Order requires the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury to establish two offices to administer and maintain a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve” (the “Bitcoin Reserve”) and a U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile (the “Digital Asset Stockpile”), respectively. The Bitcoin Reserve will be capitalized with bitcoin forfeited as part of U.S. criminal or civil proceedings or in satisfaction of penalties imposed by executive agencies. The Digital Asset Stockpile will be capitalized initially with other digital assets forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings. This development has caused bitcoin markets to develop expectations that the United States may begin acquiring and holding bitcoin, which is seen by many as a positive development for the price of bitcoin. The Order directs the Secretaries of the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.S. Department of Commerce to develop budget-neutral strategies for acquiring additional bitcoin for the Bitcoin Reserve. Legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, which would direct the acquisition of 1 million bitcoin by the federal government over a five-year period, which would be held in trust in secure storage by the U.S. Treasury. The bill proposes to fund the bitcoin acquisition using remittances from the Federal Reserve, revaluations of Federal Reserve gold certificates, and other funding mechanisms the bill’s sponsors characterize as budget-neutral (such as transfers from federal agencies using bitcoin acquired through asset forfeitures). Bills have also been introduced in several state legislatures to authorize the acquisition of bitcoin by state governments or their instrumentalities, some of which have failed to pass. If now or in the future, the U.S. federal government or any state government or any instrumentality thereof does not announce bitcoin acquisition plans or does announce such plans, but these plans fall short of market expectations, the price of bitcoin may decline, which may impact Share value. Even if government acquisitions occur or if legislation requiring acquisitions is enacted, the price of bitcoin may decline if there are implementation challenges, unexpected difficulties, policy or legal reversals, any of which may negatively impact Share value. Further, executive orders, such as the Order, are subject to change and can be reversed or overturned. The enduring existence and size of the Bitcoin Reserve and Digital Asset Stockpile, and the passage and implementation of legislation at the federal or state level, are subject to complex challenges and uncertainty that makes it difficult to evaluate their effect on the value of bitcoin and the Shares, now or in the future.

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 Division of Trading and Markets of the SEC and the Office of General Counsel of FINRA stated that broker-dealers are permitted to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions in connection with spot crypto exchange-traded products; however, there has yet to be 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 bitcoin. Until further regulatory clarity emerges regarding whether registered broker-dealers can hold and deal in bitcoin under such rules, there is a risk that registered broker-dealers participating in the in-kind creation or redemption of Shares for bitcoin may be unable to demonstrate compliance with such requirements. While compliance with rules such as the customer protection rule, the net capital rule and recordkeeping requirements would be the broker-dealer’s responsibility, a national securities exchange is required to enforce compliance by its member broker-dealers with applicable federal securities laws and rules. Only certain Authorized Participants, at present, have the ability to also, through their affiliates, support in-kind creation and redemption activity. As of the date of this report, Jane Street Capital, LLC, Virtu Americas LLC, JP Morgan Securities LLC, and Marex Capital Markets Inc. have executed agreements that give them the ability to conduct creations and redemptions in-kind for bitcoin in addition to conducting creations and redemptions for cash.

Even with the recent approval of in-kind creations and redemptions, the Trust’s limited ability to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions could result in the exchange-traded product arbitrage mechanism failing to function as efficiently as it otherwise would, leading to the potential for the Shares to trade at premiums or discounts to the NAV, and such premiums or discounts could be substantial. See “-The use of cash creations and redemptions, as opposed to in-kind creations and redemptions, may adversely affect the arbitrage transactions by Authorized Participants intended to keep the price of the Shares closely linked to the price of bitcoin and, as a result, the price of the Shares may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV.” Furthermore, if cash creations or redemptions are unavailable, either due to the Sponsor’s decision to reject or suspend such orders, the unavailability of Bitcoin Trading Counterparties or the Prime Execution Agent’s services, or otherwise, Authorized Participants will be limited in their ability to redeem or create Shares, in which case the arbitrage mechanism may not function as efficiently. This could result in impaired liquidity for the Shares, wider bid/ask spreads in secondary trading of the Shares and greater costs to investors and other market participants. In addition, the Trust’s limited ability to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions, and resulting relative reliance on cash creations and redemptions, could cause the Sponsor to halt or suspend the creation or redemption of Shares during times of market volatility or turmoil, among other consequences.

Any of these factors could adversely affect the performance of the Trust and the value of the Shares.

The Trust’s NAV will fluctuate with changes in the market value of bitcoin, and the Sponsor expects the trading price of the Shares to fluctuate in accordance with changes in the Trust’s NAV, as well as market supply and demand. However, the Shares may trade on NASDAQ at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s NAV for a variety of reasons. For example, NASDAQ is open for trading in the Shares for a limited period each day, but the digital asset market is a 24-hour marketplace. During periods when NASDAQ is closed but constituent trading platforms are open, significant changes in the price of bitcoin on the digital asset market could result in a difference in performance between the value of bitcoin as measured by the Index and the most recent NAV or closing trading price. For example, if the price of bitcoin on the digital asset market, and the value bitcoin as measured by the Index, move significantly in a negative direction after the close of NASDAQ, the trading price of the Shares may “gap” down to the full extent of such negative price shift when the Exchange reopens. If the price of bitcoin on the digital asset market drops significantly during hours the NASDAQ is closed, shareholders may not be able to sell their Shares until after the “gap” down has been fully realized, resulting in an inability to mitigate losses in a negative market. Even during periods when the NASDAQ is open, large constituent trading platforms (or a substantial number of smaller constituent trading platforms) may be lightly traded or closed for any number of reasons, which could increase trading spreads and widen any premium or discount on the Shares.

There are a small number of major suppliers of bitcoin mining hardware globally, and a significant amount of bitcoin mining hardware manufacturing is located in China. Mining hardware manufacturers may fail to supply the mining hardware due to their inability to manufacture sufficient mining hardware, whether due to shortages of components or resources such as semiconductors, or changes of laws and trade restrictions (including export/import restrictions, quotas or tariffs), or due to insolvency, or non-performance or default on their contracts. Trade policies such as export/import restrictions, quotas or tariffs may reduce the ability of bitcoin mining hardware suppliers to supply miners with bitcoin mining hardware or create a shortage or lack of components necessary for their manufacture or repair. If bitcoin miners are unable to source mining hardware from those suppliers (for example due to overwhelming global demand for bitcoin miners, or due to trade restrictions, or other causes) at commercially reasonable prices, or at all, and replacement or substitute sources of bitcoin mining hardware prove to be unavailable, there could be a negative impact on bitcoin mining globally. These could affect the Bitcoin network by making it more difficult for transactions to be confirmed, increase transaction costs, or affect the Bitcoin network’s security, among other negative effects, any of which could negatively affect the value of bitcoin and consequently the Shares.

Due to the unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of digital asset platforms, which may experience fraud, manipulation, security failures or operational problems, as well as the wider bitcoin market, the value of bitcoin and, consequently, the value of the Shares may be adversely affected, causing losses to Shareholders.

The bitcoin market globally and in the United States is not subject to comparable regulatory guardrails as exist in regulated securities markets. Furthermore, many bitcoin trading venues lack certain safeguards put in place by exchanges for more traditional assets to enhance the stability of trading on the exchanges and prevent “flash crashes,” such as limit-down circuit breakers, as demonstrated by the October 2025 Flash Crash. As a result, the prices of bitcoin on trading venues may be subject to larger and/or more frequent sudden declines than assets traded on more traditional exchanges. Tools to detect and deter fraudulent or manipulative trading activities such as market manipulation, front-running of trades, and wash-trading may not be available to or employed by digital asset platforms or may not exist at all. The SEC has identified possible sources of fraud and manipulation in the bitcoin market generally, including, among others (1) “wash trading”; (2) persons with a dominant position in bitcoin manipulating bitcoin pricing; (3) hacking of the Bitcoin network and trading platforms; (4) malicious control of the Bitcoin network; (5) trading based on material, non-public information (for example, plans of market participants to significantly increase or decrease their holdings in bitcoin, new sources of demand for bitcoin, or other events which could affect the price of bitcoin) or based on the dissemination of false and misleading information; (6) manipulative activity involving purported “stablecoins,” including Tether (for more information, see “-Prices of bitcoin may be affected due to stablecoins (including Tether and US Dollar Coin (“USDC”)), the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment”); and (7) fraud and manipulation at bitcoin trading platforms. The effect of potential market manipulation, front-running, wash-trading, and other fraudulent or manipulative trading practices may inflate the volumes actually present in digital asset markets and/or cause distortions in price, which could adversely affect the Trust or cause losses to Shareholders.

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

If the Custodian Agreement, the Prime Execution Agent Agreement, the Authorized Participant Agreements or the Bitcoin Trading Counterparty Agreements are terminated or the Custodians, the Prime Execution Agent, the Authorized Participants or the Bitcoin Trading Counterparties fail to provide services as required, the Trustee may operationalize the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, or may need to find and appoint replacement custodians, an execution agent, authorized participants or bitcoin trading counterparties, which could pose a challenge to the safekeeping of the Trust’s bitcoin, the Trust’s ability to create and redeem Shares and the Trust’s ability to continue to operate may be adversely affected.

The Trust is dependent on the Bitcoin Custodian, which is Coinbase Custody, and the Prime Execution Agent, Coinbase Inc. to operate. Coinbase Custody performs essential functions in terms of safekeeping the Trust’s bitcoin in the Vault Balance, and its affiliate, Coinbase Inc., in its capacity as Prime Execution Agent, facilitates the buying and selling or settlement of bitcoin by the Trust in connection with creations and redemptions, the selling of bitcoin to pay the Sponsor’s Fee, any other Trust expenses, to the extent applicable, and in extraordinary circumstances, to liquidate the Trust’s bitcoin. If Coinbase Custody 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.

On March 22, 2023, the Prime Execution Agent 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. The SEC’s complaint against the Relevant Coinbase Entities did not allege that bitcoin is a security nor did it allege that Coinbase Inc’s activities involving bitcoin caused the alleged registration violations, and the Bitcoin Custodian was not named as a defendant. The SEC’s complaint sought a permanent injunction against the Relevant Coinbase Entities to prevent them from violations of the Exchange Act or Securities Act, disgorgement, civil monetary penalties, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate or necessary. On February 27, 2025, the SEC and Coinbase Inc. and Coinbase Global filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice, and the case has been dismissed. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the SEC enforcement action, Coinbase Inc. is currently, and it and the Bitcoin Custodian from time to time may be, subject in the future, to a variety of other litigation. Although the Trust does not presently anticipate such an outcome, there can be no assurance that in the future Coinbase Inc., as the Prime Execution Agent, or Coinbase Custody, as Bitcoin Custodian, will not be required, as a result of a judicial determination, or will not choose, to restrict or curtail the services they offer, or their financial condition and ability to provide services to the Trust will not be negatively affected. If in the future the Prime Execution Agent or the Bitcoin Custodian were to be required or choose to restrict or curtail the services they offer for any reason, whether related to litigation or otherwise, 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.

Alternatively, the Trustee could decide to replace Coinbase Custody as the Bitcoin Custodian of the Trust’s bitcoin, pursuant to the Custodian Agreement. Similarly, Coinbase Custody or Coinbase Inc. could terminate services under the Custodian Agreement or the Prime Execution Agent Agreement respectively upon providing the applicable notice to the Trust for any reason, or immediately for Cause. A “Termination for Cause” is defined in the Custodian Agreement and Prime Execution Agent Agreement as (i) the Trust materially breaching any provision of the Custodian Agreement and such failure is not cured within 30 calendar days after notice of such breach is provided by Coinbase Inc. to the Trust, or the Trust materially breaching any provision of the Prime Execution Agent Agreement and such breach remains uncured for 10 calendar days following notice; (ii) the Trust becomes bankrupt or insolvent; or (iii) the Trust fails to pay and settle in full its obligations to Coinbase Custody’s affiliate, the Trade Credit Lender (as defined below), which may, from time to time, provide financing to the Trust in the form of Trade Credits. In the event that the Trust transfers maintenance responsibilities of the Trust’s account at the Bitcoin Custodian to another custodian (or transfers the Trust’s bitcoin from the Bitcoin Custodian or the Prime Execution Agent to the Additional Bitcoin Custodian or vice versa), the Trust’s bitcoin would be subject to a risk of loss during the transfer, which, if such risk eventuates, could have a negative impact on the performance of the Shares or result in loss of the Trust’s assets. As Prime Execution Agent, Coinbase Inc. does not guarantee uninterrupted access to the Trading Platform or the services it provides to the Trust as Prime Execution Agent. 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 (as defined below) 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 Custody or Coinbase Inc. becomes insolvent, suffers business failure, ceases business operations, defaults on or fails to perform their obligations under their contractual agreements with the Trust, or abruptly discontinues the services they provide to the Trust for any reason, the Trust’s operations, including its creation and redemption processes, would be adversely affected.

Further, if the Trustee decides to operationalize the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, the Additional Bitcoin Custodian would perform essential functions in terms of safekeeping any of the Trust’s bitcoin that is held with Anchorage. The Anchorage Custodian Agreement provides the Trust with an available alternative bitcoin custodian to safeguard the Trust’s bitcoin; however, if the Trustee does not operationalize the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, or if Anchorage fails to perform the functions of the Anchorage Custodian Agreement once operationalized, the Trust may be unable to operate or create or redeem Baskets, or may suffer losses, which could force the Trust to liquidate or adversely affect the price of the Shares. Anchorage could terminate services under the Anchorage Custodian Agreement upon providing the applicable notice to the Trust for any reason, or immediately for Cause. A “Termination for Cause” is defined in the Anchorage Custodian Agreement as: (i) the Trust materially breaches any provision of the Additional Bitcoin Custodian Agreement, and such breach remains uncured for a period of 30 calendar days after notice of such breach is provided by Anchorage to the Trust; or (ii) the Trust becomes bankrupt or insolvent. If Anchorage were to terminate services under the Anchorage Custodian Agreement, the Trustee may need to find and appoint a replacement bitcoin custodian.

The Trustee may not be able to find a party willing to serve as the custodian of the Trust’s bitcoin or as the Trust’s prime execution agent under the same terms as the current Custodian Agreement or Prime Execution Agent Agreement or at all. To the extent that Trustee is not able to find a suitable party willing to serve as the custodian or prime execution agent, the Trustee may be required to terminate the Trust and liquidate the Trust’s bitcoin. In addition, to the extent that the Trustee finds a suitable party but must enter into a modified custodian agreement or prime execution 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 execution agent, its operations could be adversely affected.

Similarly, if an Authorized Participant or a Bitcoin Trading Counterparty suffers insolvency, business failure or interruption, default, failure to perform, security breach, or in certain circumstances a force majeure event or if an Authorized Participant or a Bitcoin Trading Counterparty, as applicable, chooses not to participate in the creation and redemption process of the Trust, and the Trust is unable to engage replacement Authorized Participants or Bitcoin Trading Counterparties or access alternative services on commercially acceptable terms or at all, then the creation and redemption process of the Trust, the arbitrage mechanism used to keep the Shares in line with the NAV and the Trust’s operations generally could be negatively affected.

The lack of full insurance and Shareholders’* limited rights of legal recourse against the Trust, the Delaware Trustee, the Sponsor, the Trust Administrator, the Cash Custodian, the Prime Execution Agent, the Bitcoin Custodian and, if operationalized, the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, expose the Trust and its Shareholders to the risk of loss of the Trust*’s bitcoins for which no person or entity is liable.

Coinbase Global has informed the Sponsor that it maintains a commercial crime insurance policy of up to $320,000,000, which is intended to cover the loss of client assets held by Coinbase Global and all of its subsidiaries, including the Bitcoin Custodian and the Prime Execution Agent (collectively, Coinbase Global and its subsidiaries are referred to as the “Coinbase Insureds”), including from employee collusion or fraud, physical loss including theft, damage of key material, security breach or hack, and fraudulent transfer. The insurance maintained by Coinbase Global is shared among all of Coinbase Insureds’ customers, is not specific to the Trust or to customers holding bitcoin with the Bitcoin Custodian or Prime Execution Agent and may not be available or sufficient to protect the Trust from all possible losses or sources of losses. Coinbase Global’s 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 Coinbase Insureds, which could reduce the amount of such proceeds that are available to the Trust. In addition, the bitcoin insurance market is limited, and the level of insurance maintained by Coinbase Global may be substantially lower than the assets of the Trust. While the Bitcoin Custodian maintains certain capital reserve requirements depending on the assets under custody, and such capital reserves may provide additional means to cover client asset losses, the Trust cannot be assured that the Bitcoin Custodian will maintain capital reserves sufficient to cover actual or potential losses with respect to the Trust’s digital assets. None of Coinbase Inc., Coinbase Custody, or Coinbase Global is an FDIC or SIPC member institution.

Furthermore, under the Custodian Agreement, the Bitcoin Custodian’s liability is limited as follows, among others: (i) other than with respect to claims and losses arising from spot trading of bitcoin, or fraud or willful misconduct, the Mutually Capped Liabilities (defined below), the Bitcoin Custodian’s aggregate liability under the Custodian Agreement shall not exceed the greater of (A) the greater of (x) $5 million and (y) the aggregate fees paid by the Trust to the Bitcoin Custodian in the 12 months prior to the event giving rise to the Bitcoin Custodian’s liability, and (B) the value of the affected bitcoin or cash giving rise to the Bitcoin Custodian’s liability; (ii) the Bitcoin Custodian’s aggregate liability in respect of each cold storage address shall not exceed $100,000,000; (iii) in respect of the Bitcoin 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 Bitcoin 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 Bitcoin Custodian’s liability shall not exceed the greater of (A) $5 million and (B) the aggregate fees paid by the Trust to the Bitcoin Custodian in the 12 months prior to the event giving rise to the Bitcoin Custodian’s liability; and (iv) in respect of any incidental, indirect, special, punitive, consequential or similar losses, the Bitcoin Custodian is not liable, even if the Bitcoin Custodian has been advised of or knew or should have known of the possibility thereof. In general, the Bitcoin Custodian is not liable under the Custodian Agreement unless in the event of its negligence, fraud, material violation of applicable law or willful misconduct. The Bitcoin 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 Bitcoin Custodian. In the event of potential losses incurred by the Trust as a result of the Bitcoin Custodian losing control of the Trust’s bitcoins or failing to properly execute instructions on behalf of the Trust, the Bitcoin 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 Bitcoin Custodian directly caused such losses. Furthermore, the insurance maintained by the Bitcoin Custodian may be insufficient to cover its liabilities to the Trust.

If the Trustee operationalizes the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, the Trust’s holdings at the Additional Bitcoin Custodian would be covered by insurance held by Anchor Labs Inc., the parent company of the Additional Bitcoin Custodian (“Anchor Labs”). Anchor Labs maintains crime insurance coverage for a minimum limit of $100,000,000, which is intended to cover the loss of Trust assets held by the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, including from dishonest or fraudulent acts committed by Anchor Labs and all of its subsidiaries, including the Additional Bitcoin Custodian (collectively Anchor Labs and its subsidiaries are referred to as the “Anchor Labs Insureds”) employees, its agents and subcontractors; forgery and alteration; computer crime; wire transfer coverage; physical damage or theft of private key data; social engineering coverage; and security breaches or hacking. The insurance maintained by Anchor Labs may be shared among Anchor Labs Insureds’ other customers, is not necessarily exclusive to the Trust or to customers holding bitcoin with the Additional Bitcoin Custodian and may not be available or sufficient to protect the Trust from all possible losses or sources of losses. Alternatively, the Trust may be forced to share such insurance proceeds with other clients or customers of the Anchor Labs Insureds, which could reduce the amount of such proceeds that are available to the Trust. In addition, the bitcoin insurance market is limited, and the level of insurance maintained by Anchor Labs may be substantially lower than the assets of the Trust. While the Additional Bitcoin Custodian maintains 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 Additional Bitcoin Custodian will maintain capital reserves sufficient to cover actual or potential losses with respect to the Trust’s digital assets. The insurance program does not cover, insure or guarantee the performance of the Trust. The Additional Bitcoin Custodian is neither FDIC-insured nor SIPC-insured.

With respect to the Anchorage Custodian Agreement, other than with respect to claims and losses arising from: (i) fraud or willful misconduct of the Additional Bitcoin Custodian and (ii) the Anchorage Mutually Capped Liabilities (defined below), in no event will the Additional Bitcoin Custodian’s liability exceed the value of the cash or affected bitcoin giving rise to such liability. With respect to Anchorage Mutually Capped Liabilities, other than with respect to claims and losses arising from fraud or willful misconduct of the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, in no event will the Additional Bitcoin Custodian’s liability exceed the greater of $5 million and the aggregate amount of fees paid by client to the Additional Bitcoin Custodian in the 12-month period prior to the event giving rise to such liability. “Anchorage Mutually Capped Liabilities” means (i) claims and losses arising from a party’s breach of its confidentiality obligations under the Anchorage Custodian Agreement, (ii) a party’s indemnity obligations under the Anchorage Custodian Agreement (except with respect to the full amount of any Trust bitcoin lost, which shall not constitute an Anchorage Mutually Capped Liability), and (iii) claims and losses arising from the violation, misappropriation, or infringement by a party of any third party intellectual and/or industrial property rights, including patent rights, copyrights, moral rights, trademarks, trade names, service marks, trade secrets, rights in inventions (including applications for, and registrations, extensions, renewals, and re-issuances of the foregoing).

With respect to claims and losses related to a withdrawal or transfer of bitcoin, if the Trust has operationalized Anchorage, the value of such digital assets shall be determined by reference to the benchmark valuation on the date delivery of such bitcoin in connection with such withdrawal or transfer is due in accordance with the terms of the Anchorage Custodian Agreement. In respect of any incidental, indirect, special, punitive, consequential or similar losses, the Additional Bitcoin Custodian is not liable, even if the Additional Bitcoin Custodian has been advised of or knew or should have known of the possibility thereof. The Additional Bitcoin 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 Additional Bitcoin Custodian.

Moreover, in the event of an insolvency or bankruptcy of the Prime Execution Agent (in the case of the Trading Balance) or the Bitcoin Custodian (in the case of the Vault Balance), 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 insolvency of these types of entities in the digital asset industry, there is a risk that customers’ assets - including the Trust’s assets - may be considered the property of the estate of the Prime Execution Agent (in the case of the Trading Balance) or the Bitcoin Custodian (in the case of the 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.

With respect to the Prime Execution Agent Agreement, there is a risk that the Trading Balance, in which the Trust’s bitcoin and cash is held in omnibus accounts by the Prime Execution Agent (in the latter case, as described below in “-Loss of a critical banking relationship for, or the failure of a bank used by, the Prime Execution Agent could adversely impact the Trust’s ability to create or redeem Baskets or could cause losses to the Trust”), could be considered part of the Prime Execution Agent’s bankruptcy estate in the event of the Prime Execution Agent’s bankruptcy. The Prime Execution Agent Agreement contains an Article 8 opt-in clause with respect to the Trust’s assets held in the Trading Balance.

The Prime Execution Agent is not required to hold any of the bitcoin or cash in the Trust’s Trading Balance in segregation. Within the Trading Balance, the Prime Execution Agent Agreement provides that the Trust does not have an identifiable claim to any particular bitcoin (and cash). Instead, the Trust’s Trading Balance represents an entitlement to a pro rata share of the bitcoin (and cash) the Prime Execution Agent has allocated to the omnibus wallets the Prime Execution Agent holds, as well as the accounts in the Prime Execution Agent’s name that the Prime Execution Agent maintains at Connected Trading Venues (the “Connected Trading Venue”) (which are typically held on an omnibus, rather than segregated, basis). If the Prime Execution Agent suffers an insolvency event, there is a risk that the Trust’s assets held in the Trading Balance could be considered part of the Prime Execution Agent’s bankruptcy estate and the Trust could be treated as a general unsecured creditor of the Prime Execution Agent, which could result in losses for the Trust and Shareholders. Moreover, in the event of the bankruptcy of the Prime Execution Agent, an automatic stay could go into effect and protracted litigation could be required in order to recover the assets held with the Prime Execution Agent, all of which could significantly and negatively impact the Trust’s operations and the value of the Shares. There are no policies that would limit the amount of bitcoin that can be held temporarily in the Trading Balance maintained by the Prime Execution Agent.

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

The Shareholders’ recourse against the Sponsor, the Trustee, and the Trust’s other service providers for the services they provide to the Trust, including, without limitation, those relating to the holding of bitcoin or the provision of instructions relating to the movement of bitcoin, is limited. For the avoidance of doubt, neither the Sponsor, the Trustee, nor any of their affiliates (including, among others, BlackRock), nor any other party has guaranteed the assets or liabilities, or otherwise assumed the liabilities, of the Trust, or the obligations or liabilities of any service provider to the Trust, including, without limitation, the Bitcoin Custodian and Prime Execution Agent. The Prime Execution Agent Agreement and Custodian Agreement 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 Execution Agent Agreement or Custodian Agreement, or any transaction thereunder. Consequently, a loss may be suffered with respect to the Trust’s bitcoin that is not covered by the Bitcoin Custodian’s 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.

Digital asset markets in the United States exist in a state of regulatory uncertainty, and adverse legislative or regulatory developments could significantly harm the value of bitcoin or the Shares, such as by banning, restricting or imposing onerous conditions or prohibitions on the use of bitcoins, mining activity, digital wallets, the provision of services related to trading and custodying bitcoin, the operation of the Bitcoin network, or the digital asset markets generally.

FinCEN requires any administrator or exchanger of convertible virtual currency (“CVC”) to register with FinCEN as a money transmitter and comply with the anti- money laundering regulations applicable to money transmitters. Entities which fail to comply with such regulations are subject to fines, may be required to cease operations, and could have potential criminal liability. For example, in 2015, FinCEN assessed a $700,000 fine against a sponsor of a digital asset for violating several requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act by acting as an MSB and selling the digital asset without registering with FinCEN, and by failing to implement and maintain an adequate anti-money laundering program. In 2017, FinCEN assessed a $110 million fine against BTC-e, a now defunct digital asset platform, for similar violations. The requirement that exchangers that do business in the United States register with FinCEN and comply with anti- money laundering regulations may increase the cost of buying and selling bitcoin and therefore may adversely affect the price of bitcoin and an investment in the Shares.

Law enforcement agencies have often relied on the transparency of blockchains to facilitate investigations. However, certain privacy-enhancing features have been, or are expected to be, introduced to a number of digital asset networks. If the Bitcoin network were to adopt any of these privacy-enhancing features, these features may provide law enforcement agencies with less visibility into transaction-level data. Europol, the European Union’s law enforcement agency, released a report in October 2017 noting the increased use of privacy-enhancing digital assets like Zcash and Monero in criminal activity on the internet. In May 2022, OFAC banned all U.S. persons from using Blender.io, a digital asset mixing application that operates on the Bitcoin blockchain to obfuscate the origin, destination and counterparties of blockchain transactions, by adding certain digital asset wallet addresses associated with Blender.io to its Specially Designated Nationals list. Blender.io receives a variety of transactions and mixes them together before transmitting them to their ultimate destinations. On March 23, 2022, Lazarus Group, a state-sponsored cyber hacking group associated with North Korea, carried out a major virtual currency heist from a blockchain project linked to the online game Axie Infinity; Blender.io was used in processing some of the illicit proceeds. The US Treasury Department’s press release announcing the sanctions on Blender.io observed that, while most virtual currency activity is licit, virtual currency can be used for illicit activity, including sanctions evasion, through mixers, peer-to-peer exchangers, darknet markets, and exchanges. This includes the facilitation of heists, ransomware schemes, and other cybercrimes. On October 19, 2023, FinCEN published proposed rulemaking to apply the authorities in Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act to impose requirements on financial institutions that engage in CVC transactions with CVC mixers. The proposed rule, if adopted, would require covered financial institutions to report to FinCEN any CVC transactions they process that involves CVC mixing within or involving a jurisdiction outside the United States. The term “CVC mixing” covers more than just transactions that involve CVC mixers like Tornado Cash, and seemingly could cover a broader range of conduct involving technologies, services, or methods that have the effect of obfuscating the source, destination, or amount of a CVC transaction, whether or not the obfuscation was intentional. If the rule were to be adopted as proposed and if the Bitcoin blockchain were to be deemed to or were to adopt features which come within the rule’s ambit, it could cause covered financial institutions - such as many digital asset platforms, or the Trust’s service providers, such as the Prime Execution Agent or the Cash Custodian - to reduce support for or cease offering services for bitcoin or to the Trust, which could impair the utility of bitcoin, the value of the Shares and the Trust’s ability to operate in compliance with new laws and regulations.

Given the foundational role that stablecoins play in global digital asset markets, their fundamental liquidity can have a dramatic impact on the broader digital asset market, including the market for bitcoin. A significant portion of the digital asset market continues to depend on stablecoins such as Tether and USDC. As such, any disruption in the operation or perceived stability of these stablecoins such as a disorderly de-pegging event or a loss of market confidence resulting in a run on reserves could lead to substantial market volatility across digital assets more broadly.

Additional risks such as operational failures (e.g., technical issues that prevent settlement), concerns regarding the adequacy or transparency of reserve assets backing stablecoins, the use of unbacked or undercollateralized stablecoins in potentially manipulative trading practices and regulatory scrutiny of stablecoin issuers or intermediaries, including exchanges that facilitate stablecoin transactions, may also adversely affect market confidence and liquidity. Further, these risks are underscored by recent legislative developments. On July 18, 2025, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act of 2025 (“GENIUS Act”) was enacted, establishing a federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. The GENIUS Act prohibits the issuance or use of payment stablecoins unless the issuer obtains a qualifying license and complies with a range of regulatory requirements, including reserve backing with liquid assets, redemption rights, governance standards, and operational transparency. The GENIUS Act also restricts the payment of interest on stablecoins and imposes oversight on both bank and nonbank issuers. The enactment of the GENIUS Act, or the removal or migration of prominent stablecoins from the Bitcoin network, could reduce the willingness of market participants to engage in digital asset transactions that rely on stablecoins, diminish liquidity in the bitcoin market, and adversely affect the price of bitcoin. Any such developments could, in turn, materially and adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Digital asset treasury companies risk.

Digital asset treasury companies are a relatively new phenomenon and it is difficult to predict their long-term sustainability, and therefore their impact to digital asset markets, and to the Trust. Digital asset treasury companies may increase procyclical dynamics in the market because they may purchase digital assets, such as bitcoin, when prices are rising and they may in certain circumstances be forced to sell such assets when prices are decreasing, potentially causing downward pressure on bitcoin prices in a falling market (causing prices to fall faster than they otherwise would). Digital asset treasury companies could cause greater volatility in digital asset markets, including markets for bitcoin. Negative events or sentiment surrounding digital asset treasury companies could affect the market for bitcoin. The foregoing or similar events involving digital asset treasury companies could adversely affect holders of Shares in the Trust.

If regulators subject the Trust, the Trustee, the Sponsor, Authorized Participants or Bitcoin Trading Counterparties to regulation as a money services business or money transmitter, this could result in extraordinary expenses to the Trust, the Trustee, the Sponsor or the Bitcoin Trading Counterparties and also result in decreased liquidity for the Shares.

To the extent that the activities of the Trust, the Trustee, the Sponsor, Authorized Participants or Bitcoin Trading Counterparties cause it to be deemed an MSB under the regulations promulgated by FinCEN, the Trust, the Trustee, the Sponsor, Authorized Participants or the Bitcoin Trading Counterparties may be required to comply with FinCEN regulations, make certain reports to FinCEN and maintain certain records. Similarly, the activities of the Trust, the Trustee, the Sponsor, Authorized Participants or Bitcoin Trading Counterparties may require it to be licensed as a money transmitter or as a digital asset business, such as under the New York State Department of Financial Services’ BitLicense regulation.

Such additional regulatory obligations may cause the Trust, the Trustee, the Sponsor, Authorized Participants or Bitcoin Trading Counterparties to incur extraordinary expenses. If the Trust, the Trustee, the Sponsor, Authorized Participants or the Bitcoin Trading Counterparties decided to seek the required licenses, there is no guarantee that they will timely receive them. The Trustee may decide to discontinue and wind up the Trust. A dissolution of the Trust in response to the changed regulatory circumstances may be at a time that is disadvantageous to the Shareholders. A Bitcoin Trading Counterparty may also instead decide to terminate its role as an Bitcoin Trading Counterparty of the Trust, which may decrease the liquidity of the Shares.

Additionally, to the extent the Trust, the Trustee, the Sponsor, Authorized Participants, or Bitcoin Trading Counterparties are found to have operated without appropriate state or federal licenses, it may be subject to investigation, administrative or court proceedings, and civil or criminal monetary fines and penalties, all of which would harm the reputation of the Trust, the Trustee, the Sponsor, Authorized Participants or the Bitcoin Trading Counterparties and have a material adverse effect on the price of the Shares. Although Bitcoin Trading Counterparties represent to the Trust that they have obtained all necessary governmental licenses and approvals and have consulted their own counsel in connection with the activities contemplated by the Bitcoin Trading Counterparty Agreements, if such representations prove inaccurate, such Bitcoin Trading Counterparties may suffer adverse consequences and be unable to perform their obligations or engage in ether transactions with the Trust, or the Trust’s operations could be adversely affected and decreased liquidity for the Shares or losses for Shareholders could result.

Coinbase serves as the Bitcoin Custodian and the prime execution agent for several competing exchange-traded Bitcoin products, which could adversely affect the Trust’s operations and ultimately the value of the Shares.

The Prime Execution Agent and the Bitcoin Custodian are both affiliates of Coinbase Global. As of the date hereof, Coinbase Global is the largest publicly traded crypto asset company in the world by market capitalization and is also one of the largest crypto asset custodian in the world by assets under custody. By virtue of its leading market position and capabilities, and the relatively limited number of institutionally-capable providers of crypto asset brokerage and custody services, Coinbase serves as the Bitcoin Custodian and prime execution agent for several competing exchange-traded bitcoin products, as well as other companies in the digital asset industry, such as digital asset treasury companies. Similarly, the Additional Bitcoin Custodian serves as the custodian for several competing exchange-traded bitcoin products and other companies in the digital assets industry. Therefore, Coinbase and Anchorage have a critical role in supporting the U.S. spot bitcoin exchange-traded product ecosystem and the digital assets industry generally, and their size and market share creates the risk that they may fail to properly resource its operations to adequately support all such products that use their services that could harm the Trust, the Shareholders and the value of the Shares. If the Bitcoin Custodian or Additional Bitcoin Custodian were to favor the interests of certain products over others, it could result in inadequate attention or comparatively unfavorable commercial terms to less favored products, which could adversely affect the Trust’s operations and ultimately the value of the Shares.

As illustrated by the 2022 Events, many of the players in the digital assets markets are interconnected – for example, certain market participants may be active in both borrowing and lending, or engage in a wide variety of trading relationships and transactions, with respect to many of the same counterparties, or with respect to the same digital assets or blockchain networks – which can heighten the contagion risks if one of them defaults on its obligations to others or a given digital blockchain network or digital asset were to stop functioning properly or lose substantial value, as applicable, leading to correlated failures in a wider market downturn or a disruption or market dislocation affecting that particular blockchain network or that particular digital asset, or losses. It is possible that, in circumstances similar to the 2022 Events, this interconnectedness risk affecting the Bitcoin Custodian, the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, the Prime Execution Agent, Authorized Participants, Bitcoin Trading Counterparties, or other service providers to the Trust could adversely affect the Trust or its Shareholders, for instance by disrupting creation and redemption processes, or (in the case of the Prime Execution Agent or the Bitcoin Custodian or Additional Bitcoin Custodian) resulting in a loss of funds, such as (in the event of a large scale system failure or cybersecurity breach) by exhausting available insurance funds.

The Trust will not hold or trade in commodity interests (as currently defined) regulated by the CEA, as administered by the CFTC. Furthermore, the Sponsor believes that the Trust is not a commodity pool for purposes of the CEA, and that neither the Sponsor nor the Trustee is subject to regulation by the CFTC as a commodity pool operator or a commodity trading adviser in connection with the operation of the Trust. Consequently, Shareholders will not have the regulatory protections provided to investors in CEA-regulated instruments or commodity pools. However, Congress is currently considering legislation, such as the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (CLARITY Act), which could give the CFTC greater powers to regulate the spot digital asset market. It is possible that, if legislation is passed, it could require the Trust or the Sponsor, or service providers to the Trust, such as the Prime Execution Agent, Authorized Participants, or Bitcoin Trading Counterparties, among others, to register with the CFTC. Such additional regulatory obligations may cause the Trust, the Trustee, the Sponsor, Prime Execution Agent, Authorized Participants or Bitcoin Trading Counterparties to incur extraordinary expenses. If the Trust, the Trustee, the Sponsor, Prime Execution Agent, Authorized Participants or the Bitcoin Trading Counterparties decided to seek the required licenses, there is no guarantee that they will timely receive them. The Trustee may decide to discontinue and wind up the Trust. A dissolution of the Trust in response to the changed regulatory circumstances may be at a time that is disadvantageous to the Shareholders. A Bitcoin Trading Counterparty may also instead decide to terminate its role as a Bitcoin Trading Counterparty of the Trust, which may decrease the liquidity of the Shares.

A temporary or permanent“fork”* could adversely affect the value of the Shares. In addition, Shareholders will not receive the benefits of any Incidental Rights and any IR Digital Asset, including any forked or airdropped assets.*

The Bitcoin network operates using open-source protocols, meaning that any user can download the software, modify it and then propose that the users and miners of bitcoin adopt the modification. When a modification is introduced and a substantial majority of users and miners consent to the modification, the change is implemented and the network remains uninterrupted. However, if less than a substantial majority of users and miners consent to the proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the software prior to its modification, the consequence would be what is known as a “hard fork” of the Bitcoin network, with one group running the pre-modified software and the other running the modified software. The effect of such a fork would be the existence of two versions of bitcoin running in parallel on separate networks using separate blockchain ledgers yet lacking interchangeability. For example, in August 2017, bitcoin “forked” into bitcoin and a new digital asset, Bitcoin Cash, as a result of a several-year dispute over how to increase the rate of transactions that the Bitcoin network can process. There have been other contentious disputes over changes to the Bitcoin network’s source code, though these have not led to hard forks. For example, the predominant software implementation used to access the Bitcoin network is Bitcoin Core. The October 2025 release of the updated Bitcoin Core client (version 30) removed a long-standing limit on the inclusion of non-transaction-related data in blocks, the effect of which is to permit larger amounts of arbitrary data to be embedded in transactions. This change has prompted debate within the bitcoin community. Because the change is backwards-compatible, rather than a hard fork, certain previous versions of the Bitcoin Core client remain operable, and it remains interoperable with other clients, such as Bitcoin Knots. Some participants have expressed concerns that such changes could facilitate the inclusion of illegal or non-transaction-related content on the Bitcoin blockchain or could introduce new or unknown software vulnerabilities. In response, certain miners and users have reportedly adopted alternative client software implementations to access the Bitcoin network, such as Bitcoin Knots. There is a risk that unresolved divisions could lead to community fragmentation which, if they grew sufficiently severe and were not resolved, eventually a future Bitcoin network hard fork could occur, which may adversely affect the security or stability of the Bitcoin network (such as if miners leave the original Bitcoin network for the forked network), reduce or impede the adoption of bitcoin overall, or cause bitcoin or the Shares to lose value.

A hard fork may adversely affect the price of bitcoin at the time of announcement or adoption or, subsequently. For example, the announcement of a hard fork could lead to increased demand for the prefork digital asset, in anticipation that ownership of the prefork digital asset would entitle holders to a new digital asset following the fork. The increased demand for the prefork digital asset may cause the price of the digital asset to rise. After the hard fork, it is possible the aggregate price of the two versions of the digital asset running in parallel would be less than the price of the digital asset immediately prior to the fork. Furthermore, while the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, determine which network is generally accepted as the Bitcoin network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes, there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the network and the associated digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork. Either of these events could therefore adversely impact the value of the Shares.