iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF

Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets

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 and 2024. Bitcoin has continued to experience significant volatility into late 2025 and early 2026. 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. As of the date of this report, digital asset prices have continued to fluctuate in 2026.

Extreme volatility may persist and the value of the Shares may significantly decline in the future without recovery. The digital asset markets may still be experiencing a bubble or may experience a bubble again in the future. For example, in the first half of 2022, each of Celsius Network, Voyager Digital Ltd., and Three Arrows Capital declared bankruptcy, resulting in a loss of confidence in participants of the digital asset ecosystem and negative publicity surrounding digital assets more broadly. In November 2022, FTX Trading Ltd. (“FTX”), one of the largest digital asset platforms by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals amid rumors of the company’s liquidity issues and likely insolvency, which were subsequently corroborated by its CEO. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned and FTX and many of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in the United States, while other affiliates have entered insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceedings around the globe, following which the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) brought criminal fraud and other charges, and the SEC and CFTC brought civil securities and commodities fraud charges, against certain of FTX’s and its affiliates’ senior executives, including its former CEO. In addition, several other entities in the digital asset industry filed for bankruptcy following FTX’s bankruptcy filing, such as BlockFi Inc. and Genesis Global Capital, LLC (“Genesis”). Since these events, (collectively, the “2022 Events”), regulatory actions continued. In April 2025, the DOJ issued a policy memo ending “regulation by prosecution” for crypto actors, refocusing on fraud, illicit finance, and aligning enforcement with executive directives. Acting CFTC Chairman directed staff to follow the DOJ’s new policy, pausing certain prosecutions. In July 2025, BlockFi reached a $35 million settlement with the DOJ, clearing legal hurdles for creditor distributions. As a result of these events, the digital asset markets have experienced extreme price volatility and other entities in the digital asset industry have been, and may continue to be, negatively affected, further undermining confidence in the digital asset markets. These events have also negatively impacted the liquidity of the digital asset markets as certain entities affiliated with FTX engaged in significant trading activity. If the liquidity of the digital asset markets continues to be negatively impacted by these events, digital asset prices, including bitcoin, may continue to experience significant volatility or price declines and confidence in the digital asset markets may be further undermined. In addition, regulatory and enforcement scrutiny has increased, including from, among others, the DOJ, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress, as well as state regulators and authorities. These events are continuing to develop and the full facts are continuing to emerge. It is not possible to predict at this time all of the risks that they may pose to the Trust, its service providers or to the digital asset industry as a whole.

The prices of some digital assets, including bitcoin, have fluctuated significantly following the 2024 election of Donald Trump as president of the United States. Industry participants generally expect the administration to continue to take a constructive approach toward the digital asset industry. Through his executive orders, President Trump has indicated that the administration will work toward providing greater regulatory clarity and certainty for emerging technologies, including blockchain technology and digital assets, thereby fostering their development. Similarly, the digital asset industry expects favorable legislation from the current U.S. Congress as certain members have expressed interest in advancing digital asset specific legislation. To the extent market expectations about future activity by the administration or Congress lead digital asset prices and valuations to increase, there can be no assurance such expectations 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 greater regulatory clarity and certainty for blockchain technology and digital assets, such as through promulgating a regulatory framework governing the issuance and operation of digital assets that meets industry expectations, could lead to a decline in digital asset prices, including bitcoin. Such a decline could cause a decline in the value of our Shares and cause our Shareholders to suffer losses. Moreover, there can be no assurance that political sentiments toward the digital asset industry, or market perceptions of those sentiments, will not shift over time. Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of bitcoin, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares, and could lose all or substantially all of their value.

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 is intended to 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 is intended to be capitalized initially with other digital assets forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings. Following the issuance of the Order, bitcoin markets developed expectations that the United States may begin acquiring and holding bitcoin, which many viewed as a positive development for bitcoin prices. 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 was introduced in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives that would direct the acquisition of one million bitcoin by the federal government over a five-year period, to be held in trust in secure storage by the U.S. Treasury. The bill proposed funding the bitcoin acquisition using remittances from the Federal Reserve, revaluations of Federal Reserve gold certificates, and other mechanisms characterized as budget-neutral (such as transfers from federal agencies using bitcoin acquired through asset forfeitures). Bills were also introduced in several state legislatures to authorize the acquisition of bitcoin by state governments or their instrumentalities, some of which have failed to pass. As of early 2026, these initiatives remain subject to significant uncertainty. While some administrative steps have reportedly been taken, there is no assurance that the federal government or any state government will announce or implement bitcoin acquisition plans, or that any such plans will meet market expectations. Even if government acquisitions occur or legislation requiring acquisitions is enacted, the price of bitcoin may decline if there are implementation challenges, unexpected difficulties, policy or legal reversals, or changes in political priorities, any of which may negatively impact Share value. 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, remain subject to complex challenges and uncertainty that make it difficult to evaluate their effect on the value of bitcoin and the Shares, now or in the future.

Digital assets such as bitcoin were only introduced within the past 16 years, and the value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies over time, such as the recentness of their development, their dependence on the internet and other technologies, their dependence on the role played by users, developers and miners and the potential for malicious activity. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

The Bitcoin network was first launched in 2009, and bitcoin was the first cryptographic digital asset created to gain global adoption and critical mass. Although the Bitcoin network is the most established digital asset network, the Bitcoin network and other cryptographic and algorithmic protocols governing the issuance of digital assets represent a new and rapidly evolving industry that is subject to a variety of factors that are difficult to evaluate. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

The Trust is not actively managed and will not have any formal strategy relating to the development of the Bitcoin network.

The Bitcoin network operates based on an open-source protocol maintained by the core developers and other contributors, largely on the GitHub resource section dedicated to bitcoin network development. As bitcoin are rewarded solely for mining activity and are not sold to raise capital for the Bitcoin network, and the Bitcoin network protocol itself is made available for free rather than sold or made available subject to licensing or subscription fees and its use does not generate revenues for its development team, the core developers are generally not compensated for maintaining and updating the source code for the Bitcoin network protocol. Consequently, there is a lack of financial incentive for developers to maintain or develop the Bitcoin network and the core developers may lack the resources to adequately address emerging issues with the Bitcoin network protocol. Although the Bitcoin network is currently supported by the core developers, there can be no guarantee that such support will continue or be sufficient in the future. For example, there have been reports that the number of core developers who have the authority to make amendments to the Bitcoin network’s source code in the GitHub repository is relatively small, although there are believed to be a larger number of developers who contribute to the overall development of the source code of the Bitcoin network. Alternatively, some developers may be funded by entities whose interests are at odds with other participants in the Bitcoin network. In addition, a bad actor could also attempt to interfere with the operation of the Bitcoin network by attempting to exercise a malign influence over a core developer. To the extent that material issues arise with the Bitcoin network protocol and the core developers and open-source contributors are unable to address the issues adequately or in a timely manner, the Bitcoin network and an investment in the Trust may be adversely affected.

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 Bitcoin network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. Since January 1, 2019, bitcoin transaction fees have increased from $0.18 per-bitcoin transaction, on average, to a high of $60.95 per transaction, on average, on April 20, 2021. As of December 31, 2025, bitcoin transaction fees were $1.18 per transaction, on average, over a one-year trailing basis (according to Coin Metrics). Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for bitcoin (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, bitcoin, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares. In May 2023, events related to the adoption of ordinals, which are a means of inscribing digital content on the bitcoin blockchain, caused transaction fees to temporarily spike above $30 per transaction.

There is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the scale of settlement of the Bitcoin network transactions will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could cause the Bitcoin network to not adequately resolve scaling challenges and adversely impact the adoption of bitcoin as a medium of exchange and the value of the Shares.

The largest bitcoin wallets are believed to hold, in aggregate, a significant percentage of the bitcoin in circulation. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant number of bitcoin, even if they individually only hold a small amount, and it is possible that some of these wallets are controlled by the same person or entity. As a result of this concentration of ownership, large sales or distributions by such holders could have an adverse effect on the market price of bitcoin.

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

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

If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 50% of the processing power on the Bitcoin network, or otherwise obtains control over the Bitcoin network through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could manipulate the Bitcoin blockchain to adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.

If a malicious actor or botnet (a volunteer or hacked collection of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) obtains control of more than 50% of the processing power dedicated to mining on the Bitcoin network, it may be able to alter the Bitcoin blockchain on which transactions in bitcoin rely by constructing fraudulent blocks or preventing certain transactions from completing in a timely manner, or at all. The malicious actor or botnet could also control, exclude or modify the ordering of transactions. Although the malicious actor or botnet would not be able to generate new tokens or transactions using such control, it could “double-spend” its own tokens (i.e., spend the same tokens in more than one transaction) and prevent the confirmation of other users’ transactions for so long as it maintained control. To the extent that such malicious actor or botnet did not yield its control of the processing power on the Bitcoin network or the Bitcoin community did not reject the fraudulent blocks as malicious, reversing any changes made to the Bitcoin blockchain may not be possible. Further, a malicious actor or botnet could create a flood of transactions in order to slow down the Bitcoin network.

For example, in August 2020, the Ethereum Classic network was the target of two double-spend attacks by an unknown actor or actors that gained more than 50% of the processing power of the Ethereum Classic network. The attacks resulted in reorganizations of the Ethereum Classic blockchain that allowed the attacker or attackers to reverse previously recorded transactions in excess of $5 million and $1 million. Any similar attacks on the Bitcoin network could negatively impact the value of bitcoin and the value 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, 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.

A future fork in the Bitcoin network could adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.

We refer to the right to receive any such benefit as an “Incidental Right” and any such digital asset (other than bitcoin) acquired through an Incidental Right as “IR Digital Asset.”

With respect to a fork, airdrop or similar event, the Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon the Incidental Rights and any IR Digital Asset associated with such event. As such, Shareholders will not receive the benefits of any Incidental Rights and any IR Digital Asset.

In the event the Trust seeks to change the Trust’s policy with respect to Incidental Rights or IR Digital Asset, an application would need to be filed with the SEC by NASDAQ seeking approval to amend its listing rules to permit the Trust to sell Incidental Rights or IR Digital Asset and distribute the cash proceeds (net of expenses and applicable withholding taxes) to DTC or distribute the Incidental Rights or IR Digital Asset in-kind to DTC. However, there can be no assurance as to whether or when the Sponsor would make such a decision, or when NASDAQ will seek or obtain this approval, if at all.

Even if such regulatory approval is sought and obtained, Shareholders may not receive the benefits of a fork, the Trust may not choose, or be able, to participate in an airdrop, and the timing of receiving any benefits from a fork, airdrop or similar event is uncertain. Any inability to recognize the economic benefit of a hard fork or airdrop could adversely affect the value of the Shares. Investors who prefer to have a greater degree of control over events such as forks, airdrops, and similar events, and any assets made available in connection with each, should consider investing in bitcoin directly rather than purchasing Shares.

In the event of a hard fork of the Bitcoin network, the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, use its sole discretion to determine, in good faith, which peer-to-peer network, among a group of incompatible forks of the Bitcoin network, is generally accepted as the Bitcoin network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes. The Sponsor will base its determination on whatever factors it deems relevant, including but not limited to, the Sponsor’s beliefs regarding expectations of the core developers of bitcoin, users, services, businesses, miners and other constituencies, as well as the actual continued acceptance of, mining power on, and community engagement with, the Bitcoin network, or whatever other factors it deems relevant. There is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork, and the Sponsor’s decision may adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result. The Sponsor may also disagree with Shareholders, the Bitcoin Custodian, other service providers, the Index Administrator, crypto asset platforms, or other market participants on what is generally accepted as bitcoin and should therefore be considered “bitcoin” for the Trust’s purposes, which may also adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result.

Any name change and any associated rebranding initiative by the core developers, users or miners of bitcoin or the Bitcoin network may not be favorably received by the digital asset community, which could negatively impact the value of bitcoin and the value of the Shares.

Manufacture, assembly and delivery of hardware and components for mining operations can be complex and protracted processes, during the course of which various problems could arise, including disruptions or delays in the supply chain, product quality control issues, as well as other external factors.

Mining operations can ordinarily only be profitable if the costs associated with bitcoin mining, including hardware costs, are lower than the price of bitcoin itself. During the course of the normal operation of bitcoin mining facilities, miners and other critical equipment and materials related to data center construction and maintenance, such as containers, switch gears, transformers and cables, will experience ordinary wear and tear and may also face more significant malfunctions. Declines in the condition of miners and other hardware will require bitcoin miners, over time, to repair or replace those miners.

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.

The value of a bitcoin as represented by the Index or other pricing source used by the Trust may also be subject to momentum pricing due to speculation regarding future appreciation in value, leading to greater volatility that could adversely affect the value of the Shares. Momentum pricing typically is associated with growth stocks and other assets whose valuation, as determined by the investing public, accounts for future appreciation in value, if any. The Sponsor believes that momentum pricing of bitcoin has resulted, and may continue to result, in speculation regarding future appreciation in the value of bitcoin, inflating and making the Index more volatile. As a result, bitcoin may be more likely to fluctuate in value due to changing investor confidence, which could impact future appreciation or depreciation in the Index or other pricing source used by the Trust and could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Because the Trust holds only bitcoin and cash, an investment in the Trust may be more volatile than an investment in a more broadly diversified portfolio.

The Trust holds only bitcoin and cash. As a result, the Trust’s holdings are not diversified. Accordingly, the Trust’s net asset value may be more volatile than another investment vehicle with a more broadly diversified portfolio and may fluctuate substantially over short or long periods of time. Fluctuations in the price of bitcoin are expected to have a direct impact on the value of 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.

The Index has a limited performance history, the Index price could fail to track the global bitcoin price, and a failure of the Index price could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The CF Benchmarks Index was developed by the Index Administrator and has a limited performance history. Although the Index is based on materially the same methodology (except calculation time) as the Index Administrator’s BRR, which was first introduced in November 2016, the Index itself has only been in operation since February 2022. The Index price is a composite CF Benchmarks Index calculated using volume-weighted trading price data from various Constituent Platforms. The Index has only featured its current list of Constituent Platforms since March 2025. A longer history of actual performance through various economic and market conditions would provide greater and more reliable information for an investor to assess the Index’s performance. The Constituent Platforms chosen by the Index Administrator could also change over time. The Index Administrator may remove or add Constituent Platforms to the CF Benchmark Index in the future at its discretion.

Although the Index is intended to accurately capture the market price of bitcoin, third parties may be able to purchase and sell bitcoin on public or private markets not included among the Constituent Platforms, and such transactions may take place at prices materially higher or lower than the Index price. Moreover, there may be variances in the prices of bitcoin on the various Constituent Platforms, including as a result of differences in fee structures or administrative procedures on different Constituent Platforms. Certain exchanges within the list of Constituent Platforms employ a proprietary order book combining a traditional limit order book with automated market maker instructions. As their automated market maker relies on a mathematical formula and does not rely on any external pricing data or third-party source, differences in the bids and asks placed by the automated market maker compared to prices offered by other digital currency trading venues, or other external market data sources, for the same digital assets may emerge. While the Index provides a U.S. dollar-denominated composite for the price of bitcoin based on, in the case of the CF Benchmarks Index, the volume-weighted price of bitcoin on certain Constituent Platforms, at any given time, the prices on each such Constituent Platform or pricing source may not be equal to the value of bitcoin as represented by the Index. It is possible that the price of bitcoin on the Constituent Platforms could be materially higher or lower than the Index price. To the extent the Index price differs materially from the actual prices available on a Constituent Platform, or the global market price of bitcoin, the price of the Shares may no longer track, whether temporarily or over time, the global market price of bitcoin, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust by reducing investors’ confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of bitcoin. To the extent such prices differ materially from the Index price, investors may lose confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of bitcoin, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

If the Index is not available, the Trust’s holdings may be fair valued on a temporary basis in accordance with the policy approved by the Trustee. To the extent the valuation determined in accordance with the policy approved by the Trustee differs materially from the actual market price of bitcoin, the price of the Shares may no longer track, whether temporarily or over time, the global market price of bitcoin, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust by reducing investors’ confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the global market price of bitcoin. To the extent such prices differ materially from the market price for bitcoin, investors may lose confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of bitcoin, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The Index price used to calculate the value of the Trust’s bitcoin may be volatile, adversely affecting the value of the Shares.

The price of bitcoin on public digital asset platforms has a limited history, and during this history, bitcoin prices on the digital asset markets more generally, and on digital asset platforms individually, have been volatile and subject to influence by many factors, including operational interruptions. While the Index is designed to limit exposure to the interruption of individual digital asset platforms, the Index price, and the price of bitcoin generally, remains subject to volatility experienced by digital asset platforms, and such volatility could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Furthermore, because the number of liquid and credible digital asset platforms is limited, the Index will necessarily be composed of a limited number of digital asset platforms. If a digital asset platform were subjected to regulatory, volatility or other pricing issues, in the case of the CF Benchmarks Index, the Index Administrator would have limited ability to remove such digital asset platform from the Index, which could skew the price of Bitcoin as represented by the Index. Trading on a limited number of digital asset platforms may result in less favorable prices and decreased liquidity of bitcoin and, therefore, could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.

If the computers or other facilities of the Index Administrator, data providers and/or relevant Constituent Platforms malfunction for any reason, calculation and dissemination of the CF Benchmarks Index may be delayed. Errors in the CF Benchmarks Index data, the CF Benchmarks Index computations and/or construction may occur from time to time and may not be identified and/or corrected for a period of time or at all, which may have an adverse impact on the Trust and the Shareholders. Any of the foregoing may lead to the errors in the CF Benchmarks Index, which may lead to a different investment outcome for the Trust and the Shareholders than would have been the case had such events not occurred.

The CF Benchmarks Index is used to determine the net asset value of the Trust and the NAV. Consequently, losses or costs associated with the CF Benchmarks Index’s errors or other risks described above will generally be borne by the Trust and the Shareholders and neither the Sponsor nor its affiliates or agents make any representations or warranties regarding the foregoing. If the CF Benchmarks Index is not available or the Sponsor in its sole discretion determines the CF Benchmarks Index is unreliable as the Index and therefore determines not to use the CF Benchmarks Index the Trust’s holdings may be fair valued on a temporary basis in accordance with the fair value policies approved by the Trustee. To the extent the valuation determined in accordance with the policy approved by the Trustee differs materially from the actual market price of bitcoin, the price of the Shares may no longer track, whether temporarily or over time, the price of bitcoin, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust and the value of Shares by reducing investors’ confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the price of bitcoin.

The Trust will determine the net asset value of the Trust on each Business Day based on the value of bitcoin as reflected by the Index. The methodology used to calculate the Index price to value bitcoin in determining the net asset value of the Trust may not be deemed consistent with GAAP. To the extent the methodology used to calculate the Index is deemed inconsistent with GAAP, the Trust will utilize an alternative GAAP-consistent pricing source for purposes of the Trust’s periodic financial statements. Creation and redemption of Baskets, the Sponsor’s Fee and other expenses borne by the Trust will be determined using the Trust’s net asset value determined daily based on the Index. Such net asset value of the Trust determined using the Index Price may differ, in some cases significantly, from the net asset value reported in the Trust’s periodic financial statements.

Competition from central bank digital currencies (“CBDCs”) and emerging payments initiatives involving financial institutions could adversely affect the value of bitcoin and other digital assets.

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 will become effective on July 18, 2028. 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.

Bitcoin was the first digital asset to gain global adoption and critical mass, and as a result, it has a “first to market” advantage over other digital assets. As of the date of this report, bitcoin was the largest digital asset by market capitalization and had the largest combined mining power. Despite this first to market advantage, there were over 17,000 alternative digital assets tracked by CoinGecko.com, having a total market capitalization of approximately $3.0 trillion (including the approximately $1.8 trillion market capitalization of bitcoin), as calculated using market prices and total available supply of each digital asset. In addition, many consortiums and financial institutions are also researching and investing resources into private or permissioned smart contract platforms rather than open platforms like the Bitcoin network. Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets and smart contracts platforms, such as Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche, Polkadot, or Cardano, as well as many others, could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, bitcoin and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares.

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

Additionally, the Trust and the Sponsor face competition with respect to the creation of competing exchange-traded bitcoin products. In January 2024, the SEC approved several exchange-traded bitcoin products and many of such products, including the Trust, could fail to acquire substantial assets, or fail to retain acquired assets due to competition and/or market conditions. The Trust’s competitors may also charge a substantially lower fee than the Sponsor’s Fee in order to achieve initial market acceptance and scale. Accordingly, the Sponsor’s competitors may commercialize a competing product more rapidly or effectively than the Sponsor is able to, which could adversely affect the Sponsor’s competitive position and the likelihood that the Trust will achieve market acceptance, and could have a detrimental effect on the scale and sustainability of the Trust. If the Trust fails to achieve sufficient scale due to competition, the Sponsor may have difficulty raising sufficient revenue to cover the costs associated with launching and maintaining the Trust and such shortfalls could impact the Sponsor’s ability to properly invest in robust ongoing operations and controls of the Trust to minimize the risk of operating events, errors, or other forms of losses to the Shareholders. In addition, the Trust may also fail to attract adequate liquidity in the secondary market due to such competition, resulting in a sub-standard number of Authorized Participants willing to make a market in the Shares, which in turn could result in a significant premium or discount in the Shares for extended periods and the Trust’s failure to reflect the performance of the price of bitcoin.

A public health emergency, could adversely affect the economics of many nations and could have serious negative effects on social, economic and financial systems, including significant uncertainty and volatility in the digital asset markets. For example, digital asset prices, including bitcoin, decreased significantly in the first quarter of 2020 amidst broader market declines as a result of the novel coronavirus outbreak.

The Trust relies on the information and technology systems of the Custodian, the Trustee, the Sponsor, the Authorized Participants, the Bitcoin Trading Counterparties, the listing exchange, and the Trust’s other service providers and counterparties (referred to herein as the“Service Providers”), each of which could be directly or indirectly adversely affected by information systems interruptions, cybersecurity incidents or other disruptions, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on the Trust.

The amount of bitcoin represented by each Share will decrease over the life of the Trust due to the sales of bitcoin necessary to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and other Trust expenses. Without increases in the price of bitcoin sufficient to compensate for that decrease, the price of the Shares will also decline and you will lose money on your investment in Shares.

Although the Sponsor has agreed to assume all organizational and certain ordinary administrative and marketing expenses incurred by the Trust, not all Trust expenses have been assumed by the Sponsor. For example, any taxes and other governmental charges that may be imposed on the Trust’s property will not be paid by the Sponsor. As part of its agreement to assume some of the Trust’s ordinary administrative expenses, the Sponsor has agreed to pay ordinary legal fees and expenses of the Trust not in excess of $500,000 per annum. Any legal fees and expenses in excess of the amount required under the Trust Agreement are the responsibility of the Trust.

Because the Trust does not have any income, it needs to sell bitcoin to cover the Sponsor’s Fee and expenses not assumed by the Sponsor. The Trust may also be subject to other liabilities (for example, as a result of litigation) that have also not been assumed by the Sponsor. The only source of funds to cover those liabilities are sales of bitcoin held by the Trust. Even if there are no expenses other than those assumed by the Sponsor, and there are no other liabilities of the Trust, the Sponsor will still need to sell bitcoin to pay the Sponsor’s Fee. The result of these sales is a decrease in the amount of bitcoin represented by each Share. New purchases of bitcoin utilizing cash proceeds from new Shares issued by the Trust do not reverse this trend.

A decrease in the amount of bitcoin represented by each Share results in a decrease in its price even if the price of bitcoin has not changed. To retain the Share’s original price, the price of bitcoin has to increase. Without that increase, the lesser amount of bitcoin represented by the Share will have a correspondingly lower price. If these increases do not occur, or are not sufficient to counter the lesser amount of bitcoin represented by each Share, you will sustain losses on your investment in Shares.

An increase in the Trust expenses not assumed by the Sponsor, or the existence of unexpected liabilities affecting the Trust, will force the Sponsor to sell larger amounts of bitcoin, and will result in a more rapid decrease of the amount of bitcoin represented by each Share and a corresponding decrease in its value.

The Trust is a passive investment vehicle that does not seek to generate returns beyond tracking the price of bitcoin. The Trust is not actively managed and will be affected by a general decline in the price of bitcoin.

The Trust is a passive investment vehicle that does not seek to generate returns beyond tracking the price of bitcoin. The Sponsor does not actively manage the bitcoin held by the Trust. This means the Sponsor does not speculatively sell bitcoin at times when its price is high or speculatively acquire bitcoin at low prices in the expectation of future price increases. It also means the Trust will not utilize leverage, derivatives or any similar arrangements in seeking to meet its investment objective. Any losses sustained by the Trust will adversely affect the value of your Shares.

The value of the Shares may be influenced by a variety of factors unrelated to the price of bitcoin and the digital asset platforms included in the Index that may have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares. These factors include the following factors:

The liquidity of the Shares may also be affected by the withdrawal from participation of Authorized Participants or Bitcoin Trading Counterparties.

In the event that one or more Authorized Participants or Bitcoin Trading Counterparties withdraw from or cease participation in creation and redemption activity or bitcoin transactions with the Trust for any reason, the liquidity of the Shares will likely decrease, which could adversely affect the market price of the Shares and result in your incurring a loss on your investment in Shares.

There may be situations where an Authorized Participant is unable to redeem a Basket of Shares. To the extent the value of bitcoin decreases, these delays may result in a decrease in the amount the Authorized Participant will receive when the redemption occurs, as well as a reduction in liquidity for all Shareholders in the secondary market.

Although Shares surrendered by Authorized Participants in Basket-size aggregations are redeemable in exchange for the underlying amount of bitcoin or cash proceeds from selling the underlying amount of bitcoin, redemptions may be suspended (i) during any period in which regular trading on NASDAQ is suspended or restricted, or the exchange is closed (other than scheduled holiday or weekend closings), or (ii) during a period when the Sponsor determines that delivery, disposal or evaluation of bitcoin is not reasonably practicable (for example, as a result of an interruption in services or availability of the Prime Execution Agent, the Bitcoin Custodian, the Cash Custodian, the Administrator, the Bitcoin Trading Counterparties, or other service providers to the Trust, act of God, catastrophe, civil disturbance, government prohibition, war, terrorism, strike or other labor dispute, fire, force majeure, interruption in telecommunications, iShares order entry system, Internet services, or network provider services, unavailability of Fedwire, SWIFT or banks’ payment processes, significant technical failure, bug, error, disruption or fork of the Bitcoin network, hacking, cybersecurity breach, or power, Internet, or Bitcoin network outage, or similar event). If any of these events occurs at a time when an Authorized Participant intends to redeem Shares, and the price of bitcoin decreases before such Authorized Participant is able again to surrender for redemption Baskets, such Authorized Participant will sustain a loss with respect to the amount that it would have been able to obtain upon the redemption of its Shares, had the redemption taken place when such Authorized Participant originally intended it to occur. As a consequence, Authorized Participants may reduce their trading in Shares during periods of suspension, decreasing the number of potential buyers of Shares in the secondary market and, therefore, decreasing the price a Shareholder may receive upon sale.

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.

If the processes of creation and redemption of Shares (which depend on timely transfers of bitcoin to and by the Bitcoin Custodian and Prime Execution Agent) encounter any unanticipated difficulties due to, for example, the price volatility of bitcoin, the insolvency, business failure or interruption, default, failure to perform, security breach, or other problems affecting the Prime Execution Agent, Bitcoin Custodian, the Authorized Participants or the Bitcoin Trading Counterparties, the closing of bitcoin trading platforms due to fraud, failures, security breaches or otherwise, or network outages or congestion, spikes in transaction fees demanded by miners, or other problems or disruptions affecting the Bitcoin network, then potential market participants, such as the Authorized Participants and their customers, who would otherwise be willing to purchase or redeem Baskets (in the case of Authorized Participants) to take advantage of any arbitrage opportunity arising from discrepancies between the price of the Shares and the price of the underlying bitcoin or to engage in bitcoin transactions (in the case of Bitcoin Trading Counterparties or transactions facilitated by the Prime Execution Agent) may not take the risk that, as a result of those difficulties, they may not be able to realize the profit they expect. In certain such cases, the Trustee may, and upon the direction of the Sponsor shall, suspend the process of creation and redemption of Baskets. During such times, trading spreads, and the resulting premium or discount, on Shares may widen. Alternatively, in the case of a network outage or other problems affecting the Bitcoin network, the processing of transactions on the Bitcoin network may be disrupted, which in turn may prevent Authorized Participants or their designated agent or client, Bitcoin Trading Counterparties from depositing or withdrawing bitcoin from their accounts at the Prime Execution Agent, or prevent the Prime Execution Agent from facilitating bitcoin transactions through its Coinbase Prime service, which in turn could affect the creation or redemption of Baskets. If this is the case, the liquidity of the Shares may decline and the price of the Shares may fluctuate independently of the price of bitcoin and may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV. Furthermore, in the event that the market for bitcoin should become relatively illiquid and thereby materially restrict opportunities for arbitraging, the price of Shares may diverge from the value of bitcoin.

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 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. In addition, Bitcoin Trading Counterparties must settle bitcoin transactions with the Trust within a contractually specified time period, subject to customary exceptions. If the Bitcoin Trading Counterparty fails to perform its obligations within the contractually specified time period, the Trust would seek to use the Prime Execution Agent’s Coinbase Prime service or an alternate Bitcoin Trading Counterparty to execute the bitcoin transaction. However, the pricing or terms of the ultimate bitcoin transaction conducted through the Prime Execution Agent’s Coinbase Prime service or an alternate Bitcoin Trading Counterparty after the failure of the Bitcoin Trading Counterparty to perform its obligations could deviate, potentially significantly, from the pricing or terms of the transaction that the Trust originally entered with the Bitcoin Trading Counterparty. Even though the Authorized Participant is responsible for the dollar cost of such difference in prices, Authorized Participants could default on their obligations to the Trust, or such potential risks and costs could lead to Authorized Participants, who would otherwise be willing to purchase or redeem Baskets to take advantage of any arbitrage opportunity arising from discrepancies between the price of the Shares and the price of the underlying bitcoin, to elect to not participate in the Trust’s Share creation and redemption processes. This may adversely affect the arbitrage mechanism intended to keep the price of the Shares closely linked to the price of bitcoin, and as a result, the price of the Shares may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV. If the arbitrage mechanism is not effective, purchases or sales of Shares on the secondary market could occur at a premium or discount to NAV, which could harm Shareholders by causing them buy Shares at a price higher than the value of the underlying bitcoin held by the Trust or sell Shares at a price lower than the value of the underlying bitcoin held by the Trust, causing Shareholders to suffer losses. Alternatively, Authorized Participants could refrain from participating in creating and redeeming Baskets, and if not replaced, could disrupt the Trust’s ability to operate. Similarly, if Bitcoin Trading Counterparties or the parties to transactions with the Trust through the Prime Execution Agent’s Coinbase Prime service refrain from transacting with the Trust, and if not replaced, it could disrupt the Trust’s ability to operate. The Trust expects to conduct bitcoin purchase and sale transactions through the Prime Execution Agent’s Coinbase Prime service and with Bitcoin Trading Counterparties. The reliance on the Prime Execution Agent’s Coinbase Prime service and Bitcoin Trading Counterparties creates a risk that if the Prime Execution Agent’s Coinbase Prime service or trading with Bitcoin Trading Counterparties is unavailable or disrupted for any reason, the Trust will be unable to execute bitcoin transactions and the Trust’s creation and redemption processes will be disrupted. In addition, a failure to settle bitcoin transactions, whether with the Bitcoin Trading Counterparty or the Prime Execution Agent’s Coinbase Prime service, could disrupt the calculation of the Trust’s NAV or potentially cause inaccuracies in NAV calculation, which could disrupt the Trust’s operations or cause Shareholders to suffer losses.

Shares are not entitled to the same rights as shares issued by a corporation. By acquiring Shares, you are not acquiring the right to elect directors, to receive dividends, to vote on certain matters regarding the issuer of your Shares or to take other actions normally associated with the ownership of shares. You will only have the limited rights contained in the Trust Agreement.

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, the Prime Execution Agent, the Authorized Participants or Bitcoin Trading Counterparties to incur extraordinary expenses. If the Trust, the Trustee, the Sponsor, the Prime Execution Agent, the 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.

The Sponsor and its management team have a limited track record in operating investment vehicles that specifically deal with crypto assets such as the Trust. This limited experience poses several potential risks to the effective management and operation of the Trust. Crypto assets, such as bitcoin, are known for their high volatility, unique technical, legal and regulatory challenges, and rapidly evolving market dynamics. The Sponsor’s limited experience in this specific field may not fully equip them to navigate these complexities effectively.

The past performances of the Sponsor’s management in other investment vehicles are no indication of their ability to manage an investment vehicle such as the Trust. The unique nature of crypto assets makes past performance an unreliable indicator of future success in this area. The crypto asset market is technology-driven and requires a deep understanding of the underlying blockchain technology and security considerations. The Sponsor’s limited experience may not fully encompass the technical expertise required to mitigate risks such as cyber threats, technological failures, or operational errors related to crypto asset transactions and custody.

Security threats to the Trust’s account at the Bitcoin Custodian could result in the halting of Trust operations and a loss of Trust assets or damage to the reputation of the Trust, each of which could result in a reduction in the value of the Shares.

Security breaches, computer malware and computer hacking attacks have been a prevalent concern in relation to digital assets. The Sponsor believes that the Trust’s bitcoin held in the Trust’s account at the Bitcoin Custodian or Trading Balance held with the Prime Execution Agent will be an appealing target to hackers or malware distributors seeking to destroy, damage or steal the Trust’s bitcoin and will only become more appealing as the Trust’s assets grow. To the extent that the Trust, the Sponsor, the Bitcoin Custodian, or the Prime Execution Agent is unable to identify and mitigate or stop new security threats or otherwise adapt to technological changes in the digital asset industry, the Trust’s bitcoin may be subject to theft, loss, destruction or other attack.

The Sponsor believes that the security procedures in place for the Trust, including but not limited to, offline storage, or cold storage, multiple encrypted private key “shards,” and other measures, are reasonably designed to safeguard the Trust’s bitcoin. Nevertheless, the security procedures cannot guarantee the prevention of any loss due to a security breach, software defect or act of God that may be borne by the Trust and the security procedures may not protect against all errors, software flaws or other vulnerabilities in the Trust’s technical infrastructure, which could result in theft, loss or damage of its assets. The Sponsor does not control the Bitcoin Custodian’s or the Prime Execution Agent’s operations or their implementation of such security procedures and there can be no assurance that such security procedures will actually work as designed or prove to be successful in safeguarding the Trust’s assets against all possible sources of theft, loss or damage. Assets not held in cold storage, such as assets held in a trading account, may be more vulnerable to security breach, hacking or loss than assets held in cold storage. Furthermore, assets held in a trading account, including the Trust’s Trading Balance (as defined below) at the Prime Execution Agent, are held on an omnibus, rather than segregated basis, which creates greater risk of loss. Even though bitcoin is only moved into the Trading Balance in connection with and to the extent of transfers to an Authorized Participant or its designated agent or client and purchases and sales of bitcoin by the Trust and such bitcoin is swept from the Trust’s Trading Balance to the Trust’s Vault Balance each trading day pursuant to a regular end-of-day sweep process, 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. This could create greater risk of loss of the Trust’s bitcoin, which could cause Shareholders to suffer losses.

The security procedures and operational infrastructure may be breached due to the actions of outside parties, error or malfeasance of an employee of the Sponsor, the Bitcoin Custodian, or otherwise, and, as a result, an unauthorized party may obtain access to the Trust’s account at the Bitcoin Custodian, the relevant private keys (and therefore bitcoin) or other data or property of the Trust. Additionally, outside parties may attempt to fraudulently induce employees of the Sponsor, or the Bitcoin Custodian to disclose sensitive information in order to gain access to the Trust’s infrastructure. As the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access, disable or degrade service, or sabotage systems change frequently, or may be designed to remain dormant until a predetermined event and often are not recognized until launched against a target, the Sponsor, and the Bitcoin Custodian may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures.

An actual or perceived breach of the Trust’s account at the Bitcoin Custodian could harm the Trust’s operations, result in partial or total loss of the Trust’s assets, resulting in a reduction or destruction in the value of the Shares. The Trust may also cease operations, the occurrence of which could similarly result in a reduction in the value of the Shares.

Bitcoin transactions are typically not reversible without the consent and active participation of the recipient of the transaction. Once a transaction has been verified and recorded in a block that is added to the Bitcoin blockchain, an incorrect transfer or theft of bitcoin generally will not be reversible and the Trust may not be capable of seeking compensation for any such transfer or theft. Although the Trust’s transfers of bitcoin will regularly be made to or from the Trust’s account at the Bitcoin Custodian, it is possible that, through computer or human error, or through theft or criminal action, the Trust’s bitcoin could be transferred from the Trust’s account at the Bitcoin Custodian in incorrect amounts or to unauthorized third parties, or to uncontrolled accounts.

Such events have occurred in connection with digital assets in the past. For example, in September 2014, the Chinese digital asset platform Huobi announced that it had sent approximately 900 bitcoin and 8,000 Litecoins (worth approximately $400,000 at the prevailing market prices at the time) to the wrong customers. 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 which has received the Trust’s bitcoin through error or theft, the Trust will be unable to revert or otherwise recover incorrectly transferred bitcoin. The Trust will also be unable to convert or recover its bitcoin transferred to uncontrolled accounts. 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.

If the Custodian Agreement, the Prime Execution Agent Agreement, the Authorized Participant Agreements or Bitcoin Trading Counterparty Agreements are terminated or the Bitcoin Custodian, the Prime Execution Agent, the Authorized Participant or the Bitcoin Trading Counterparty fails to provide services as required, the Trustee may operationalize the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, or may need to find and appoint a replacement custodian, an execution agent, authorized participants or bitcoin trading counterparty, 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 hold bitcoin. 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 cash 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 asserted were securities, (ii) that Coinbase Inc. had violated the Securities Act by failing to register with the SEC the offer and sale of its staking program, and (iii) that Coinbase Global was 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 deemed 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, together with the Bitcoin Custodian, may from time to time be—subject to a variety of other litigation in the future. 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 with custody 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 agent 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 bitcoin for which no person or entity is liable.*

The Trust is not a banking institution or otherwise a member of the FDIC or Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) and, therefore, deposits held with or assets held by the Trust are not subject to the protections enjoyed by depositors with FDIC or SIPC member institutions. In addition, neither the Trust nor the Sponsor insure the Trust’s bitcoin. Coinbase Global has informed the Sponsor that it maintains an a commercial crime insurance policy, 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 the 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 million; (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 bitcoin 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 $5 million, 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.

The Custodian Agreement contains an agreement by the parties to treat the bitcoin credited to the Trust’s Vault Balance as financial assets under Article 8 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (“Article 8”), in addition to stating that the Bitcoin Custodian will serve as fiduciary and custodian on the Trust’s behalf. The Bitcoin Custodian’s parent, Coinbase Global Inc., has stated in its most recent public securities filings that in light of the inclusion in its custody agreements of provisions relating to Article 8 it believes that a court would not treat custodied digital assets as part of its general estate in the event the Custodian were to experience insolvency. However, due to the novelty of digital asset custodial arrangements courts have not yet considered this type of treatment for custodied digital assets and it is not possible to predict with certainty how they would consistently rule in such a scenario. If the Bitcoin Custodian became subject to insolvency proceedings and a court were to rule that the custodied bitcoin were part of the Bitcoin Custodian’s general estate and not the property of the Trust, then the Trust would be treated as a general unsecured creditor in the Bitcoin Custodian’s insolvency proceedings and the Trust could be subject to a loss of all or a significant portion of its assets. Moreover, in the event of the bankruptcy of the Bitcoin Custodian, an automatic stay could go into effect and protracted litigation could be required in order to recover the assets held with the Bitcoin Custodian, all of which could significantly and negatively impact the Trust’s operations and the value of the Shares.

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 the 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 the 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.

To avoid having to pre-fund purchases or sales of bitcoin in connection with cash creations and redemptions and sales of bitcoin to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and any other Trust expenses not assumed by the Sponsor, to the extent applicable, the Trust may borrow bitcoin or cash as trade credit (“Trade Credit”) from Coinbase Credit, Inc. (the “Trade Credit Lender”) on a short-term basis pursuant to the Coinbase Credit Committed Trade Financing Agreement (the “Trade Financing Agreement”). The Trade Credit Lender is only required to extend Trade Credits to the Trust to the extent such bitcoin or cash is actually available to the Trade Credit Lender. To the extent that Trade Credits are not available or become exhausted (1) there may be delays in the buying and selling of bitcoin related to cash creations and redemptions or the selling of bitcoin related to paying the Sponsor’s Fee and any other Trust expenses, to the extent applicable, (2) Trust assets may be held in the Trading Balance for a longer duration than if Trade Credits were available, and (3) the execution price associated with such trades may deviate significantly from the Index price used to determine the net asset value of the Trust. To the extent that the execution price for purchases and sales of bitcoin related to creations and redemptions and sales of bitcoin in connection with paying the Sponsor’s Fee and any other Trust expenses deviate significantly from the Index price used to determine the net asset value of the Trust, the Shareholders may be negatively impacted because the added costs of such price deviations would be incurred by the Authorized Participants and may be passed onto the Shareholders in the secondary market. Moreover, this risk factor relating to the unavailability or exhaustion of the Trade Credits should be interpreted as a heightened risk when choosing cash creations and redemptions rather than contemplated in-kind creations and redemptions.

If the Trust’s assets in the future were to reduce to a point where the assets in the Vault Balance and Trading Balance are cumulatively less than the proceeds of a purchase or redemption order that utilized Trade Credits, then the Trust may be restricted from withdrawing assets directly from the Vault Balance to a public blockchain address, which could reduce the Trust’s ability to withdraw assets from the Vault Balance, particularly in distressed market conditions. Although the Trust does not currently withdraw assets directly from the Vault Balance to a public blockchain address, the Trust would forego the ability to do so in the future under the circumstances described in the previous sentence. Under these circumstances, the Trust could still withdraw assets from the Vault Balance to the Trading Balance, but it would be unable to withdraw or transfer assets out of the Trading Balance until the Trade Credit was repaid. Alternatively, in the foregoing circumstances, if the Trust were to stop using Trade Credits and seek to pre-fund creation and redemption orders, it could cause variances in the amount of assets transferred between the Vault Balance and the amount of assets in the purchase or redemption order, which would be borne by the Authorized Participants, which could make participating in the Trust’s creation and redemption processes less attractive to Authorized Participants. Any of the foregoing could cause losses to Shareholders or limits on the Trust’s ability to transfer assets out of its accounts with the Coinbase Entities, which could negatively affect the Trust’s creation and redemption processes and its operations generally.

If the Trust is required to terminate and liquidate, or the Sponsor determines in accordance with the terms of the Trust Agreement that it is appropriate to terminate and liquidate the Trust, such termination and liquidation could occur at a time that is disadvantageous to Shareholders, such as when the actual exchange rate of bitcoin at such time is lower than the Index was at the time when Shareholders purchased their Shares. In such a case, when the Trust’s bitcoin are sold as part of its liquidation, the resulting proceeds distributed to Shareholders will be less than if the actual exchange rate at such time were higher at the time of sale.

The Trust Agreement provides that the courts of the state of Delaware and any federal courts located in Wilmington, Delaware will be the non-exclusive jurisdiction for any claims, suits, actions or proceedings, provided that causes of actions for violations of the Exchange Act or the Securities Act will not be governed by the non-exclusive jurisdiction provision of the Trust Agreement. By purchasing Shares in the Trust, Shareholders waive certain claims that the courts of the state of Delaware and any federal courts located in Wilmington, Delaware is an inconvenient venue or is otherwise inappropriate. As such, Shareholder could be required to litigate a matter relating to the Trust in a Delaware court, even if that court may otherwise be inconvenient for the Shareholder.

The Sponsor has the exclusive authority to determine the net asset value of the Trust and the NAV, which it has delegated to the Trustee under the Trust Agreement. The Trustee has delegated to the Trust Administrator the responsibility to calculate the net asset value of the Trust and the NAV, based on a pricing source selected by the Trustee. The Trust Administrator determines the net asset value of the Trust and NAV as of 4:00 p.m. ET, on each Business Day, as soon as practicable after that time. The Trust Administrator’s determination is made utilizing data from the operations of the Trust and the Index, calculated at 4:00 p.m. ET, on such day. If the Trustee determines in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate bitcoin price, then the Trustee will instruct the Trust Administrator to employ an alternative method to determine the fair value of the Trust’s assets. There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment as to which of the rules the Sponsor will apply and the Sponsor may make this determination in its sole discretion. The Trust Administrator may calculate the Index in a manner that ultimately inaccurately reflects the price of bitcoin. To the extent that the net asset value of the Trust, NAV, the Index, or the Trustee’s, the Trust Administrator’s or the Sponsor’s other valuation methodology are incorrectly calculated, neither the Sponsor, the Trust Administrator nor the Trustee may be liable for any error and such misreporting of valuation data could adversely affect the value of the Shares and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust. Moreover, the terms of the Trust Agreement do not prohibit the Sponsor from changing the Index or other valuation method used to calculate the net asset value of the Trust. Any such change in the Index or other valuation method could affect the value of the Shares and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust.

To the extent the methodology used to calculate the Index is deemed not to be consistent with GAAP, the Trust’s periodic financial statements may not utilize the Trust’s net asset value or NAV. The Trust’s periodic financial statements will be prepared in accordance with GAAP, including the Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 820, “Fair Value Measurement”, and utilize an exchange-traded price from the Trust’s principal market for bitcoin as of 11:59 p.m. ET on the Trust’s financial statement measurement date. The Sponsor will determine in its sole discretion the valuation sources and policies used to prepare the Trust’s financial statements. To the extent that such valuation sources and policies used to prepare the Trust’s financial statements result in an inaccurate price, the value of the Shares could be adversely affected and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust. Moreover, the terms of the Trust Agreement do not prohibit the Sponsor from changing the valuation method used to calculate the net asset value to be reported in the Trust’s financial statements. Any such change in such valuation method could affect the value of the Shares and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust.

In consideration for the Sponsor’s Fee, the Sponsor has contractually assumed ordinary course operational and periodic expenses of the Trust, with certain exceptions. Expenses incurred by the Trust but not assumed by the Sponsor, such as, among others, taxes and governmental charges; expenses and costs of any extraordinary services performed by the Sponsor (or any other service provider) on behalf of the Trust to protect the Trust or the interests of Shareholders; or extraordinary legal fees and expenses are not assumed by the Sponsor and are borne by the Trust. The Sponsor will cause the Trust to either (i) sell bitcoin held by the Trust or (ii) deliver bitcoin in-kind to the Sponsor to pay Trust expenses not assumed by the Sponsor on an as-needed basis. Accordingly, the Trust may be required to sell or otherwise dispose of bitcoin at a time when the trading prices for those assets are depressed.

The Trust’s delivery or sale of bitcoin to pay expenses or other operations of the Trust could result in Shareholders incurring tax liability without an associated distribution from the Trust.

Assuming that the Trust is treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, each delivery of bitcoin by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or other expenses and each sale of bitcoin by the Trust to pay Trust expenses not assumed by the Sponsor will be a taxable event to beneficial owners of Shares. Thus, the Trust’s payment of expenses could result in beneficial owners of Shares incurring tax liability without an associated distribution from the Trust. Any such tax liability could adversely affect an investment in the Shares.

The value of the Shares will be adversely affected if the Trust is required to indemnify the Sponsor, the Trustee, the Delaware Trustee, the Trust Administrator, the Bitcoin Custodian or the Cash Custodian under the Trust Documents.

The Trust’s NAV will fluctuate with changes in the market value of bitcoin and its securities, 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 IBIT shares or the Bitcoin 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 Bitcoin 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 NASDAQ reopens. If the price of bitcoin on the digital asset market drops significantly during hours 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 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.

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 bitcoin, mining activity, digital wallets, the provision of services related to trading and providing custody services for bitcoin, the operation of the Bitcoin network, or the digital asset markets generally.

There is a lack of consensus regarding the regulation of digital assets, including bitcoin, and their markets. As a result of the growth in the size of the digital asset market, as well as the 2022 Events, the U.S. Congress and a number of U.S. federal and state agencies (including FinCEN, SEC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”), CFTC, FINRA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), the DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), state financial institution regulators, and others) have been examining the operations of digital asset networks, digital asset users and the digital asset markets. Many of these state and federal agencies have brought enforcement actions or issued consumer advisories regarding the risks posed by digital assets to investors. Ongoing and future regulatory actions with respect to digital assets generally or bitcoin in particular may alter, perhaps to a materially adverse extent, the nature of an investment in the Shares or the ability of the Trust to continue to operate.

The 2022 Events, including among others the bankruptcy filings of FTX and its subsidiaries, Three Arrows Capital, Celsius Network, Voyager Digital, Genesis, BlockFi and others, and other developments in the digital asset markets, have resulted in calls for heightened scrutiny and regulation of the digital asset industry, with a specific focus on intermediaries such as digital asset platforms, platforms, and custodians. Federal and state legislatures and regulatory agencies may introduce and enact new laws and regulations to regulate crypto asset intermediaries, such as digital asset platforms and custodians. The March 2023 collapses of Silicon Valley Bank, Silvergate Bank, and Signature Bank, which in some cases provided services to the digital asset industry, may amplify and/or accelerate these trends. On January 3, 2023, the federal banking agencies issued a joint statement on crypto-asset risks to banking organizations following events which exposed vulnerabilities in the crypto-asset sector, including the risk of fraud and scams, legal uncertainties, significant volatility, and contagion risk. Although banking organizations are not prohibited from crypto-asset related activities, the agencies have expressed significant safety and soundness concerns with business models that are concentrated in crypto-asset related activities or have concentrated exposures to the crypto-asset sector.

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.

A determination that bitcoin or any other digital asset is a“security”* may adversely affect the value of bitcoin and the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust.*

Depending on its characteristics, a digital asset may be considered a “security” under the federal securities laws. The test for determining whether a particular digital asset is a “security” is complex and difficult to apply, and the outcome is difficult to predict. Public, though non-binding, statements made in the past by senior officials at the SEC and endorsed by its previous Chairman in a letter to a member of Congress appeared to indicate that the SEC did not consider bitcoin to be a security, at least currently, and the staff has provided informal assurances to a handful of promoters that their digital assets are not securities. On the other hand, the SEC has brought enforcement actions against the promoters of several other digital assets on the basis that the digital assets in question are securities.

As part of determining whether bitcoin is a security for purposes of the federal securities laws, the Sponsor takes into account a number of factors, including the various definitions of “security” under the federal securities laws and federal court decisions interpreting elements of these definitions, such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in the Howey and Reves cases, as well as reports, orders, press releases, public statements and speeches by the SEC and its staff providing guidance on when a digital asset may be a security for purposes of the federal securities laws, and other materials relevant to the status of bitcoin as a security (or not). Finally, the Sponsor discusses the security status of bitcoin with its external securities lawyers. Through this process the Sponsor believes that it is applying the proper legal standards in determining that bitcoin is not a security in light of the uncertainties inherent in the Howey and Reves tests. However, because of these uncertainties and the fact-based nature of the analysis, the Sponsor acknowledges that bitcoin may in the future be found by the SEC or a federal court to be a security notwithstanding the Sponsor’s prior conclusion; and the Sponsor’s prior conclusion, even if reasonable under the circumstances and made in good faith, would not preclude legal or regulatory action based on the presence of a security.

The Sponsor may dissolve the Trust if the Sponsor determines bitcoin is a security under the federal securities laws, whether that determination is initially made by the Sponsor itself, or because the SEC or a federal court subsequently makes that determination. Because the legal tests for determining whether a digital asset is or is not a security often leave room for interpretation, and because the SEC has not taken a definitive position, for so long as the Sponsor believes there to be good faith grounds to conclude that the Trust’s bitcoin is not a security, the Sponsor does not intend to dissolve the Trust on the basis that bitcoin could at some future point be determined to be a security.

Any enforcement action by the SEC or a state securities regulator asserting that bitcoin is a security, or a court decision, to that effect would be expected to have an immediate material adverse impact on the trading value of bitcoin, as well as the Shares. This is because the business models behind most digital assets are incompatible with regulations applying to transactions in securities.

Regulatory changes or actions in foreign jurisdictions may affect the value of the Shares or restrict the use of one or more digital assets, mining activity or the operation of their networks or the digital asset platform market in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares.

Various foreign jurisdictions have, and may continue to adopt laws, regulations or directives that affect digital asset networks (including the Bitcoin network), the digital asset markets (including the bitcoin market), and their users, particularly digital asset platforms and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. For example, if China or other foreign jurisdictions were to ban or otherwise restrict manufacturers’ ability to produce or sell semiconductors or hard drives in connection with bitcoin mining, it would have a material adverse effect on digital asset networks (including the Bitcoin network), the digital asset market, and as a result, impact the value of the Shares.

A number of foreign jurisdictions have recently taken regulatory action aimed at digital asset activities. China has made transacting in crypto assets illegal for Chinese citizens in mainland China, and additional restrictions may follow. Both China and South Korea have banned initial coin offerings entirely and regulators in other jurisdictions, including Canada, Singapore and Hong Kong, have opined that initial coin offerings may constitute securities offerings subject to local securities regulations. In May 2021, the Chinese government announced renewed efforts to restrict crypto asset trading and mining activities. Regulators in the Inner Mongolia and other regions of China have proposed regulations that would create penalties for companies engaged in crypto asset mining activities and introduce heightened energy saving requirements on industrial parks, data centers and power plants providing electricity to crypto asset miners. The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority published final rules in October 2020 banning the sale of derivatives and exchange traded notes that reference certain types of digital assets, contending that they are “ill-suited” to retail investors citing extreme volatility, valuation challenges and association with financial crime. A new bill, the Financial Services and Markets Bill (“FSMB”), has made its way through the House of Commons and is expected to work through the House of Lords and become law in 2023. The FSMB would bring digital asset activities within the scope of existing laws governing financial institutions, markets and assets. In addition, the European Council of the European Union approved the text of Markets in Crypto-Assets (“MiCA”) in October 2022, establishing a regulatory framework for digital asset services across the European Union. MiCA is intended to serve as a comprehensive regulation of digital asset markets and imposes various obligations on digital asset issuers and service providers. The main aims of MiCA are industry regulation, consumer protection, prevention of market abuse and upholding the integrity of digital asset markets. MiCA passed the European Parliament in 2023 and will apply from 2024.

Concerns have been raised about the electricity required to secure and maintain digital asset networks. For example, as of December 31, 2025, approximately 980 million tera hashes were performed every second in connection with mining on the Bitcoin network (according to Coin Metrics). Although measuring the electricity consumed by this process is difficult because these operations are performed by various machines with varying levels of efficiency, the process consumes a significant amount of energy. The operations of the Bitcoin network and other digital asset networks may also consume significant amounts of energy. Further, in addition to the direct energy costs of performing calculations on any given digital asset network, there are indirect costs that impact a network’s total energy consumption, including the costs of cooling the machines that perform these calculations.

Driven by concerns around energy consumption and the impact on public utility companies, various states and cities have implemented, or are considering implementing, moratoriums on mining activity in their jurisdictions. A significant reduction in mining activity as a result of such actions could adversely affect the security of the Bitcoin network by making it easier for a malicious actor or botnet to manipulate the relevant blockchain. See “—If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 50% of the processing power on the Bitcoin network, or otherwise obtains control over the Bitcoin network through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could manipulate the relevant blockchain to adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.” If regulators or public utilities take action that restricts or otherwise impacts mining activities, such actions could result in decreased security of a digital asset network, including the Bitcoin network, and consequently adversely impact the value of the Shares.

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 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.

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 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 bitcoin 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.

Anonymity and illicit financing risk.

Although transaction details of peer-to-peer transactions are recorded on the Bitcoin blockchain, a buyer or seller of digital assets on a peer-to-peer basis directly on the Bitcoin network may never know to whom the public key belongs or the true identity of the party with whom it is transacting. Public key addresses are randomized sequences of alphanumeric characters that, standing alone, do not provide sufficient information to identify users. In addition, certain technologies may obscure the origin or chain of custody of digital assets. 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 a proposed rulemaking under authorities in Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act that would impose requirements on financial institutions that engage in CVC transactions that involve CVC mixing within or involving a jurisdiction outside the United States. FinCEN’s rulemaking states that CVC mixing transactions can play a central role in facilitating the laundering of CVC derived from a variety of illicit activity, and are frequently used by criminals and state actors to facilitate a range of illicit activity, including, but not limited to, money laundering, sanctions evasion and weapons of mass destruction proliferation. Given that blockchain networks, including the Bitcoin network, is global and anyone can access them, validate transactions or transfer digital assets through them, and the fact that their operators, creators or programmers sometimes remain anonymous, it is not inconceivable that bad actors, such as those subject to sanctions, could seek to do so. The opaque nature of the market poses asset verification challenges for market participants, regulators and auditors and gives rise to an increased risk of manipulation and fraud, including the potential for Ponzi schemes, bucket shops and pump and dump schemes. Digital assets have in the past been used to facilitate illicit activities or a digital asset, or network participant, such as miners or users, were associated with bad actors or illicit activity. If a digital asset was used to facilitate illicit activities, businesses that facilitate transactions in such digital assets could be at increased risk of potential criminal or civil liability or lawsuits, or of having banking or other services cut off, and such digital asset could be removed from digital asset platforms. Any of the aforementioned or similar occurrences could adversely affect the price of the relevant digital asset, the attractiveness of the respective blockchain network and an investment in the Shares. If the Trust, the Sponsor or the Trustee were to transact with a sanctioned entity, the Trust, the Sponsor or the Trustee would be at risk of potential criminal or civil lawsuits or liability.

The Trust and affiliates of the consolidated parent of the Sponsor (“BlackRock”) have adopted and implemented policies and procedures that are designed to comply with applicable anti-money laundering laws and sanctions laws and regulations, including applicable know your customer (“KYC”) laws and regulations. The Sponsor and the Trust will only interact with known third-party service providers with respect to whom the Sponsor or its affiliates have engaged in a thorough due diligence process and or a thorough KYC process, such as the Authorized Participants or their designated agents or clients, Bitcoin Trading Counterparties, Prime Execution Agent and Bitcoin Custodian. The Prime Execution Agent and Bitcoin Custodian must undergo counterparty due diligence by BlackRock. Each Authorized Participant must undergo onboarding by BlackRock prior to placing creation or redemption orders with respect to the Trust. Each Bitcoin Trading Counterparty must undergo onboarding by BlackRock prior to entering into bitcoin transactions with the Trust. Each Bitcoin Trading Counterparty who deposits bitcoin as part of a purchase made by the Trust in connection with a cash creation or receives bitcoin from the Trust as part of a sale made by the Trust in connection with a cash redemption must establish an account – and transfer or receive such bitcoin through such account – at the Prime Execution Agent. When trading through the Prime Execution Agent acting in an agency capacity with third parties through its Coinbase Prime service pursuant to the Prime Execution Agent Agreement, the bitcoin delivered to the Trust is delivered through execution with the Prime Execution Agent. As a result, the Sponsor and the Trust have instituted procedures reasonably designed to ensure that a situation would not arise where the Trust would engage in transactions with a counterparty whose identity the Sponsor and the Trust did not know.

Furthermore, Authorized Participants, as broker-dealers, the Prime Execution Agent, as an entity licensed to conduct virtual currency business activity by the New York Department of Financial Services, the Bitcoin Custodian, as a limited purpose trust company subject to New York Banking Law, and the Additional Bitcoin Custodian, as a national trust bank chartered by the OCC, are “financial institutions” subject to the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act, as amended (“BSA”), and U.S. economic sanctions laws. The Trust will only accept creation and redemption requests from Authorized Participants and trade with Bitcoin Trading Counterparties who have represented to the Trust that they have implemented compliance programs that are designed to ensure compliance with applicable sanctions and anti-money laundering laws. In addition, with respect to all bitcoin delivered by Bitcoin Trading Counterparties, such Bitcoin Trading Counterparties must represent to the Trust that they will form a reasonable belief (i) as to the identities of, and conduct necessary diligence with respect to, any counterparties from whom such party obtains bitcoin being transferred and (ii) that such bitcoin being transferred by such party to the Trust were not derived from, or associated with, unlawful or criminal activity. The Trust will not hold any bitcoin except those that have been delivered by Bitcoin Trading Counterparties or by execution through the Prime Execution Agent, in connection with Authorized Participant creation requests. Moreover, the Prime Execution Agent has represented to the Trust that it has implemented and will maintain and follow compliance programs that are designed to comply with applicable sanctions and anti-money laundering laws and that it performs both initial and ongoing due diligence on each of its customers as well as ongoing transaction monitoring that is designed to identify and report suspicious activity conducted through customer accounts opened at the Prime Execution Agent, including any opened by the Trust’s counterparties for purposes of facilitating bitcoin deposits to, and withdrawals from, the Trust’s Trading Balance, as required by law.

The Prime Execution Agent, the Bitcoin Custodian and the Bitcoin Trading Counterparties have adopted and implemented anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance programs, which provides additional protections to ensure that the Sponsor and the Trust do not transact with a sanctioned party. Notably, every Bitcoin Trading Counterparty must establish an account at the Prime Execution Agent through which the Bitcoin Trading Counterparty transfers bitcoin to the Trust during a purchase order or receives bitcoin from the Trust in connection with a redemption order. The Prime Execution Agent performs screening using blockchain analytics to identify, detect, and mitigate the risk of transacting with a sanctioned or other unlawful actor. Pursuant to the Prime Execution Agent’s blockchain analytics screening program, any bitcoin that is delivered to the Trust’s account will undergo screening designed to assess whether the origins of that bitcoin are illicit.

The Prime Execution Agent Agreement provides, among others, that if the Prime Execution Agent conducts blockchain analytics screening on a bitcoin transaction deposited by an Authorized Participant and such screening results in the bitcoin transaction being suspected or determined to be in violation of certain applicable sanctions laws, the Prime Execution Agent and its affiliates, including the Bitcoin Custodian, will (a) block or reject the deposit of such bitcoin into a customer account of the Trust’s counterparties, where required by applicable sanctions laws, and (b) agree to promptly inform the Trust if any fund movement between a customer account of the Trust’s counterparties at the Prime Execution Agent and the Trust’s account(s) involves such bitcoin, so long as permitted by applicable law.

However, there is no guarantee that such procedures will always prove to be effective or that the Prime Execution Agent and its affiliates will always perform their obligations. Such screening may also result in the bitcoin identified by such screening being blocked or frozen by the Prime Execution Agent and thus made unavailable to the Trust. Moreover, the Prime Execution Agent Agreement and Custodian Agreement require the Trust to attest that it has performed its own due diligence on the Authorized Participants it has contracted with to source bitcoin from and has confirmed that the Authorized Participants and Bitcoin Trading Counterparties, as applicable, have implemented policies, procedures and controls designed to comply with applicable anti-money laundering and applicable sanctions laws. Although the Trust arranges for such diligence to be performed, including by the Trust’s service providers, including the Sponsor or the Trustee or their affiliates, there is no guarantee such diligence will prove effective in identifying all possible sources of illicit financing risks. Bitcoin Trading Counterparties represent to the Trust that they conduct due diligence on their own counterparties from whom they source the bitcoin they deposit with the Trust in creation baskets, and that they have formed a reasonable belief that such bitcoin being transferred by the Bitcoin Trading Counterparty to the Trust were not derived from, or associated with, unlawful or criminal activity. However, there is the risk that Bitcoin Trading Counterparties may not conduct sufficient due diligence processes on the sources of their bitcoin or that their representations to the Trust may turn out to be inaccurate, which could cause the Trust to suffer a loss. If the Authorized Participants or Bitcoin Trading Counterparties have inadequate policies, procedures and controls for complying with applicable anti-money laundering and applicable sanctions laws or the Trust’s procedures or diligence prove to be ineffective, violations of such laws could result in regulatory liability for the Trust, the Sponsor, the Trustee or their affiliates under such laws, including governmental fines, penalties, and other punishments, as well as potential liability to or cessation of services by the Prime Execution Agent and its affiliates, including the Bitcoin Custodian, under the Prime Execution Agent Agreement and Custodian Agreement, or the Trust’s other service providers and counterparties. Any of the foregoing could result in losses to the Shareholders or negatively affect the Trust’s ability to operate.

Regulatory changes or interpretations could obligate the Trust, the Trustee or the Sponsor to register and comply with new regulations, resulting in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to the Trust.

Current and future federal or state legislation, CFTC and SEC rulemaking and other regulatory developments may impact the manner in which bitcoin is treated. In particular, bitcoin may be classified by the CFTC as a “commodity interest” under the CEA or may be classified by the SEC as a “security” under U.S. federal securities laws. The Sponsor, the Trustee and the Trust cannot be certain as to how future regulatory developments will impact the treatment of bitcoin under the law. In the face of such developments, the required registrations and compliance steps may result in extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to the Trust. If the Trustee decides to terminate the Trust in response to the changed regulatory circumstances, the Trust may be dissolved or liquidated at a time that is disadvantageous to Shareholders.

To the extent that bitcoin is deemed to fall within the definition of a security under U.S. federal securities laws, the Trust, the Trustee and the Sponsor may be subject to additional requirements under the Investment Company Act and the Sponsor or the Trustee may be required to register as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act. Such additional registration may result in extraordinary, recurring and/or non-recurring expenses of the Trust, thereby materially and adversely impacting the Shares. If the Sponsor or the Trustee determines not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, the Trustee will terminate the Trust. Any such termination could result in the liquidation of the Trust’s bitcoin at a time that is disadvantageous to Shareholders.

Rules like those previously proposed by the SEC, that would amend the definition of a “qualified custodian” and expand the current custody rule in 406(4)-2 to cover all digital assets, including bitcoin and related advisory activities, would likely impose additional regulatory requirements with respect to the custody and storage of digital assets, including bitcoin. The Sponsor is studying the impact that such amendments may have on the Trust and its arrangements with the Bitcoin Custodian and Prime Execution Agent. It is possible that such amendments, if adopted, could prevent the Bitcoin Custodian and Prime Execution Agent from serving as service providers to the Trust, or require potentially significant modifications to existing arrangements under the Custodian Agreement and Prime Execution Agent Agreement, which could cause the Trust to bear potentially significant increased costs. If the Sponsor is unable to make such modifications or appoint successor service providers to fill the roles that the Bitcoin Custodian and Prime Execution Agent currently play, the Trust’s operations (including in relation to creations and redemptions of Baskets and the holding of bitcoin) could be negatively affected, the Trust could dissolve (including at a time that is potentially disadvantageous to Shareholders), and the value of the Shares or an investment in the Trust could be affected.

Further, the proposed amendments could have a severe negative impact on the price of bitcoin and therefore the value of the Shares if enacted, by, among other things, making it more difficult for investors to gain access to bitcoin, or causing certain holders of bitcoin to sell their holdings.

The Trust may take certain positions with respect to the tax consequences of Incidental Rights and its receipt of IR Digital Asset. If the IRS were to disagree with, and successfully challenge any of these positions, the Trust might not qualify as a grantor trust. In addition, the Sponsor has committed to cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon any Incidental Rights and IR Digital Asset to which the Trust may become entitled in the future. However, there can be no assurance that these abandonments would be treated as effective for U.S. federal income tax purposes, or that the Sponsor will continue to cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon any Incidental Rights and IR Digital Asset if there are future regulatory developments that would make it feasible for the Trust to retain those assets. If the Trust were treated as owning any asset other than bitcoin (and/or incidental cash) as of any date on which it creates or redeems Shares, it may cease to qualify as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Because of the evolving nature of digital currencies, it is not possible to predict potential future developments that may arise with respect to digital currencies, including forks, airdrops and other similar occurrences. Assuming that the Trust is currently a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, certain future developments could render it impossible, or impracticable, for the Trust to continue to be treated as a grantor trust for such purposes.

Assuming that the Trust is properly treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, each beneficial owner of Shares will be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as the owner of an undivided interest in the bitcoin held in the Trust. Due to the new and evolving nature of digital assets and the absence of comprehensive guidance with respect to digital assets, many significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets (including digital currencies) are uncertain.

As discussed above, many significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets, such as bitcoin, are uncertain, and it is unclear what guidance on the treatment of digital currency for U.S. federal income tax purposes may be issued in the future. It is possible that any such guidance would have an adverse effect on the prices of digital assets, including on the price of bitcoin in digital asset platforms, and therefore may have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.

The taxing authorities of certain states, including New York, (i) have announced that they will follow the Notice with respect to the treatment of digital currencies for state income tax purposes and/or (ii) have issued guidance exempting the purchase and/or sale of digital currencies for fiat currency from state sales tax. Other states have not issued any guidance on these points, and could take different positions (e.g., imposing sales taxes on purchases and sales of digital assets for fiat currency), and states that have issued guidance on their tax treatment of digital currencies (or other digital assets) could update or change their tax treatment of digital currencies (or other digital assets). It is unclear what further guidance on the treatment of digital currencies, for state or local tax purposes may be issued in the future. A state or local government authority’s treatment of bitcoin may have negative consequences, including the imposition of a greater tax burden on investors in bitcoin or the imposition of a greater cost on the acquisition and disposition of bitcoin generally.

The treatment of digital currencies for tax purposes by non-U.S. jurisdictions may differ from the treatment of digital currencies for U.S. federal, state or local tax purposes. It is possible, for example, that a non-U.S. jurisdiction would impose sales tax or value-added tax on purchases and sales of digital currencies for fiat currency. If a foreign jurisdiction with a significant share of the market of bitcoin users imposes onerous tax burdens on digital currency users, or imposes sales or value-added tax on purchases and sales of digital currency for fiat currency, such actions could result in decreased demand for bitcoin in such jurisdiction.

Any future guidance on the treatment of digital assets for state, local or non-U.S. tax purposes could increase the expenses of the Trust and could have an adverse effect on the prices of digital assets, including on the price of bitcoin in digital asset platforms. As a result, any such future guidance could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.

In the normal course of business, it is possible that the Trust could incur a taxable gain in connection with the sale of bitcoin (such as sales of bitcoin to obtain fiat currency with which to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or Trust expenses, and including deemed sales of bitcoin as a result of the Trust using bitcoin to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or its expenses) that is otherwise not associated with a distribution to Shareholders. Accordingly, Shareholders may be subject to tax due to the grantor trust status of the Trust even though there is not a corresponding distribution from the Trust.

A hard“fork”* of the Bitcoin blockchain could result in Shareholders incurring a tax liability.*

If a hard fork occurs in the Bitcoin blockchain, the Trust could hold both the original bitcoin and the alternative new bitcoin. The IRS has held that a hard fork resulting in the creation of new units of crypto assets is a taxable event giving rise to ordinary income. Moreover, if such an event occurs, the Trust Agreement provides that the Sponsor shall have the discretion to determine whether the original or the alternative asset shall constitute bitcoin. The Trust shall treat whichever asset the Sponsor determines is not bitcoin as Incidental Rights or IR Digital Asset, which it has committed to irrevocably abandon.

The receipt of Incidental Rights or IR Digital Asset may cause Shareholders to incur a U.S. federal, state, and/or local, or non-U.S., tax liability. Any tax liability could adversely impact an investment in the Shares and may require Shareholders to prepare and file tax returns they would not otherwise be required to prepare and file.

Investment vehicles advised or managed by affiliates of the Sponsor hold a minority interest in Coinbase Global, the parent of Coinbase Inc., which serves as the Trust’s Prime Execution Agent and operates one of the digital asset platforms included in the Index price and is the parent of the Bitcoin Custodian.

Investment vehicles advised or managed by affiliates of the Sponsor own shares in many public companies listed in the United States, including Coinbase Global, the parent of Coinbase Inc. which operates the Coinbase platform and serves as the Trust’s Prime Execution Agent. The Trust values its digital assets by reference to the Index price. Coinbase is one of the digital asset platforms included in the Index. The Sponsor values its digital assets by reference to the Index price. Coinbase is one of the digital asset platforms included in the Index.

Coinbase Global is also the parent company of the Bitcoin Custodian, Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC. The Bitcoin Custodian serves as a fiduciary and custodian on the Trust’s behalf, and is responsible for safeguarding digital assets held by the Trust, and holding the private keys that provide access to the Trust’s digital wallets and vaults. The positions of investment vehicles managed by affiliates of the Sponsor in the parent company of the Bitcoin Custodian may present risks to Shareholders to the extent affiliates of the Sponsor cause the Sponsor to favor the Bitcoin Custodian’s interests over the interests of the Trust or its Shareholders with respect to, for example, fees charged, and the quality of service provided by the Bitcoin Custodian. Similarly, it is possible that investors could have concerns that the interests owned by investment vehicles managed by affiliates of the Sponsor in Coinbase could cause it to refrain from taking actions that are in the best interests of the Trust but that could harm the Bitcoin Custodian. This could make the Trust’s Shares less attractive to investors than the shares of similar vehicles that do not present these concerns, adversely affect investor sentiment about the Trust and negatively affect Share trading prices.

Although the Bitcoin Custodian is a fiduciary with respect to the Trust’s assets, it could resign or be removed by the Sponsor, which may trigger early dissolution of the Trust.

The Bitcoin Custodian has represented that it is a fiduciary under § 100 of the New York Banking Law. Further, the Bitcoin Custodian is a qualified custodian for purposes of Rule 206(4)-2(d)(6) under the Advisers Act and is licensed to custody the Trust’s bitcoin in trust on the Trust’s behalf. However, the Bitcoin Custodian may terminate the Custodian Agreement for cause at any time upon providing the applicable notice provided under the Custodian Agreement. If the Bitcoin Custodian resigns, is removed, or is prohibited by applicable law or regulation to act as custodian, and no successor custodian has been employed and/or operationalized, the Sponsor may dissolve the Trust in accordance with the terms of the Trust Agreement.

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 custodians 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 asset 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.

Many of the Trust’s Authorized Participants, now or in the future, act or may act in the same capacity for several competing exchange-traded bitcoin products. Each Authorized Participant has limited balance sheet capacity, which means that, particularly during times of heightened market trading activity or market volatility or turmoil, Authorized Participants may not be able or willing to submit creation or redemption orders with the Trust or may do so in limited capacities. The inability or unwillingness of Authorized Participants to do so could lead to the potential for the Shares to trade at premiums or discounts to the NAV, and such premiums or discounts could be substantial.

Shareholders and Authorized Participants lack the right under the Custodian Agreement to assert claims directly against the Bitcoin Custodian, which significantly limits their options for recourse.

Neither the Shareholders nor any Authorized Participant have a right under the Custodian Agreement to assert a claim against the Bitcoin Custodian. Claims under the Custodian Agreement may only be asserted by the Trustee on behalf of the Trust.

While the Sponsor has adopted and implemented the policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable law, including a Compliance Manual and Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which address conflicts of interest (together, the “Policies”) and will adopt standard operating practices requiring that certain applicable personnel pre-clear personal trading activity in which bitcoin is the referenced asset, there is no way to guarantee that every employee, officer, director, or similar person associated the Sponsor, Trustee, or the BlackRock affiliates will comply at all times with such Policies, duties and training and refrain from engaging in insider trading in violation of their duties to the Trust and Sponsor. This risk is present in traditional financial markets and is not unique to bitcoin. If such employees or others affiliated with the Trust, Sponsor, Trustee, or Affiliates respectively do engage in illegal conduct or conduct which fails to meet applicable regulatory standards, the Trust, Sponsor, Trustee or relevant Affiliate respectively could be the target of civil or criminal fines, penalties, punishments, or other regulatory or other sanctions or lawsuits or could be the target of an investigation, whether directly or indirectly, such as on a failure to diligently supervise theory. Any of these outcomes could cause the Trust and Shareholders to suffer harm.

The Sponsor, the Trustee and the BlackRock Affiliates may also participate in transactions related to bitcoin, either for their own account (subject to certain internal employee trading operating practices) or for the account of others, such as clients, and such transactions may occur prior to, during, or after the commencement of this offering. Such transactions may not serve to benefit the Shareholders of the Trust and may have a positive or negative effect on the value of the bitcoin held by the Trust and, consequently, on the market value of bitcoin.

Risk Factors Related to ERISA

In General.

Notwithstanding the commercially reasonable efforts of the Sponsor, it is possible that the underlying assets of the Trust will be deemed to include “plan assets” for the purposes of Part 4 of Subtitle B of Title I of ERISA or Section 4975 of the Code. A determination that the assets of the Trust were “plan assets” could result in, among other things, (i) the application of the prudence and other fiduciary standards of ERISA to investments made by the Trust and (ii) the possibility that certain transactions in which the Trust might otherwise seek to engage in the ordinary course of its business and operation could constitute non-exempt “prohibited transactions” under Section 406 of ERISA and/or Section 4975 of the Code, which could restrict the Trust from entering into an otherwise desirable investment or from entering into an otherwise favorable transaction. In addition, fiduciaries who decide to invest in the Trust could, under certain circumstances, be liable for “prohibited transactions” or other violations as a result of their investment in the Trust or as co-fiduciaries for actions taken by or on behalf of the Trust or the Sponsor. There may be other similar laws that also apply to an investment in the Trust.

Seed Capital Investor.

The Sponsor or one or more of its affiliates may be a party in interest or a disqualified person with respect to one or more Plans considering an investment in the Trust. Given the Sponsor’s or an affiliate’s expected initial ownership interest of 50% or more of the Trust, the Trust would be a party in interest to any Plans with respect to which the Sponsor or an affiliate is a party in interest or a disqualified person. Therefore, the purchase by any such Plans in the Trust would be prohibited under ERISA and/or Section 4975 of the Code absent an exemption. Fiduciaries of Plans should consider whether a purchase of interests constitutes a non-exempt prohibited transaction under ERISA and/or Section 4975 of the Code. Available exemptions from the prohibited transaction rules of ERISA and the Code include PTCE 84-14, PTCE 90-1, PTCE 91-38, PTCE 95-60, PTCE 96-23, and Section 408(b)(17) of ERISA (and the corresponding provisions of Section 4975(d)(20) of the Code).

The application of ERISA (including the corresponding provisions of the Code and other relevant laws) may be complex and dependent upon the particular facts and circumstances of the Trust and of each Plan, and it is the responsibility of the appropriate fiduciary of each investing Plan to ensure that any investment in the Trust by such Plan is consistent with all applicable requirements. Each Shareholder, whether or not subject to Part 4 of Subtitle B of Title I of ERISA or Section 4975 of the Code, should consult its own legal and other advisors regarding the considerations discussed above and all other relevant ERISA and other considerations before purchasing the Shares.